|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
TFCD w/copyright sharing
I have noticed a few models that claim they will do TFCD with the stipulation that they "co-own" the copyright with the photographer. My initial reaction was "No way in hell". I would like to know how other Photographers feel about this type of agreement. And if there is any good reason to enter into an agreement like this? Aug 08 05 10:49 am Link I give them 50 images from the shoot - they can print those 50 images over and over and over again. BUT I OWN THEM. Period... my contract that I use is located at http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/10640456/ Aug 08 05 10:52 am Link Posted by AlbrightCreativeImagery: Well I'm sure I speak from the minority here, but I personally would be okay with it. Now let me explain why... I'm a photographer mostly as a hobby right now. It has absolutely nothing to do with my career. Eventually I would like to get into the portrait business as a side business, but I'm not there yet. When the day comes that I'm trying to bring in some income from photography then my feelings will most likely change regarding this matter. Aug 08 05 11:01 am Link I'm against shared copyright, that's like putting two bosses in charge of the same project. Usually any testing/TFP work is non-commercial. You "share" a copyright, the model can market the pictures and not share any profits with you. Of course, you can do the same but models want to get paid, why should we work for free ? Models who demand "shared" copyright may just be looking for a "free" shoot to make money from it. Which is fine if they can find a photographer to do that, but they wanna get paid for their work, well so do we ! You may not value your own work, but resist shared copyrights; if you're gonna share it, just give the copyright away now and be done with it. My viewpoint may be wrong, and I'm sure someone will be glad to point that out to me LOL But I'd love to hear a model's perspective about why they need to share copyright. Aug 08 05 11:29 am Link As a copyright attorney, I would strongly advise that a photographer *not* assign their copyrights without being paid a realistic fee. If the picture is good enough that someone wants to own the copyright, what constitutes a realistic fee will probably not be small. At most, you give the model (or whoever) a perpetual non-exclusive license for self-promotion. That's what I do. I also don't give out layered files or full-res images. M Aug 08 05 01:39 pm Link As a working pro, I would never agree to a shared copyright/ownership, unless I was IN a partnership with the model in question to share in the joint profits. I had a model approach me from OMP wanting to shoot some specific shots with me, and after or 3rd or 4th email to each other, she mentions "co-owns copyrights to all images." Well, I immediately nix any shooting with this particular model. Her plan was to market the images herself (which I have no problem with promoting), but they were also going to be put onto her PAYSITE, to help her make a profit, of which I would get nothing. In closing, Shooters, don't fall for the BS, do not give up your copyrights to anyone. If the model insists, then pass, you can ALWAYS create new & exciting images with another model/talent! Michael/StratMan Aug 08 05 01:55 pm Link Thanks all, just wanted to know if I was nuts for feeling the way that I did about that situation. It would be interesting to hear from a model to have that perspective. What makes you think you deserve rights to any of the pictures? Actors don't get partial copyright ownership of a movie they worked on(I said worked, not wrote, directed, produced and stared in). They can negotiate for a percentage of the profits but not ownership. I would not have any problem allowing rights to use the images for their own promotion and website for a limited period of time. That seem generous to me. Aug 08 05 09:12 pm Link For me, just starting out, a 50/50 TFP shoot makes sense. Hell, I want my stuff all over the interwebs! If a model gets one of my photos published I'll be ecstatic as long as she gives me credit (a stipulation in my model releases). Of course, that's for here & now. 6 months from now could be a whole different story if I can make any money at this. If I was an in-demand photographer with a good resume, the TFP copyright would definitely be tighter Aug 08 05 09:49 pm Link Well, from the minority wings, I do it all the time. Don't care. I'd rather work with people I want to work with. Don't want the hastle of hunting down a model for a few bucks they get down the line. Better to spend my time and energy creating new imagery than get bogged down chasing copyright issues on trade work. However, there are projects (usually where I'm paying a model) that the copyright is guarded VERY jealously. Pick your battles. My motto, anyway. Aug 09 05 10:15 am Link I never give away my copyright. I have sold the copyright for commercial gigs. It was an added 200% of my creative fee for the rights on top of the creative fee for the project. Not allot in comparison to the big boys but well worth it for me. They would