DanK Photography wrote:

Right, the ones who just sign are following the misinformation spread by people whos best interest it is for them to sign it. Glad you see it my way.

well I don't disagree

I think you guys are looking way too far into how agreements are made

Bella la Bell wrote:
Some do. Some don't.
Most professionals do....
Its smart and can cover both model and photographer's ass...es...

All it does for you, as a model, is remove rights. It never protects your interests or adds to your rights. There is no upside for a model to ever sign a release. If the photographer requires it, you should consider it something of value that you are giving up. Otherwise, the wisest course for a model is not to sign one unless necessary.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

well I don't disagree

I think you guys are looking way too far into how agreements are made

I am just nitpicking. I am good with the idea of whatever the team decides is fine.

DanK Photography wrote:
... So no, I do not give them the credit you seem to give them. I would appreciate your experience on how you came to that conclusion.

From models I've talked to - they get the message right away that if they won't sign a release, most photographer's won't work with them.  From the many threads which models read that make it clear most photographers won't work with models who won't sign releases.  From the many threads in which models have indicated they don't get the job if they don't sign the release.  Also from common sense - It's not hard to understand why releases are key to a model's value. 

DanK Photography wrote:
Well yes, a person who has a problem with signing a release is smarter and more aware of her value so I can see why you would like to skip them. I am not making fun of you it is usually easier when they just do as you say and don't question anything. It may not be the best for them but it does make it easier.

I don't skip them because of ease.  I skip them because as with most photographers, unreleased images have little if any value to me.  It makes much more sense to shoot a model who will sign a release or shoot a subject matter that does not require a release than it does to shoot images I can not use and do not value.

While a few models may be able to get the work they want without signing a release, that's by far the exception.  There's nothing smart about being passed over for modeling work due to refusing to sign a release in favor of the vast majority of models who will sign the release.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

DanK Photography wrote:
... So no, I do not give them the credit you seem to give them. I would appreciate your experience on how you came to that conclusion.

From models I've talked to - they get the message right away that if they won't sign a release, most photographer's won't work with them.  From the many threads which models read that make it clear most photographers won't work with models who won't sign releases.  From the many threads in which models have indicated they don't get the job if they don't sign the release.  Also from common sense - It's not hard to understand why releases are key to a model's value. 


I don't skip them because of ease.  I skip them because as with most photographers, unreleased images have little if any value to me.  It makes much more sense to shoot a model who will sign a release or shoot a subject matter that does not require a release than it does to shoot images I can not use and do not value.

While a few models may be able to get the work they want without signing a release, that's by far the exception.  There's nothing smart about being passed over for modeling work due to refusing to sign a release in favor of the vast majority of models who will sign the release.

If the models just decided to not sign releases most MM photographers will change there tune quick. Why do you need a model release? What do you do with your images that you couldn't do without one?

Of course it makes more sense for a photographer to have a release sign. They get benefit from it. Even if it is for the small chance that a model gets famous and you can sell that picture at that time.

unreleased photos has little value? So portfolio is not any value to you? Yet you think it is a value to them?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
While a few models may be able to get the work they want without signing a release, that's by far the exception.  There's nothing smart about being passed over for modeling work due to refusing to sign a release in favor of the vast majority of models who will sign the release.

This is in the Model Mayhem world, not the real world. Most represented models are taught to never sign anything at a shoot, period. If it's needed, it will be signed at a later date and provided through their booker. Try getting a release from an agency model at any agency in the country on a test shoot. They will only supply one in the event that there is a specific need that benefits the model/agency or you agree to pay for one and it will be specific to that purpose. Otherwise, they generally all run on the handshake deal mentality. They use the image without a copyright agreement and the photographer uses the image without a release. Neither has a "legal" right to use them, but both parties will turn their head unless it goes beyond normal self promotion.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
From models I've talked to - they get the message right away that if they won't sign a release, most photographer's won't work with them.  From the many threads which models read that make it clear most photographers won't work with models who won't sign releases.  From the many threads in which models have indicated they don't get the job if they don't sign the release.  Also from common sense - It's not hard to understand why releases are key to a model's value.

