Jessica Vaugn  wrote:

Having recently been a teenage girl, I can assure you the vast majority of my peers would no, not understand the entire implications of contractual agreements within the realm of intellectual property or likeness compensation, limited usages, full commercial release, etc.

Considering how many teenaged girls drop out of school and get pregnant by loser punks without the means to take care of themselves, I fear you are right.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
11 pages in less than 24 hours? You act like this is a hot topic or something

12 pages now. (Yay I just finished reading all 12 pages)

Shirley Zhong wrote:

12 pages now. (Yay I just finished reading all 12 pages)

Fuck that. I love to argue more than the next guy, but even I won't put that much time in. And this is a topic I'm sure I would have been heavily involved in. I have many many points, that I'm sure have been said, argued, rebutted, and rerebutted. No point in beating a dead white horse.

Jessica Vaugn  wrote:

Having recently been a teenage girl, I can assure you the vast majority of my peers would no, not understand the entire implications of contractual agreements within the realm of intellectual property or likeness compensation, limited usages, full commercial release, etc.

Having two teenage daughters and two sons in their mid 20’s I can appreciate this.  However

I am not suggesting being intentionally devious is appropriate on a photographer looking to take advantage of a model. However, people need to understand the arrangements they are making – ie my point regarding personal accountability

Second, the blanket statement he has made to “generally pay models for shoots!” is too much of a generalization. there are many photographers that are willing to shoot TF with new models. Many of the models I don’t look to use for my portfolio. Their compensation are the photos we make. My compensation is the ‘potential’ marketability of the photo. With this comes all of the marketing, effort to turn that potential into something, which most of the time will not turn into anything or isn’t marketable. So the model doesn’t need to pay the photographer and the photographer has the ‘potential’ for something valuable should he/she pursue it.

Again, the generalization isn’t always sound advice for one reading and expecting to pop in as a new model and start expecting every photographer contacting her to pay her.

White Lace Studios wrote:

Having two teenage daughters and two sons in their mid 20’s I can appreciate this.  However

I am not suggesting being intentionally devious is appropriate on a photographer looking to take advantage of a model. However, people need to understand the arrangements they are making – ie my point regarding personal accountability

Second, the blanket statement he has made to “generally pay models for shoots!” is too much of a generalization. there are many photographers that are willing to shoot TF with new models. Many of the models I don’t look to use for my portfolio. Their compensation are the photos we make. My compensation is the ‘potential’ marketability of the photo. With this comes all of the marketing, effort to turn that potential into something, which most of the time will not turn into anything or isn’t marketable. So the model doesn’t need to pay the photographer and the photographer has the ‘potential’ for something valuable should he/she pursue it.

Again, the generalization isn’t always sound advice for one reading and expecting to pop in as a new model and start expecting every photographer contacting her to pay her.

Agreed

Why should I pay an inexperienced model, who came to me because she wants to model and knows nothing about how to get started, and wants to get a portfolio to submit?

Next thing you know the car dealership will pay me for fixing my car for me.

I hate blanket statements for this exact reason.

Jessica Vaugn  wrote:

No, there are impoverished individuals out there. Jesus said there always would be

They shouldn't be shooting (in theory) because just shooting costs money: getting a respectable place to shoot, styling, hair and makeup, a person to photograph, camera repairs, rentals, replacing unusable equipment... basically this hobby is not for poor people. (Although it might make you poor if you make bad choices).

My answer to the frustration? I just stay polite about the whole thing and simply work with other people. There are only so many hours in the day- I'd rather be working with those who have their lives enough together to hire models. Means they will have other things taken care of in their lives that will make them more the type of person I might want to invest my time into. I'd rather have steady work form those I enjoy who you are not financially a burden to then off and on squeeze some poor pizza delivery boy for his only extra hundred dollars or whatever. Trust me, he needs to be doing something else with that money.

Girls should stop milking a dry cow and they wouldn't have so many flakes and bad experiences.

