Zopilote wrote:

TF and tests are two different things. If I do a TF with a model, she gets images she can use to market herself, I get images I can sell. A trade of services.

Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

ddtphoto wrote:

in case what? you're model dies while giving a blowjob to brad pit so that you can sell the photo to people magazine?

i mean, really... what are you planning on doing with the photos in your port that isn't inherently covered via creative license and self promotion?

Speaking of releases and models releasing brad pitt, some years ago I shot a typical 'internet model' for my friend's website - photos that made her look kind of slutty. A few years ago I got a call out of the blue from some gossip mag in LA, saying they saw a picture I did of her (since I put my name on the low res digital photos I gave her and I guess they saw the images after searching for her). It turned out the girl was linked with brad pitt while he was dating someone else and it was said they were having a romance, and the gossip mags were all over it, desperate for info about the girl. Not that I really needed it, but I couldn't find the goddamn model release I had her sign and I wondered if she even signed one (I was pretty sure she did). It goes to show you never know who is going to get famous and how a release will help you. (I wound up calling the girl and she didn't really want me to release the pictures, so I didn't, but I could have since it was an editorial use).

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

Depends on the model.
I can think of one that the answer would be yes... and I would sign a work for hire agreement

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

Nope

ddtphoto wrote:

in case what? you're model dies while giving a blowjob to brad pit so that you can sell the photo to people magazine?

i mean, really... what are you planning on doing with the photos in your port that isn't inherently covered via creative license and self promotion?

Speaking of releases and models releasing brad pitt, some years ago I shot a typical 'internet model' for my friend's website - photos that made her look kind of slutty. A few years ago I got a call out of the blue from some gossip mag in LA, saying they saw a picture I did of her (since I put my name on the low res digital photos I gave her and I guess they saw the images after searching for her). It turned out the girl was linked with brad pitt while he was dating someone else and it was said they were having a romance, and the gossip mags were all over it, desperate for info about the girl. Not that I really needed it, but I couldn't find the goddamn model release I had her sign and I wondered if she even signed one (I was pretty sure she did). It goes to show you never know who is going to get famous and how a release will help you. (I wound up calling the girl and she didn't really want me to release the pictures, so I didn't, but I could have since it was an editorial use).

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

Depends on the model.
I can think of one that the answer would be yes... and I would sign a work for hire agreement

And your answer goes to show the vast difference between a test and TF. Traditionally, test images are never used commercially. A TF can be structured exactly like a test or it can include a stipulation that image can only be shown during full moons. TF is what ever people make of it.

figaroGraphics Studio wrote:
Also keep in mind that a release works both ways...

A release is a one way document it takes rights from the model  and gives them to the photographer (in this case)
A license is a one way document it takes rights from the photographer and gives them to the model (in this case)
Yes the two documents can be put into one document but the resulting document is no longer a release.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
And your answer goes to show the vast difference between a test and TF. Traditionally, test images are never used commercially. A TF can be structured exactly like a test or it can include a stipulation that image can only be shown during full moons. TF is what ever people make of it.

Exactly... I agree 100%

Edited to add: A "test" involves a third party, the agency, the rules are set years ago, both the model and the shooter accept those rules... or ignore them at their own peril.
On a TF the model and I can set whatever term we wish so why should we not both get the best deal we can for our efforts.

ddtphoto wrote:
didn't think so.

i think you could have held your ground unless you were receiving income directly via sales of said work.

i'm going to assume here that you must have used said images in some commercial form for it to have even gone this far.

Nope.  My printed portfolio and some single-edition prints in 2 local galleries.  The release specifically precluded use in the internet or most forms of publication.

Their claim was that simply by having exhibited nude photos of her in any form, including my portfolio, I'd damaged her reputation.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

I have on a one-for-one trade.  We shoot one hour material for mu use, one hour material for her use.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

No, we are not as a "test" with an internet model does not come with the same promise of more agency models that a test would.

oh, i see.

so then you are trying to tell me that whether or not you pay your talent and what usages you are legally entitled to are all based upon your own perceptions of that talents "promise".

lol

yeah, the judge is gunna say, "well, did you think she was hot?"

and you say, "no your honor, i can honestly tell you that said talent did not provoke an erection."

"no erection!? case dismissed!"

PYPI FASHION wrote:
And your answer goes to show the vast difference between a test and TF. Traditionally, test images are never used commercially. A TF can be structured exactly like a test or it can include a stipulation that image can only be shown during full moons. TF is what ever people make of it.

Which's exactly what I've been saying. 

ddtphoto wrote:

if your intent is to sell the work, then you should pay the model at least $1 and have her sign a release.  i mean, why should she work for free when you've got cash intent?

that is not a "test"

Ruff, ruff.  I like the way you think.  I learned something from a good friend
recently and on MM.  How odd.  Anyway a Test shoot with a model signed
with a agency doesn't require a release.  Agency models won't sign one anyway
and its generally understood that Test shoots are used both parties for
self promotional use.