How is it that a release is key to a models value??

Most models will not have a problem signing a release, its the ones that ask for everything forever that do not make sense to sign.   As for a job, that is a different story, If I a hired for a client or other job, and paid, then by all means right up any release you want but still keep it specific to the shoot intent and if the value is deemed worth releasing what you are asking no problems:)

Jessie Shannon wrote:

How is it that a release is key to a models value??

Most models will not have a problem signing a release, its the ones that ask for everything forever that do not make sense to sign.   As for a job, that is a different story, If I a hired for a client or other job, and paid, then by all means right up any release you want but still keep it specific to the shoot intent and if the value is deemed worth releasing what you are asking no problems:)

And of course most photographers will not work with a model who doesnt sign a release.  BUT the release should be in context to the shoot.....A portfolio building trade shoot should have that specific use.  If you are telling someone thats what the shoot is for, but your actually intent is to sell the image to stock, then you are misleading, so the release should be worded that way.

M_M_MU wrote:

This is in the Model Mayhem world, not the real world. Most represented models are taught to never sign anything at a shoot, period. If it's needed, it will be signed at a later date and provided through their booker. Try getting a release from an agency model at any agency in the country on a test shoot. They will only supply one in the event that there is a specific need that benefits the model/agency or you agree to pay for one and it will be specific to that purpose. Otherwise, they generally all run on the handshake deal mentality. They use the image without a copyright agreement and the photographer uses the image without a release. Neither has a "legal" right to use them, but both parties will turn their head unless it goes beyond normal self promotion.

Exactly +1

Abbitt Photography wrote:
While a few models may be able to get the work they want without signing a release, that's by far the exception.  There's nothing smart about being passed over for modeling work due to refusing to sign a release in favor of the vast majority of models who will sign the release.

Did you ever stop to think maybe its you who is being passed over by requiring one for everything,  Turning up your nose to those that know when and where one is required.

DanK Photography wrote:
If the models just decided to not sign releases most MM photographers will change there tune quick.

Most photographer's won't change their tune and shoot without a release.  Most will instead turn to one of the vast majority of models who will sign a release.  More often than not, the model who refuses to sign a release will loose that opportunity.  There are numerous threads supporting this.

DanK Photography wrote:
Why do you need a model release?

I need a release because those I provide images to require a release and rightfully so - their use if unreleased potentially breaks a model's right of publicity or right of privacy.  I also like to have a release to ensure I'm covered in the event I myself should ever use an image in a way a model feels should require a release.  I feel it's a very easy step to reduce liability risk while allowing greater image use.

DanK Photography wrote:
unreleased photos has little value? So portfolio is not any value to you?

I no longer place much value in updating my MM portfolio. I place more value on producing images that have a financial return, or a personal connection.  When I update my MM portfolio, I'd rather do it with released images since they benefit my portfolio as much as non released images, but have additional benefits. 

If I want to shoot unreleased images, I'd rather shoot landscapes. I can do things with those unreleased, I can't do with model images, they have a more personal connection, require less communication to set up, require no editing for the model and carry less liability risk than unreleased images of a model.

DanK Photography wrote:
Yet you think it is a value to them?

Yes, I think that the newer models who agree to shoot trade with me feel they will value the images.  I think that's precisely why they agree to a trade shoot.  I feel that's not so true with paid shoots with more experienced models.  One reason they want pay is that they no longer value images for portfolio development.

Obviously, models and photographers are in different positions and may value images for different reasons and to different degrees.  Receiving images of oneself will be valued for different reasons than receiving images of someone else.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

How is it that a release is key to a models value??

It is precisely what differentiates a model from any other attractive person I'd shoot for pay.  The release is what allows me to use their likeness. I have no need to spend my time simply acquiring images of strangers that I am unable to use. 

If I am going to shoot unreleased images that have no sales value, I'd rather shoot people or places that personally mean something to me.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

DanK Photography wrote:
If the models just decided to not sign releases most MM photographers will change there tune quick.

Most photographer's won't change their tune and shoot without a release.  Most will instead turn to one of the vast majority of models who will sign a release.  More often than not, the model who refuses to sign a release will loose that opportunity.  There are numerous threads supporting this.