This is a great example of why I have the rate minimum I am clear about. Those folks who can meet it also overall treat and can accommodate you better. Its not the most polite thing to say but I know ahead of time he's responsible if he has money to invest into a shoot. Makes me feel better about flying away from my security of home and going into the great unknown of a weekend shoot in some random city. Trust me if they can pay my rate they will also afford a hotel as opposed to those individuals who think having you sleep on a dirty couch where their dog fur and dander is so thick its revolting to sit on let alone sleep on. Or those people who like to never turn heat on when its snowing outside to save money...or those low income individuals who might hope YOU'LL buy them dinner on their shoot. LOL All those things have happened to me (but never by the higher income who can afford a respectable model day rate). I have changed my business to only work with this caliber individual for travel. If they come to my photo studio in LA for a few hours, obviously I don't care about such things but think about any person who ever nickel and dimed you on makeup time, went over on shoot time lengths and not compensating you for it, did a bate and switch, etc. Big red flag if they mention the stress of payment. At that point I'd rather move on. They will cancel the shoot as soon as they need that $300 for a car repair, etc.

PashaPhoto wrote:
gather 'round, children and hear the story of a brave white knight who roamed the land paying models $25 per model release...

If you're bored go somewhere else.

Rick Fink wrote:
Once a model signs a release form you own the rights to that image forever! The model doesn't.

uh... in america as soon as you click the shutter you own the copyright to the image for your life plus 80 years. 

once she signs a release you now have the usage rights to the model's likeness stipulated in the release, which may or may not be forever.... although i havent seen a release that doesnt grant those rights in perpetuity doesnt mean it cant be negotiated.

this is a hobby for me, I dont sell my images, I dont deal with releases. I still own the rights to the image without them.  Those rights are limited in what I can do with the images commercially without a release and that is it.

Rick Fink wrote:

If you're bored go somewhere else.

But, it's somewhat appropriate.

Rick Fink wrote:
Right!

I'm talking about the photogs who contact the models on MM do to personal shoots with them and then say they don't pay because they're not getting paid.

Does that seem odd to you?  WHY?!

Rick Fink wrote:
Photogs- Have any of you been asked to shoot a wedding for free but you can eat the food?

Have you ever been asked to shoot some advertising photos for a business for free for the experience?

Well, those are commercial transactions.  They are GENERALLY commercial transactions.  Of course, a photographer is free to do those types of shoots without monetary compensation, but that would be an odd decision to make, considering that those types of shoots generally have substantial costs associated with them that are NOT associated with a standard portfolio-building shoot with a model (e.g. printing proofs, albums, second shooters, third shooters . . .etc.)

Rick Fink wrote:
Once a model signs a release form you own the rights to that image forever! The model doesn't.

If the model signs the Release at the end of the shoot, I ALREADY "own the rights" to the image before she ever puts pen to paper.  I am the sole owner of the copyright. I have the virtually unrestricted ability to use the images as prints in a gallery show. I  have virtually unrestricted rights to use the images for news/editorial purposes . . .etc.

Rick Fink wrote:
I wonder if many of the photogs posting understand any of the risks models take? And the fact that they have to look good and deliver for the photog. It's a lot of work and it truly is a commitment and a labor of love.

Risk?  Other than the belabored nonsense about how dangerous and perverse photographers are, the ONLY risk I see, on the part of a model, is investing her time and the carfare to get to the shoot, with the POSSIBILITY that the shoot will not yield any usable images.

Rick Fink wrote:
None of the model are getting rich by any traditional standards and they can only model for a few years no matter how good they are.

So? Because they choose to do something that they KNOW they can not get rich from, you think it is incumbent upon you to tell all of US that we have to pay them?  The ladies who are the top of their game in the traveling internet modeling circuit hardly need your help to book paid work.

On the other hand, I personally choose not to tell anyone else how to run their lives or their photography/modeling businesses (unless asked) and I resent YOU starting a thread, painting me as some sort of cheapskate because I choose to photograph models whom I don't have to pay.

Rick Fink wrote:
Realistically there are lot's of sleazy photogs a model has to deal with in her career- does anyone want to change places with them?