Not so with a model who isn't a agency model and may not be aware of what
will be done with her images.   Silly as it sounds she could say that she
had no ideal you would use her images on-line on sites like MM.  While most
lawyers would laugh at her suing you and suits cost cash it could be a pain.
I say, save yourself the aggravation and have some sort of release. 
Even a model who understands your using her images could come at you
with some crap about how and where her images were used.

A release at least offers some written proof of what you both agreed too.
In this day of lawsuits better safe then sorry.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Ruff, ruff.  I like the way you think.  I learned something from a good friend
recently and on MM.  How odd.  Anyway a Test shoot with a model signed
with a agency doesn't require a release.  Agency models won't sign one anyway
and its generally understood that Test shoots are used both parties for
self promotional use.

Not so with a model who isn't a agency model and may not be aware of what
will be done with her images.   Silly as it sounds she could say that she
had no ideal you would use her images on-line on sites like MM.  While most
lawyers would laugh at her suing you and suits cost cash it could be a pain.
I say, save yourself the aggravation and have some sort of release. 
Even a model who understands your using her images could come at you
with some crap about how and where her images were used.

A release at least offers some written proof of what you both agreed too.
In this day of lawsuits better safe then sorry.

Right.  Which's why I laugh when people try to force standards based on agency style tests on to TFP internet modeling situations.

Apples & elephants.

ddtphoto wrote:

oh, i see.

so then you are trying to tell me that whether or not you pay your talent and what usages you are legally entitled to are all based upon your own perceptions of that talents "promise".

lol

yeah, the judge is gunna say, "well, did you think she was hot?"

and you say, "no your honor, i can honestly tell you that said talent did not provoke an erection."

"no erection!? case dismissed!"

Your arguments are both asnine and uninformed

ddtphoto wrote:

oh, i see.

so then you are trying to tell me that whether or not you pay your talent and what usages you are legally entitled to are all based upon your own perceptions of that talents "promise".

lol

That is exactly what I am telling you.
If you want to shoot for fun that is fine with me ... knock yourself out... If what the model has to offer is not worth my time, we don't shoot.

SLE Photography wrote:

Right.  Which's why I laugh when people try to force standards based on agency style tests on to TFP internet modeling situations.

Apples & elephants.

I'm not sure if use on networking sites like MM qualify as commercial use
or not.  If you self identify as a hobbyist I guess your safe but if you
don't would it be reasonable to think that you're a pro.  If a pro and using
images of models and not having some sort of release could be problematic.

Lets say a model does a shoot and doesn't sign a release.  While shooting
part of her breast is exposed or her crotch.  You post your art on-line and
she goes waitaminute you've got some of my naughty bits out and I
didn't want that shown.  You don't have proof just her oral yes its cool
to show my lady bits. 

As a general rule I now think its best to get some sort of written agreement.
Especially for those shooting implied or complete nudes but even some
glam or fashion stuff.  Its not about selling it but its about maybe saving
yourself some grief.  A while back a model and I fought like cats and dogs
over how many images she was to be given.  A release with a exact number
would have saved me some grief.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm not sure if use on networking sites like MM qualify as commercial use
or not.  If you self identify as a hobbyist I guess your safe but if you
don't would it be reasonable to think that you're a pro.  If a pro and using
images of models and not having some sort of release could be problematic.

Lets say a model does a shoot and doesn't sign a release.  While shooting
part of her breast is exposed or her crotch.  You post your art on-line and
she goes waitaminute you've got some of my naughty bits out and I
didn't want that shown.  You don't have proof just her oral yes its cool
to show my lady bits. 

As a general rule I now think its best to get some sort of written agreement.
Especially for those shooting implied or complete nudes but even some
glam or fashion stuff.  Its not about selling it but its about maybe saving
yourself some grief.  A while back a model and I fought like cats and dogs
over how many images she was to be given.  A release with a exact number
would have saved me some grief.

Yep.  There's a lot of uncertainty, laws are always changing, and you never know what people are going to to.  A limited release doesn't hurt anyone & is good to have just in case there's a problem.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
And your answer goes to show the vast difference between a test and TF. Traditionally, test images are never used commercially. A TF can be structured exactly like a test or it can include a stipulation that image can only be shown during full moons. TF is what ever people make of it.

what if i call it a "sample"?

SW Hanna - So Cal wrote:
I use a TF* agreement that was written by Connected Entertainment Organization. Works great, clearly outlines what everyone's roles are and adds value to the work being created.

Is that the website that copied Model Mayhem almost to the letter?

ddtphoto wrote:

if your intent is to sell the work, then you should pay the model at least $1 and have her sign a release.  i mean, why should she work for free when you've got cash intent?

that is not a "test"

If she's working TF with a good photographer, the images she gets are worth a heck of a lot more than $1.