DanK Photography wrote:
Why do you need a model release?

I need a release because those I provide images to require a release and rightfully so - their use if unreleased potentially breaks a model's right of publicity or right of privacy.  I also like to have a release to ensure I'm covered in the event I myself should ever use an image in a way a model feels should require a release.  I feel it's a very easy step to reduce liability risk while allowing greater image use.

DanK Photography wrote:
unreleased photos has little value? So portfolio is not any value to you?

I no longer place much value in updating my MM portfolio. I place more value on producing images that have a financial return, or a personal connection.  When I update my MM portfolio, I'd rather do it with released images since they benefit my portfolio as much as non released images, but have additional benefits. 

If I want to shoot unreleased images, I'd rather shoot landscapes. I can do things with those unreleased, I can't do with model images, they have a more personal connection, require less communication to set up, require no editing for the model and carry less liability risk than unreleased images of a model.

DanK Photography wrote:
Yet you think it is a value to them?

Yes, I think that the newer models who agree to shoot trade with me feel they will value the images.  I think that's precisely why they agree to a trade shoot.  I feel that's not so true with paid shoots with more experienced models.  One reason they want pay is that they no longer value images for portfolio development.

Obviously, models and photographers are in different positions and may value images for different reasons and to different degrees.  Receiving images of oneself will be valued for different reasons than receiving images of someone else.

So are you hiring a model?  For a specific purpose?  For those images to be sold/published somewhere?  Than yes have a release and make it clear where it is going, no problem

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Did you ever stop to think maybe its you who is being passed over by requiring one for everything,  Turning up your nose to those that know when and where one is required.

I've never had to to deal with that, because, as I said earlier, I have never, ever had a model refuse to sign a release. Ever.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

DanK Photography wrote:
If the models just decided to not sign releases most MM photographers will change there tune quick.

Most photographer's won't change their tune and shoot without a release.  Most will instead turn to one of the vast majority of models who will sign a release.  More often than not, the model who refuses to sign a release will loose that opportunity.  There are numerous threads supporting this.

DanK Photography wrote:
Why do you need a model release?

I need a release because those I provide images to require a release and rightfully so - their use if unreleased potentially breaks a model's right of publicity or right of privacy.  I also like to have a release to ensure I'm covered in the event I myself should ever use an image in a way a model feels should require a release.  I feel it's a very easy step to reduce liability risk while allowing greater image use.

DanK Photography wrote:
unreleased photos has little value? So portfolio is not any value to you?

I no longer place much value in updating my MM portfolio. I place more value on producing images that have a financial return, or a personal connection.  When I update my MM portfolio, I'd rather do it with released images since they benefit my portfolio as much as non released images, but have additional benefits. 

If I want to shoot unreleased images, I'd rather shoot landscapes. I can do things with those unreleased, I can't do with model images, they have a more personal connection, require less communication to set up, require no editing for the model and carry less liability risk than unreleased images of a model.

Most MM threads are usually led by the vocal minority. And made up of photographers who want to protect there interest. It isn't a good barometer of anything.

if more models decided to not sign unlimited releases then there will be a quick shift in what is expected. I don't believe you will stop and go to only do landscapes because


a) you probably enjoy working with models
b) you do not make money on your model photography. So a full release is pretty much useless anyways. A specific for port status is not needed but can't hurt.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Did you ever stop to think maybe its you who is being passed over by requiring one for everything,  Turning up your nose to those that know when and where one is required.

I've only had one model ever who said she wouldn't sign a release and she had many other ridiculous requirements as well.   

Some people may value unreleased images.  It's rare I would.

If you only wish to shoot with photographers who don't require a release feel, free to make that choice, but that does not fit my goals.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

It is precisely what differentiates a model from any other attractive person I'd shoot for pay.  The release is what allows me to use their likeness. I have no need to spend my time simply acquiring images of strangers that I am unable to use. 

If I am going to shoot unreleased images that have no sales value, I'd rather shoot people or places that personally mean something to me.