pick a handfull of images so they could bundle the new cover with the movie negative that they owned. It was for DVD cover projects. The images were so specific that I did not need them for anything else. Plus I shot 6 to 10 rolls of 120 film so I still had plenty of decent shots left to use later on down the line if need be. I had one problem with a model who thought I gave her shared copyright. I have NEVER given that to ANYONE. Shared usage rights from a TFP shoot for promotion is standard. But never copyright. From now on I have a contract detailing the usage rights. I never want to run into that problem again. Aug 09 05 03:27 pm Link I never share my copyright unless a buy out which most models can afford... I am happy to alter my contract with models stating that if their images are soled they can receive a percentage of the profit however I own the images. For them, they get a few un-watermarked images for printing. the rest are all watermarked low res. I usually let them pick 5 no more than 10.... Aug 09 05 04:43 pm Link Here's a model's point of view. The originator specifically said "TFCD" shoot in the post. For a true TFP, neither the photographer nor the model should be selling the images. By nature of the shoot, the images should be for portfolio use only so a 50/50 ownership split just shows that both enter into the shoot in good faith. Now some TFP contracts take it one step further and state that if any side gets an offer to sell the images, the parties should split the profits from the sale 50/50. That is the way I typically work TFPs and I have a special contract for it that is fair for both models and photographers. For a shoot where the photographer pays the model, then the model should not have copyright to the images unless some special agreement is worked out (ie. lower pay for more copyright etc). If the model pays the photographer for the shoot, then the model should own the copyright to the images (again unless some special agreement is worked out). I'd also like to comment on what Michael Tappan wrote below. If the right contract is used, the model won't have the right to market the pics and not share the profits with the photographer. The reverse is also true, and that is the reason why models who are working for TFP want partial copyright. We also do not like to work for free while someone else profits from it. Using the correct contract ensures that playing field is level for both parties in a TFP situation. Regards, -Kat Michael Tappan wrote: Aug 09 05 05:02 pm Link Reality Check. Are we talking about actual money, or the exclusive "I own the copyright" bragging rights. Sure. YOU own 'em. So what. Honestly now, how many of the images you take are you actually SELLING? If you are talking about money, how much? If there's a big payoff for the images, then yeah, protect your ownership at all costs. But HONESTLY, got buyers breakin' down your door wanting to pay big bucks for that last glamour set? E-mails offering mega $$$ for those bikini pics? Even adult sites and mags don't pay jack. What you do for portfolio purposes and what you actually get paid for aren't often the same thing. Or maybe I'm just doing something terribly wrong. . . Aug 09 05 07:04 pm Link You people who give up your copyrights should get beat with your own camera gear! You are too stupid to understand the impact you have, whether you are in this for the hobby or a career, so I am not going to explain. It is just sad you can't see how much you hurt every photographer on this board by selling out and on top of it for no reason? Aug 09 05 07:25 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: I agree with you. Aug 09 05 07:33 pm Link We are talking about TRADE, here. If both parties feel as though they are getting what they want out of the arrangement, then who is getting the shaft? If part of the TRADE is the model/photographer getting to do whatever the hell they want with the images, and you know that going into it, who is that hurting? Call it a barter, call it trade, it's still a transaction agreed on by model/photographer. Aug 09 05 07:53 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: I agree. Many who have come before us have lobbied and put up a fight to get artists' full copyright to their work. I can imagine the concept of 'shared copyright' slowly creeping into the model- photographer relationship through these very modeling sites. We've also brought the concept of model releases upon ourselves, so we're at a point where we cant even shoot anyone with the idea of reselling the image because it's become industry standard to need a model release. I doubt Henri Cartier-Bresson asked people to sign a model release before or after he snapped their photo. If if someone in his day complained about it, the judge would say 'what's a model release, no photographer uses that?' Be careful what you bring upon us with "shared copyright"...the day, when, by law, anyone we photograph is legally entitled to 50% of the ownership? Aug 09 05 11:17 pm Link According to the United States Copyright office the person who clicks the shutter of the image is the full copyright owner. They are the