As to a release, a release is arguably needed even for self-advertising and portfolio use, as here on MM. This may vary with state and country, of course.

As far as a "power trip" I do not know what the OP is trying to say.

LeDeux Art wrote:
i am not comfortable shooting without one, when doing trade work. after all i see it as permission to take the picture in the first place

i guess i just assume in my naiveté that when someone shows up where and when i told them to that they assumed i was going to take their picture as i said i would.

i just want to hear from one person who went to court because of an image that they had not used commercially, and was saved by a model release.

just because you get someone to sign a silly piece of paper doesn't mean that it is going to hold up in court.

my argument here is that if you are using an image for self-promotion then your rights as a photographer are inherent.

if later on that image should turn into a revenue stream then, release or not, you best believe you will settle out of court.

SLE Photography wrote:

Nope.  My printed portfolio and some single-edition prints in 2 local galleries.  The release specifically precluded use in the internet or most forms of publication.

Their claim was that simply by having exhibited nude photos of her in any form, including my portfolio, I'd damaged her reputation.

lol

so your own release specifically precluded your usage?

i mean, for christ sakes, talk about the dog chasing his tail.

ddtphoto wrote:
i guess i just assume in my naiveté that when someone shows up where and when i told them to that they assumed i was going to take their picture as i said i would.

i just want to hear from one person who went to court because of an image that they had not used commercially, and was saved by a model release.

I was saved from GOING to court by one, and was only out $2000 in legal fees for it.

ddtphoto wrote:
lol

so your own release specifically precluded your usage?

i mean, for christ sakes, talk about the dog chasing his tail.

I thought your rationale for not granting using a release (other than you feeling it's not necessary) is that a "test" is only supposed to be for publicity purposes.
Now you're criticizing me for using a release that specifies that?

ddtphoto wrote:

i guess i just assume in my naiveté that when someone shows up where and when i told them to that they assumed i was going to take their picture as i said i would.

i just want to hear from one person who went to court because of an image that they had not used commercially, and was saved by a model release.

A few months back shot with a model that lived in NY I and my studio are in PA,
No release signed, placed images on-line a few days later recieved a letter from her attorney Demanding the images be removed under NY State Privicy Laws.. Yes she was in my studio in PA but because the images could be seen from her computer in NY with out a release I could not use them on-line. Yes I had a Judge friend of mine review and guess what ? Had to remove them.. So I have over 200 images that are of no use to me... Try it and see what happens.. NY, CA and many other states have these new laws...
So No release no Shoot!!!!

Been there done that Once and learned...

James Shuster wrote:

A few months back shot with a model that lived in NY I and my studio are in PA,
No release signed, placed images on-line a few days later recieved a letter from her attorney Demanding the images be removed under NY State Privicy Laws.. Yes she was in my studio in PA but because the images could be seen from her computer in NY with out a release I could not use them on-line. Yes I had a Judge friend of mine review and guess what ? Had to remove them.. So I have over 200 images that are of no use to me... Try it and see what happens.. NY, CA and many other states have these new laws...
So No release no Shoot!!!!

Been there done that Once and learned...

I'm willing to bet it was not an agency model.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
I'm willing to bet it was not an agency model.

and you would be correct, it was a MM model that is no longer modeling...

ddtphoto wrote:

i guess i just assume in my naiveté that when someone shows up where and when i told them to that they assumed i was going to take their picture as i said i would.

i just want to hear from one person who went to court because of an image that they had not used commercially, and was saved by a model release.

just because you get someone to sign a silly piece of paper doesn't mean that it is going to hold up in court.

Almeida v. Amazon

SLE Photography wrote:
I'd like to know why there's always one guy in these threads who talks about being a pro shooter & all his agency tests who likes to rant about how we're all idiots for requiring releases, or exploiting the models by getting them, without acknowledging the differing realities we operate in or that we can use a release that covers us without exploiting the model.

Why is it such a big deal that they so badly need to condemn?

Hi, James I understand his point but if he is shooting models with agencies
its not a problem because its generally understood but someone who isn't
perhaps aware of how things work could and might claim they didn't know
and you have a problem.  Maybe not a legal one but a personal one where
it could quickly become he said she said and hurts you.  That being in smaller
areas with models. 

A written release that spells out usage, amount of images given and other
things can save a whole lot of back peddling.  Lets say a model claims
you promised her Raw files instead of Jpeg.  Maybe she says after some
nudes were done that she had no plans to pose nude and you tricked her
into posing.   Silly as that may sound having a model sign something
confirms that she has taken the time (hopefully) to read and understands
what she is doing.  This vs. just posing and later blaming some goof for
her nudes.


People tend to not be so willing to come at you in a negative way when they
sign a release.  Its not so much about lawsuits as it is about being
clear about exactly what's being done.  If you plan to sell your work and
most here don't then pay your models.  TFP/Test shoots aren't about
profit.