Yes that adds to your value but how does that increase a models value?  Its okay I agree that a release should be signed in many cases, just not all, and they should not be blanket releases in any case.

DanK Photography wrote:
... I don't believe you will stop and go to only do landscapes because


a) you probably enjoy working with models

b) you do not make money on your model photography. So a full release is pretty much useless anyways. A specific for port status is not needed but can't hurt.

A:  yes, I enjoy shooting models, but not enough to shoot them with the restrictions non-released images bring with them.

B.  I don't make much money shooting models, but the money I do make is what keeps me interested in shooting models and it does require a release.(Stock, and promotional work for a local college and admittedly I make more money shooting non-model subject matter.)

Regarding landscapes:  For the first 20 years of my interest in photography, I never once shot a model.  There are many other subjects to shoot and models still represent the minority of what I shoot.  Sure, I'd probably do an unreleased trade shoot for portfolio use only with the right model, but overall, if I can't set up the released shoots I want, I'll shoot something else.

Hey, if you are content doing unreleased model shoots, that's fine.  I'm not trying to tell you what you should do, but for me, as with many photographers, it's the release that makes model shoots worth my while.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

I've only had one model ever who said she wouldn't sign a release and she had many other ridiculous requirements as well.   

Some people may value unreleased images.  It's rare I would.

If you only wish to shoot with photographers who don't require a release feel, free to make that choice, but that does not fit my goals.

I never said I would not sign one, I just don't sign blanket ones

Jessie Shannon wrote:

And of course most photographers will not work with a model who doesnt sign a release.  BUT the release should be in context to the shoot.....A portfolio building trade shoot should have that specific use.  If you are telling someone thats what the shoot is for, but your actually intent is to sell the image to stock, then you are misleading, so the release should be worded that way.

It's not always a photographers' original intent to sell an image.
But, later on it may be an option that would be nice to have. Maybe not even sell, but to use it in a book of his/her work.

Either way, without a release, if the model is getting images, it is a lopsided deal in favor of the model. The model is getting something of value (as long as she has a usage license) and the photographer has images he can look at at home. The value a photographer gets in a TFP/CD is the POSSIBLE value of a possible sale of an image or at most sale to a stock agency (in which cases, a release is required).

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Yes that adds to your value but how does that increase a models value?  Its okay I agree that a release should be signed in many cases, just not all, and they should not be blanket releases in any case.

Signing a release increases the marketability of images and lowers the risk to the photographer and other users of the images.  This increases the value of the model's service making her or him more valuable and more marketable. 

I agree that in some shoots the photographer or client may not need or value a release. Overall however, released images have more value, so overall models who are willing to sign releases will generally have more opportunities than those who do not.

For my intent, I want releases.  Again, if you wish to limit yourself to non-released shoots, go ahead.  I'm not arguing what you specifically should or should not do.

As Vito said above, often the exact potential use may not be known at the time of the shoot.  While it may be a small potential return, it's the potential for a return of some sort that motivates many photographers to shoot.  Stock is just one example in which the end use is not known, so a "full release" is required.

DanK Photography wrote:
ahh so you got nothing and doing the "I hope someone else is deluded enough to think I have a point" trick.

I guess you don't know who s36uk is by reputation.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

A:  yes, I enjoy shooting models, but not enough to shoot them with the restrictions non-released images bring with them.

B.  I don't make much money shooting models, but the money I do make is what keeps me interested in shooting models and it does require a release.(Stock, and promotional work for a local college and admittedly I make more money shooting non-model subject matter.)

Regarding landscapes:  For the first 20 years of my interest in photography, I never once shot a model.  There are many other subjects to shoot and models still represent the minority of what I shoot.  Sure, I'd probably do an unreleased trade shoot for portfolio use only with the right model, but overall, if I can't set up the released shoots I want, I'll shoot something else.

Hey, if you are content doing unreleased model shoots, that's fine.  I'm not trying to tell you what you should do, but for me, as with many photographers, it's the release that makes model shoots worth my while.

ahh stock. That makes sense, I could see your fitness stuff selling as stock. How much can you make doing that?