one capturing the image. "Once a work such as a photographic image has been created and fixed in a tangible form, it is protected under copyright law and several very important rights are assigned to the copyright holder including the ability to permit or restrict the following: -1.Copying or reproducing the work (such as print or electronic reproduction of a photograph); -2. Preparing derivative works (such as scanning to create a digital copy of a photograph); -3.Distributing or marketing copies of the work (such as posting digital copy on the Internet, selling posters or postcards, or copy prints of the image); -4.Publicly displaying the work (such as in museum or gallery)." It does not matter if 13 people came in and created the set, look, design make-up, props or whatever, the person clicking the shutter owns the image. The same way a painter who puts the paint to the canvas owns the rights to the image they create. Aug 09 05 11:44 pm Link I don't think that anyone disagrees that the the person who clicks the shutter is the default copyright owner. The point of this discussion though, is that it is for TFP, and the trade needs to be fair for both the photographer and the model. One party should not be able to make money while the other gets nothing from the deal. That is why these things are negotiated upfront. If both the model and the photographer can use the images for promotional use only (per the TFP contract), then it's a fair trade. When money comes into the picture, as I mentioned before, it's a completely different ball game. An unwillingness to try to make things fair between the model and the photographer for a TFP shoot shows that one of the parties is either greedy, uneducated on this, or has plans to be the only one to make money off both the model and the photographer's hard work. They will soon find that a lot of experienced people won't work with them for TFP under these conditions. Aug 10 05 12:31 pm Link I love the Logic of all the photographers here. Seems the Vast Majority think that all "Net" models are amateur and therefore should get naked for them and not get paid. I mean come on, If they wree professional, they would nto be here..... Then when they mention photographers, it is the other side of the coin. "We are professionals and we deserve to get paid. If nothing else, we deserve to be treated like professionals....." That is such a big pile of BS. If you are shooting TFP/ TFCD then scrap that BS line about professional. You are not. You do not deserve the same respect as a True Professional that gets paid for almost every shot he takes! So what makes you so special that you can not share your rights with the model? Obviously if you are doing TFP / TFCD you need the models as much as they need you, yet you sit here and say, "Well, I am taking the picture I deserve everything and here have a few images that you can also cut out of the magazine I intend on selling them to......" Images for self promotion is in no way equal to pay! Be real. Perpetuate that myth all you want, but sooner or later, Models will get their brains together and say "Hey wait, we are on the short end of the stick!" If you are paying the model, Then yeah, keep the copyright. If you are TFP/TFCD be FAIR to the model and share copyright. I share copyright. I am not hurt businesswise by it at all. If you are truly that good, neither will you be. You are just being greedy and selfish and abusing the same models we all admit we need (well except me, I can do computer created models!) What hypocrits! Aug 10 05 02:05 pm Link I have very much enjoyed this post and I have learned a few things too. I am also glad to have heard from a models point of view. Thank you for sharing. I have decided on a few personal rules: #1. I will NEVER relinquish or share copyright ownership with anyone. I believe that our photographic ancestors have worked too hard to secure those rights to just through them away. It is true in this country that when you let things happen or are just apathetic to causes around you, you are allowing these changes to become "the norm". Then someone gets a F'n lawyer to argue the norm should be a right and then everyone wants the right. Not because you said "yes, I would like to change the law" but because you just didn't say "No!". And I don't want someone to tell my children some day that their only inheritance (my images, yes it's sad but true) are not theirs anymore and they have no or reduced control over them. The images I take, create are very personal to me. I want to care for them, watch over them. each one contains a part of me. Now, I realize that the model feels the same way. And up until now I had not even given the models point of view any thought. Actually I really considered the model to be a tool. I mean no disrespect! but to me you are a beautiful object that has caught my eye while I am trying to record photons bouncing off your body and colliding with a light sensitive material. Or, "ooh, pretty". Which brings me to new rule two. #2. A TFP shoot needs to be a win / win situation. A fair and equal trade by both sides. I don't mind granting use rights at all but this