I'd put your sleazy photographers up against some of my sleazy attorney colleagues any day!  You want to change places with me?

Wait, . . .don't answer that

F R A I M wrote:

uh... in america as soon as you click the shutter you own the copyright to the image for your life plus 80 years.

Did you notice the TAG from Star where she said she was blocking you? What did you do LOL
Most people delete things like that.

Keir M wrote:
Any smart model should have her own contract written up stating that she authorizes the use of photos WITH her approval. Also  she should state that if the photog makes money off the pic in the future she gets a %.. That makes it a fair trade and legit photogs I've worked with have had 0 problem with this.

Are you defining "smart model" as a model who does not wish to shoot with any experienced photographer?

If yes, then --by all means-- bring along a contract for the photographer to sign.

Stephen Markman wrote:

Rick Fink wrote:
Right!

I'm talking about the photogs who contact the models on MM do to personal shoots with them and then say they don't pay because they're not getting paid.

Does that seem odd to you?  WHY?!

Rick Fink wrote:
Photogs- Have any of you been asked to shoot a wedding for free but you can eat the food?

Have you ever been asked to shoot some advertising photos for a business for free for the experience?

Well, those are commercial transactions.  They are GENERALLY commercial transactions.  Of course, a photographer is free to do those types of shoots without monetary compensation, but that would be an odd decision to make, considering that those types of shoots generally have substantial costs associated with them that are NOT associated with a standard portfolio-building shoot with a model (e.g. printing proofs, albums, second shooters, third shooters . . .etc.)

Rick Fink wrote:
Once a model signs a release form you own the rights to that image forever! The model doesn't.

If the model signs the Release at the end of the shoot, I ALREADY "own the rights" to the image before she ever puts pen to paper.  I am the sole owner of the copyright. I have the virtually unrestricted ability to use the images as prints in a gallery show. I  have virtually unrestricted rights to use the images for news/editorial purposes . . .etc.

Rick Fink wrote:
I wonder if many of the photogs posting understand any of the risks models take? And the fact that they have to look good and deliver for the photog. It's a lot of work and it truly is a commitment and a labor of love.

Risk?  Other than the belabored nonsense about how dangerous and perverse photographers are, the ONLY risk I see, on the part of a model, is investing her time and the carfare to get to the shoot, with the POSSIBILITY that the shoot will not yield any usable images.

Rick Fink wrote:
None of the model are getting rich by any traditional standards and they can only model for a few years no matter how good they are.

So? Because they choose to do something that they KNOW they can not get rich from, you think it is incumbent upon you to tell all of US that we have to pay them?  The ladies who are the top of their game in the traveling internet modeling circuit hardly need your help to book paid work.

On the other hand, I personally choose not to tell anyone else how to run their lives or their photography/modeling businesses (unless asked) and I resent YOU starting a thread, painting me as some sort of cheapskate because I choose to photograph models whom I don't have to pay.



I'd put your sleazy photographers up against some of my sleazy attorney colleagues any day!  You want to change places with me?

Wait, . . .don't answer that

gene hale wrote:
I don't pay and I refuse to work with anyone who asks for money... even if they change their mind about it.

Your co-workers don't ask for money?

Oh wait, you meant models only. Because, somehow, they are a small privileged group who are not allowed to charge for their time and effort.

What do you do for a living? Hell, I don't care. Whatever it is, you should do it for free. Lead by example.

Jessica Vaugn  wrote:

Did you notice the TAG from Star where she said she was blocking you? What did you do LOL
Most people delete things like that.

i called her out on some bullshit she was spewing.... 

delete it??  I wear it like a badge of honor....

F R A I M wrote:

i called her out on some bullshit she was spewing.... 

delete it??  I wear it like a badge of honor....

haha. got it

PashaPhoto wrote:
gather 'round, children and hear the story of a brave white knight who roamed the land paying models $25 per model release...

DaG wrote:
Your co-workers don't ask for money?

Oh wait, you meant models only. Because, somehow, they are a small privileged group who are not allowed to charge for their time and effort.

What do you do for a living? Hell, I don't care. Whatever it is, you should do it for free. Lead by example.