Still like I said if I was a model I would sign a release for your stock photography but not a blanket one. Wouldn't do it TF.

Even the MM forums you like to quote will tell you no TF for commercial usage.

Vito wrote:
I guess you don't know who s36uk is by reputation.

I don't care about reputation. Anyone who hides the city where he lives in fear of retribution and who's contribution to these threads is about fear of government intervention isn't worth listening to.

the two court cases he brought up has nothing to do with what he claimed it did.

DanK Photography wrote:
Still like I said if I was a model I would sign a release for your stock photography but not a blanket one. Wouldn't do it TF.

Even the MM forums you like to quote will tell you no TF for commercial usage.

Yup

Vito wrote:

It's not always a photographers' original intent to sell an image.
But, later on it may be an option that would be nice to have. Maybe not even sell, but to use it in a book of his/her work.

Either way, without a release, if the model is getting images, it is a lopsided deal in favor of the model. The model is getting something of value (as long as she has a usage license) and the photographer has images he can look at at home. The value a photographer gets in a TFP/CD is the POSSIBLE value of a possible sale of an image or at most sale to a stock agency (in which cases, a release is required).

No, the model and the photographer has the same usage. the model gets the photographs she can use in her port and the Photographer has photos he can use in his port. How is that lobsided?

DanK Photography wrote:
ahh stock. That makes sense, I could see your fitness stuff selling as stock. How much can you make doing that?

Still like I said if I was a model I would sign a release for your stock photography but not a blanket one. Wouldn't do it TF.

Even the MM forums you like to quote will tell you no TF for commercial usage.

Stock is one use.  A local business is another.   Not all my shoots are TF.  As a mentioned previously, I've paid models too.   

The amount, type or value of the consideration is not what drives issues of release.   The nature of the images and their use is what drives release.   Some models, newer models especially place a higher value one the images they receive via trade, so if signing a release is what provides them the opportunity to get images they value, that's a good move for them.

It's true some argue in the forms models shouldn't sign commercial releases for trade work, but others argue that's a very short sighted and limiting stance.

add:  regarding "blanket releases for stock"  - they have to be fairly blanket.  The end client and their potential use is unknown at the time of the shoot.

Vito wrote:
One, you obviously don't place any value on your skills or work, or the cost of your equipment (amortized, of course).

Two, it must be the clay.

I do place value in my time and work. I do not place it higher then the models and my use of her likeness.

I did not get the clay reference. can you explain?

Vito wrote:

It's not always a photographers' original intent to sell an image.
But, later on it may be an option that would be nice to have. Maybe not even sell, but to use it in a book of his/her work.

Either way, without a release, if the model is getting images, it is a lopsided deal in favor of the model. The model is getting something of value (as long as she has a usage license) and the photographer has images he can look at at home. The value a photographer gets in a TFP/CD is the POSSIBLE value of a possible sale of an image or at most sale to a stock agency (in which cases, a release is required).

I see your point, and as I have said the entire time its ok to sign a release when it makes sense to do so, but if the release is worded right its win win.  I have the suspicion that many here are using blanket releases for trade for portfolio work, but then turning around and selling to stock for example.  Whats wrong with wording that it may be transferred to a stock company or other specific uses and if the model agrees that trade is enough payment for that fine.....what is wrong with that, there is no need for blanket releases in these situations and models should not be signing them in all of these instances.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Stock is one use.  A local business is another.   Not all my shoots are TF.  As a mentioned previously, I've paid models too.   

The amount, type or value of the consideration is not what drives issues of release.   The nature of the images and their use is what drives release.   Some models, newer models especially place a higher value one the images they receive via trade, so if signing a release is what provides them the opportunity to get images they value, that's a good move for them.

It's true some argue in the forms models shouldn't sign commercial releases for trade work, but others argue that's a very short sighted and limiting stance.

Who argues it is short sighted and limiting stance? I doubt it would be the models.  You are right brand new people (models and photographers) should value the photos more. But I am sure you would say that a brand new tog should get a blanket model release from a model who has done a few shoots no?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
add:  regarding "blanket releases for stock"  - they have to be fairly blanket.  The end client and their potential use is unknown at the time of the shoot.