trade will never negate rule #1. This feels right and balanced to me. I don't know about anyone else. And I will no longer subconsciously think of a model as an object to be hunted, framed and hung on the wall. Aug 10 05 02:54 pm Link AlbrightCreativeImagery wrote: Unfortunately, you are limiting your options by adhering to #1. By saying that you will never work with a model on usage rights, you limit your TFP chances with good models. If you want to pass the images down for future generations as inheritance for profit, pay your models!!! Also, #2 is not a win/win situation by your definition. Why would a model feel that the situation is fair if she can only use the images for promotion while you get to make a profit off of her free time and effort? Your see saw is a little tipped here. I don't believe that you've understood the models point of view here at all. Aug 10 05 03:09 pm Link I refuse to do TFP with photographers that do not share copyrights then have huge webpages with stock images of models for sale. I would be more understanding if the photographer would try and hide it. I have no desire for the copyrights, but also I have no desire to work for 12 hours so a photographer can sell my pictures and I get nothing. At least give my broke )(*(&* 50 bucks and Ill go on my merry way. Aug 10 05 03:10 pm Link kat_o_9 wrote: I probably won't do any TFP at this point. I think I would just rather pay the model and be more selective with model choices too. Aug 10 05 03:40 pm Link BQueenGirl wrote: I agree with you! You should have worked out a deal for profit percentage in a case like that, what ever you and the photographer could agree to. Or not taken the job. Aug 10 05 03:46 pm Link Am I missing something here? Some of you seem to be saying that if the photographer has copyright, that this gives them the right to sell the images. I was under the impression that copyright, and right to sell images, were two separate matters, really. So please correct me if I am wrong, but in order for me to sell images, even though I took them, do I not need a release from the model implicitly granting me the right to sell them? If I do not have that release in hand, do I not still own the copyright, but just not the right to sell the images? I realize the name alone - "copyright" seems to suggest the right to sell. Perhaps a more accurate term would be "artistic ownership", or some such. Jim Aug 10 05 04:08 pm Link TFP I rarely do anymore, and when then the model only gets 10-15 images of my personal choice.....with only permission to use the work There is no such thing as "joint copyright" any further work concerning a second person outside of the photographer who has taken the picture must have the work registered with the copyrights office, a photographer cannot legally give a model joint copyright to his own photographs, I don`t believe in it at all anyway, if a model wants copyrights to the work, then she should buy the work outright, it will be very expensive *starts at $1,500 a day* but then she can`t say she doesn`t know where the work is, and she can hang it upside down for all I care she`s bought it and it belongs to her........ Now to license work and take percentage of sales that`s all another story, but when it comes down to copyrights read more about it all here http://www.copyright.gov/ And as always this is just my opinion...... Aug 10 05 04:21 pm Link Avicdar wrote: Good point Jim. The problem is that most photographers tend to want a contract signed for TFP. A lot of the time, the contracts used are the contracts that say that the photographers have all the rights to use and sell the images and that the model has very little rights. Some add a usage clause for the model, some don't. I think as long as the TFP contract is fair for both the model and the photographer, copyright doesn't even come into play really. Aug 10 05 06:04 pm Link It seems that in describing this trade that you have forgotten about the photographers time and the $$$ spent on equipment. Theoretically a model's time(and image) is the trade. I agree about sharing the spoils, that seems fair to me. What if I am actually test shooting the model to see if the clients or myself want her in an ad. That's why it was called a test shoot before the age of TFP. Aug 10 05 07:01 pm Link Very thought provoking thread. Cool. Making me redefine my own rules on the subject, as it applies to trade-type photo projects. As many have pointed out, with solid reason, "giving" away copyright is something that shouldn't be done frivolously, and on the whole, does weaken a photographer's position. Models shouldn't believe they are entitled to copyright. Copyright, like anything, has value, and should be considered as such. Some valid points. There shouldn't be an "Us vs. Them" environment between photographers and models, with all the eloquence of a "tastes great vs less filling" commercial. In my opinion, everything is negotiable, including copyright, on a case by case basis. In some cases I will go so far as to write up an agreement that specifically give the model unrestricted rights to license and resell their images. If they can find a way to make some money at it, all the more power to them. So long as I'm credited, I don't care. They hustled the $$$. Let 'em have it. Conditions in which I will consider "Dual Copyright": 1. Collaborative Project: If the model is participating in the creative process, bringing specific props/clothing, helping with set construction/evolution, then I believe they have every bit as much right to copyright of the images they helped create. 