Obviouslyhis naked artsy film pictures can make or break someone's career and they're FOOLISH to be so cold as to expect payment for something so valuable as his creations.

alteredstate wrote:
If the model is receiving x number of images, that's her pay for the shoot.

That might sound great to you, but as a model, I learned quickly that these "free" images are often copyrighted, water marked, and reduced-size images that are only good for online posting.  So, I can't even print one for my dad.  Plus, if I think the editing sucks or the guy makes my lips look blue, my problem, no recourse.

After working for 2-4 hours, schlepping clothes across the state, and sometimes driving 3 hours or more round trip so I can work another 3 for free, it isn't worth it unless:

A. The images are sensational
B. I either get one excellent print, like a gallery-quality size art print, or I get full        size images I can use as I please
C. I am allowed to have some artistic input and be involved in the creative process, (to include addressing my concerns over bad camera angles and crappy lighting)
D. I love to work with the person and we have a great time.
E. All or most of these conditions are present.

Yes, the photog had expensive camera equipment, but there is some time and expense involved in maintaining a fit body and healthy skin, too, not to mention wardrobe. 

TFP is rarely worth the time and effort once a model has some experience, but it can be fun and rewarding occasionally.

Rick Fink wrote:
I'm talking about the photogs who contact the models on MM do to personal shoots with them and then say they don't pay because they're not getting paid.

That would be me. I do that all the time. I'm not bragging about it, nor am I embarrassed about it.

I don't do this for a living, nor do I make money at it. But I don't pay models.

So no more generalizations.

Tell me personally what you think of me and the way I work.

I give you permission to say anything.

Tell me honestly, in straightforward terms, what you think is wrong with with, how I work, and what is wrong with the way I deal with models.

And while you're at it, make sure you explain why you think dozens of very good models - who make money at it - have worked with over the years, including 2 models from Europe who I just shot TF a couple of weeks ago who work all the time and are currently traveling the country coast to coast.

Rick Fink wrote:
You take things way too personally.

My original post began "I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!"

Yeah, not so much.

I don't really take anything personally.  I am opinionated.  I have very certain opinions - particularly about photographers who go into the Model Colloquy forum to post about how all models should be paid.

On the other hand, I ripped into someone else, last week, for going into Model Colloquy to post a thread telling models what they're all doing wrong with their lives/profiles/portfolios.

I'm a big fan of the "FUCK YOU" philosophy.  Let me explain how that works:

-Someone tells me that I need to shoot a Canon camera rather than a Nikon, and my response is "Fuck you."

-Someone tells me that I shoot too many nudes and my response is "Fuck You."

-Someone tells me that I should pay my models and my response is "Fuck You."

It's not personal.  I don't take anything YOU write personally.  I just really think that I should be allowed to live my life, halfway across the country from you, without having you (or anyone else) trying to tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Maybe it's a New York thing but I find "Fuck You" such a useful response.

The first rule I learned in public speaking class in college was:
"It's always so much more enjoyable for the listener when the speaker has . . .


. . . a point."

When people post pointless things, I find them annoying.  I enjoy responding to annoying things because it gives me hope that someone, in the future, might be deterred from posting something as equally annoying.

No matter how eloquently I phrase my response, many people (particularly, the New Yorkers, I think) can translate my response as "Fuck You."

So, to be clear: I'm not taking it personally. I  have no beef with YOU, personally.  I'm not attacking YOU.  I'm taking issue with the message you're attempting to convey in this thread.

And if my seemingly antagonistic responses have even remotely dissuaded you from considering posting another similar thread, at some point in the future, I think I (and others who have taken similar positions) have done this community a service.

Greg Kolack wrote:

That would be me. I do that all the time.

So no more generalizations.

Tell me personally what you think of me and the way I work.

I give you permission to say anything.

Tell me honestly, in straightforward terms, what you think is wrong with with, how I work, and what is wrong with the way I deal with models.

And while you're at it, make sure you explain why you think dozens of very good models - who make money at it - have worked with over the years, including 2 models from Europe who I just shot TF a couple of weeks ago who work all the time and are currently traveling the country coast to coast.