Thats fine if the model knows and agrees to its potential use as stock and agrees to its unknown final location and use as long as thats made clear, but I seriuosly doubt many true models would agree to that in a tf situation regardless of how valuable one might feel their photos are to the model.

Don Nealious wrote:
Sometimes you may think you will now have a use for an image from a shoot, so you don't a release. Your PS skill set changes and you can think of a way to use the image, a magazine cover contest, business cards, website, background supplier, etc. I've got 'em, but can't use 'em.

I made a poster and yearbook ad. I had releases from five of the six subject. Guess which one could not remember the "verbal" agreement?

I usually say in order for me to promote my business and for them to have web images for things like FB where they can go out to the world, I need it. Theyhave no problem grasping that at all.

yes if you have a commercial use for the images you should get a release. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. As for the future why should the model give you rights for a usage that you can't explain when you do the shoot? Makes no sense to me.

I know I wouldn't do it. I doubt most togs would either. make a thread asking would you sell an image with an unknown future unlimited use. I have no doubts what the answers would be.

DanK Photography wrote:

Who argues it is short sighted and limiting stance? I doubt it would be the models.  You are right brand new people (models and photographers) should value the photos more. But I am sure you would say that a brand new tog should get a blanket model release from a model who has done a few shoots no?

Many argue as I have.  Signing a release is often what opens up a shoot opportunity.  That is true regardless of whether the compensation comes in the form of pay or images. In fact, a new model may get more value out of images than a given level of pay.  Consideration a model receives in images may or may not be worth more than value the same release images have to the photographer.  Each party is free and should be free to figure out what they feel is and is not worth their while based on their own set of circumstances.

but now we're talking in circles, so I'm going to move onto other things...

Don Nealious wrote:
Sometimes you may think you will now have a use for an image from a shoot, so you don't a release. Your PS skill set changes and you can think of a way to use the image, a magazine cover contest, business cards, website, background supplier, etc. I've got 'em, but can't use 'em.

I made a poster and yearbook ad. I had releases from five of the six subject. Guess which one could not remember the "verbal" agreement?

I usually say in order for me to promote my business and for them to have web images for things like FB where they can go out to the world, I need it. Theyhave no problem grasping that at all.

Most of the time I have signed a release for a trade shoot, it has been released for all forms of the photographers self promotion. including websites, portfolio online and print, business cards, advertisements of their business, published books by the photographer of their work, magazine submissions etc.  If its for anything else, just say so before hand during the agreement stage of the shoot and word the release that way, its not hard, as people in this thread seem to make it sound.

DanK Photography wrote:

yes if you have a commercial use for the images you should get a release. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. As for the future why should the model give you rights for a usage that you can't explain when you do the shoot? Makes no sense to me.

I know I wouldn't do it. I doubt most togs would either. make a thread asking would you sell an image with an unknown future unlimited use. I have no doubts what the answers would be.

You should make that thread it would be interesting

DanK Photography wrote:
If the models just decided to not sign releases most MM photographers will change there tune quick. Why do you need a model release? What do you do with your images that you couldn't do without one?

Of course it makes more sense for a photographer to have a release sign. They get benefit from it. Even if it is for the small chance that a model gets famous and you can sell that picture at that time.

unreleased photos has little value? So portfolio is not any value to you? Yet you think it is a value to them?

When I shoot a private commission, my charges run between $300 and $500. When I shoot a trade, the lady posing gets an identical shoot, in every way.Thatt is something of value and it is a value I choose not to give away. When I give the ladies who pose unlimited use rights, that is also something of value which I choose to not give away. When the model signs an unlimited release, that is also something of value and compensates me for doing the shoot.

I use an unlimited release as I have no idea who will eventually purchase use rights or what the images will be used for. While I shoot them for art, those images have been sold for use in magazine ads, brochures, to hang on the walls of a hotel spa and so on, as well as to art collectors.

Yes, a model portfolio has value but at my age and current position, my own portfolio has little value, I just do not need to expand it. So if I do a model portfolio shoot, either the model pays me a deeply discounted rate, or we shoot a trade.