2. Unique: In working with extremely unique people, it is often THEIR look, sense of style, and personlity that comes through the lens, not just how I envision it. I'm capturing a part of who they are, and that, in some cases, is reason to share full rights to the images that express that. 3. Out of my League: A high end, well established model I could never afford (but really want to work with) asks for shared copyright in exchange for traditional compensation. Miss September says she'd like to do a trade shoot for content on her website, who's gunna say no? Relinquishing the soap box now. . . Aug 11 05 03:38 am Link Avicdar wrote: Jim, Aug 11 05 07:14 am Link I love to see the bantar back and forth with this argument. It seems that every schlep with a "Canon - PowerShot 3.2MP Digital Camera" is suddenly a professional that will be taking shots for Playboy at a million a shot (which is obviously only the case when an amateur model becomes a celebrity and the pics suddenly make their way to the Nat'l Inquirer). If we want to thrown down dictionary.com definitions... photographer n : someone who takes photographs professionally [syn: lensman] ok then...off to "professional".... pro·fes·sion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fsh-nl) adj. 1.) Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people. 2.) Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior. 3.) Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career. 4.) Performed by persons receiving pay Now that last one really stuck out...hmmm...if I do TFP/TFCD, I'm not getting paid, and as such, (if we were to be "dictionary anal" it wouldn't be considered a shoot by a "professional") --> Question to interject to that, if you take pictures at your family Christmas and Cousin Larry wants to make a copy to hang on his wall, do you ensure that they sign a release and pay you for the copyright infringement? What if he then sold the picture to someone else...would you sue him? It seems to me (and as it's not my industry, I speak pretty much completely without vested interest either way) that while each "professional" (photog and model alike) is trying to make a name for themself, it benefits both (model AND photographer) to have their name/image/credit/link wherever possible. After all...if you take a pic and you post it on your site...great..woo-hoo...you have your 5-page, non-optimized website out there amongst the 2.5 million (Google search California Photographer) ..but if you take a shoot and the model (figuring female in this case) is posting it all over the place and giving proper credit (to photographer, MUA, etc.)...that it should drum up business your way...people see the shot, like the...well...ummm...composition or whatever the terms would be to deliniate one photographers style from another... When we design websites, we do that (as you can see from the bottom of most websites -- and yes, I've done many "pro-bono" jobs, and with them, have had many clients head my way with..."I saw you built...") oh, and to interject again...if you take a picture that is horrid and the twelve year old next door that's a wiz with photoshop does the cleanup for you...are you the artist or are they? just a question...after all...NONE of the girls in Maxim look like the pretty pictures we all see... k, back on topic... I understand the desire to make money for the trade. But if you can't stand on your own merit (and give a little back to those that are starting out), what good does it serve you to require that 18 yr old little Tiffany who is trying to make a name for herself pay you hundreds and thousands of dollars to take a shoot that may be mediocre at best and not land her one job. If you want to invest in the model, great. Pay by percentage of image sold, and percentage of your pics on her site...but above and beyond, I see you losing more business as more people pick up cameras and learn photoshop. Oh...and if they do land a job for a picture that was taken by you, why aren't you trying to get a piece of that pie? That would at least make more sense...and more money. I mean, if an agent says, "I saw that pic and said, 'I have to have her'...I would think that I would go for that as it was MY pic that made their decision to pay her 1.2 million (or whatever). I see something that makes "logical sense" (and were everybody wins) as such: Model wants pics for website, she contacts photog's. She does TFP/TFCD with a three photographers and puts...say...10 total pictures up (for ease of math). 