Greg Kolack wrote:
Right!

Wow!!!! LMAO

PashaPhoto wrote:
gather 'round, children and hear the story of a brave white knight who roamed the land paying models $25 per model release...

F R A I M wrote:
its threads like this that made me post this thread a while back...

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 583&page=1

so much animosity on a social networking site.... its rather silly

I don't disagree. However, if you read my recent post to the OP, you'll see that there is, generally, harmony when people allow others to do as they please - - in ANY community.

If I walk into my butcher's shop and tell him how to slice meat, he's gonna get annoyed with me.  He may not HATE me.  He may not throw me out of the store.  But, he's going to take my unsolicited advice as a suggestion that he doesn't know what he is doing in his chosen career.  No one likes unsolicited advice.

That's why we have the General Feedback forum, where people can ASK for help when they need/want it.

Stephen Markman wrote:
Before posting future threads, this is recommended reading:

I have been called a troll, a model manager trying to drum up business and now a White Knight.

I'll take White Knight.

Keir M wrote:
Any smart model should have her own contract written up stating that she authorizes the use of photos WITH her approval. Also  she should state that if the photog makes money off the pic in the future she gets a %.. That makes it a fair trade and legit photogs I've worked with have had 0 problem with this.

Any smart model would know that is a deal killer with most photographers. The release is you giving your approval and a percentage of future sales...well let's just call that a stupid, unworkable idea and leave it at that.

Rick Fink wrote:
I make generalizations because generalizations are generally true. I deal with specifics in specific cases.

I think your opinion sucks but I honestly like your work!

You're a talented photog and you have your own vision which I respect.

If I studied your work I could learn something from it.

Really – you generally find generalizations generally true.
I have to agree with Stephen on the Fuck You philosophy.

How about this – you worry about your own business – let others, including the models, worry about there’s.
You’re dismissed.

Rick Fink wrote:
You take things way too personally.

My original post began "I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!"

And many of us think you are not only wrong, but wrong in a stupid and white-knightish way.

I think models should generally pay photographers for shoots. What about that?

Rick Fink wrote:
You take things way too personally.

My original post began "I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!"

And many of us think you are not only wrong, but wrong in a stupid and white-knightish way.

I think models should generally pay photographers for shoots. What about that?

Lumigraphics wrote:

Any smart model would know that is a deal killer with most photographers. The release is you giving your approval and a percentage of future sales...well let's just call that a stupid, unworkable idea and leave it at that.

Yes. completely unworkable - now I have to track the model the rest of her life just 'incase' the image turns out to be marketable later. Marketing which takes a lot of effort. Usually expended only by the photographer.

Keir M wrote:
Any smart model should have her own contract written up stating that she authorizes the use of photos WITH her approval. Also  she should state that if the photog makes money off the pic in the future she gets a %.. That makes it a fair trade and legit photogs I've worked with have had 0 problem with this.

Whoh! Let's back up to this one, right here!

Models. Please do not try to bring a "contract" to a shoot with me. No one will win in this scenario.

I'm not sure why I even mention it, in twenty years, no model I've ever worked with has ever tried this, and I don't think it will ever happen to me.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I don't disagree. However, if you read my recent post to the OP, you'll see that there is, generally, harmony when people allow others to do as they please - - in ANY community.

If I walk into my butcher's shop and tell him how to slice meat, he's gonna get annoyed with me.  He may not HATE me.  He may not throw me out of the store.  But, he's going to take my unsolicited advice as a suggestion that he doesn't know what he is doing in his chosen career.  No one likes unsolicited advice.

That's why we have the General Feedback forum, where people can ASK for help when they need/want it.

oh I dont disagree with your "fuck you philosphy" at all

that thread was directed at people assuming that their way is the only way, and lack the intellect to see that for others that their way will be the completely wrong way....

Lumigraphics wrote:

And many of us think you are not only wrong, but wrong in a stupid and white-knightish way.

I think models should generally pay photographers for shoots. What about that?

Are many models paying you?