6 from 1 photographer, 3 from another and 1 from another. Money's from the first month site come in (again, say for ease of math $10,000): Model has a 25% bucket set aside for photographers... so...2,500 is allocated to the photographers on the site photog 'a' gets $1,500 photog 'b' gets $ 750 photog 'c' gets $ 250 oh, and if the model sells the images autographed (40% each)...say 10 from each photographer for $10 each... photog 'a' gets an additional $40 photog 'b' gets an additional $40 photog 'c' gets an additional $40 everyone gets paid based on percentage of work done, and as such, you want more pictures of yours online. The competitive market works for the betterment of all parties involved. Because honestly...if they infringe and you sue...what happens (and I speak on this one from experience -- my two neighbors are attorneys)... you sue, you litigate forever, they settle, you make a few hundred, they get a slap on the wrist, and the attorney making around 300/hour banks the $8,000 so you get the $200 you wanted...what a grand deal that is. (Hence the reason that both my neighbors are able to afford their $750k+ homes here in Lake Mary, Florida at the respective ages of 35 and 32) I guess I just don't get it...but to quote..."can't we all just get along?"... Seems that we spend so much time and effort in forcing restriction instead of looking for a mutually beneficial relationship...but again, as it's not my industry, I dare not overstep my bounds. (And I'm certain I'll get bitch-slapped for stepping on toes now here...)  Take care and God Bless, Shawn Aug 11 05 08:42 am Link I remeber the days, not too long ago, when TFP ment Time For Print. Meaning the model gave their "time" for a "print" of the work shot. Like "testing" before it, the concept was free time from both parties for portfolio building or equipment testing work. No matter how you skin the cat each person will want more than what is due them. I personally like to follow the letter of the alw no matter what side I end up on. Aug 11 05 04:02 pm Link AlbrightCreativeImagery wrote: No way in hell is my idea too.. paycheck better be involved. Aug 11 05 08:03 pm Link AlbrightCreativeImagery wrote: A TFP shoot is a paid shoot. The model takes prints instead of dollars, for her/his modeling time She/he signs a model release, and in the "other" section of the release the word prints is put in, and sometimes other goods are listed. (One of my models traded her time for some of my hats.) Aug 12 05 09:45 pm Link Marvin Dockery wrote: I have said before that for technical and legal reasons I will never "share" copyright. If the model wants some part of the copyright they may as well have it all and buy me out. When they see the cost of the overhead rate (day rate) + production costs + plus editing and full correction costs + finished prints they usually choke up. These are the things they are already getting in exchange for their time. Few of them want to pay the rate and fewer still can even afford it in order to gain ownership of the copyright itself. That's the one and only offer on the table. That doesn't even take account of future stock value estimates if a photographer uses the material as stock. Aug 12 05 10:25 pm Link There is really no way to share a copyright, you can license or allow useage rights... but in any event, the creator of the image owns it unless it's sold outright under contract. If a model wants to own copyright on an image, she/he can take it themselves. I don't mean to sound obnoxious about it, but when you're a shooter, your only commodity is your archive of images. Aug 12 05 11:52 pm Link Bottom line my fellow models...pay for what you want. I have done for some TFP/CD and never got my images...just a lot of attitiude, excuses and never was a print of me in their ports. TOTAL time waste. Right now I working hard to save a small budget to get the sets I want for my use. That is the only way for me pay them or be paid by them. TFP/CD is for the birds.....unless the photographer is decent about it. I know what I want from a TFP session, a few quality prints and the chance for a section in his/her book and it seems many photographers are not giving it. Copyright? Why bother asking for a shared one? Models if you are seeking web content just save $$ and shop for a reasonable shooter that can give you what you seek. Skip the hassle if you want full use of a set of pic just pay for want you need and be done. Aug 13 05 12:28 am Link I would only give up copyrights to a picture if they were paid for. I have no problem giving a model usage rights to sell prints with a 50/50 split on profits, and the same applies to any prints I may sell. This would also apply to other uses of the images, but anything beyond self promotion and prints would have to be run by me as I am not willing to give up artistic control of my photos. I don't want to risk my stuff ending up on some trashy porn site or advertisement without my prior approval. If the model finds someone that wants to use the photos for something, she can have them contact me directly to work out a price (again, profits would be split 50/50 with the model). I think this is quite fair for both the model and myself, it is equal financially and I get to maintain control of where and how my photographs are sold/displayed. Aug 13 05 02:52 am Link Delete Aug 13 05 04:08 am Link |
