291 wrote:
it's the beauty of choice on the 'net.  but at the professional level of modeling, and that doesn't mean those making some coin here but those working the brick and mortar industry, there is a correct method for requesting the use of likeness.  and it isn't however one pleases.

the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

I have shot with agency models who have signed a full release without problems. Again - their choice.

Greg Kolack wrote:

He started this thread from a different profile.

yes, I thought it was quite obvious. I didn't try to hide it. Just depended on what platform I was replying on.

Greg Kolack wrote:

He started this thread from a different profile.

Oh excuse me.....3 more months.

Greg Kolack wrote:

I have shot with agency models who have signed a full release without problems. Again - their choice.

oh come on you keep coming up with these far fetched things you have done. You do realize we can see your port right?

291 wrote:
it's the beauty of choice on the 'net.  but at the professional level of modeling, and that doesn't mean those making some coin here but those working the brick and mortar industry, there is a correct method for requesting the use of likeness.  and it isn't however one pleases.

the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

Greg Kolack wrote:
I have shot with agency models who have signed a full release without problems. Again - their choice.

agency models sign releases daily.  if they sign blanket releases that don't provide specificity for a client then they are ill-advised.

291 wrote:
actually, jessie has been spot on in her position.  i'm thinking more models aren't responding because they simply don't care, meaning they are too stupid to understand their likeness is an asset.  and the truth is, a model release is not just for the photographer, it is equally a component for model compensation.

a photographer shooting tf* thinking images will be used commercially "years from now" as you stated is pure speculation.  that speculation comes with a cost, and it's much more than, "here's some nice pictures for you to use for the next six-months."  to think otherwise is really missing the point of a model release from both sides of the equity coin.

No, a model release does not benefit a model necessarily.  Its a release from liability.  Its the model legally releasing her ability to sue the photographer for invasion of privacy or commercial appropriation.

A release has the purpose of benefiting a photographer or publisher so the talent involved cant later sue.

If a model wants to have a record of what she was paid- she can just keep a journal or a receipt for tax purposes.  a model does not need to write down that she waives her rights unless she is doing so knowingly and hopefully if she is being compensated for it.

Now- if a model wants to define the scope of her consent, express or implied- then it makes a lot of sense to have a writing.

EX- lets say model is doing an implied nude shoot- she may want to have a document reflecting the photographer understanding he is not to publish any shots where her nipples or genetalia appear.  Now, that doesn't mean she has to also give away her rights to future compensation for commercial usages of the shot too.  She could simply have a simple writing saying something to the effect of ... "for trade for portfolio usage modeling shoot- any consent implicit with the participation in a trade portfolio shoot is limited to images not showing my nipples or genetalia.  Any such images or video that occur as an accident during our shoot were not intentional and were not consented to implicitly or expressly."

Jessie Shannon wrote:
For the record I agree that a release should almost always be used.  BUT they should be used correctly.  And saying someone can use my likeness HOWEVER they should please, is not correctly.

Well that's you. I'm better off, in the UK, with no release at all. And with no release at all, here, I can do all the things you seem to be complaining about.

On the other hand, let's say you only allow, in the release, the photographer to post an image of you to their MM port... and absolutely no other use. Chipped in stone! Some third party in Lower Slobovia comes along and infringes the image by putting it in a porn site or slapping it on an advert or even the packaging for vibrators. Who ya' gonna' sue? The photographer? Not bloody likely! That and a couple of bucks wouldn't get you a frapaccino at Starbucks.

Studio36

291 wrote:

291 wrote:
it's the beauty of choice on the 'net.  but at the professional level of modeling, and that doesn't mean those making some coin here but those working the brick and mortar industry, there is a correct method for requesting the use of likeness.  and it isn't however one pleases.

the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

agency models sign releases daily.  if they sign blanket releases that don't provide specificity for a client then they are ill-advised.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that agency fashion models are advised to sign full commercial releases when attending a portfolio building trade shoot?

Cherrystone wrote:

Fear is fear. No fail at all.

Image has no concern, with my name on it? Surely you jest....I'm just as concerned, if not more so than you.

Its not a fear because I would never sign that;). I mean your image, of you, your likeness.   Lets assume  someone took a picture of you and sold it to a herpes medicine company and advertised it, people recognize you think cherrystone has herpes....and you thought you were taking a portrait...and it was TF at that.....hmmmm

DanK Photography wrote:

oh come on you keep coming up with these far fetched things you have done. You do realize we can see your port right?

Please elaborate.

Jose Luis wrote:
Are you honestly trying to suggest that agency fashion models are advised to sign full commercial releases when attending a portfolio building trade shoot?

Jose, hes been saying the opposite.  Not to sign full releases, especially on trade:). How ya been by the way?

291 wrote:
the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

You and a few other folks love doing this apples and oranges BS. Drives me batty.

Where are we posting at right now? Where will 90%+ of the people who wander onto MM stay? Only using 90%+ is probably generous.

Tossing brick and mortar BS into a MM fora where for the vast majority it has little relevance is ridiculous.

291 wrote:

291 wrote:
it's the beauty of choice on the 'net.  but at the professional level of modeling, and that doesn't mean those making some coin here but those working the brick and mortar industry, there is a correct method for requesting the use of likeness.  and it isn't however one pleases.

the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

agency models sign releases daily.  if they sign blanket releases that don't provide specificity for a client then they are ill-advised.

They didn't shoot with me through their agency - it was personal shoots they set up themselves.

DanK Photography wrote:

that is a usage agreement not a model release.

Trust me the release I use covers ALL!!!

Greg Kolack wrote:
I have shot with agency models who have signed a full release without problems. Again - their choice.

DanK Photography wrote:
oh come on you keep coming up with these far fetched things you have done. You do realize we can see your port right?

Subtle personal attacks.....veiled critiques. I quoted a guy back on the first couple pages that laid it out for you pretty well.

You came on to ask a question, presumably to get answers, you got many answers some from folks who are very well qualified to answer them and you butt heads with every fooken answer you get that doesn't seem to fit how YOU think it ought be done.

I figure it's two things.
1. You just wanted an excuse to troll and argue.
2. In some twisted way you think your gonna curry some favor.

I don't think anyone told you how to do things, but your surely telling everybody and their brother how to do things.

I don't really give a flat fuck about how you handle your business, you ought do the same.

Cherrystone wrote:
Subtle personal attacks.....veiled critiques. I quoted a guy back on the first couple pages that laid it out for you pretty well.

You came on to ask a question, presumably to get answers, you got many answers some from folks who are very well qualified to answer them and you butt heads with every fooken answer you get that doesn't seem to fit how YOU think it ought be done.

I figure it's two things.
1. You just wanted an excuse to troll and argue.
2. In some twisted way you think your gonna curry some favor.

I don't think anyone told you how to do things, but your surely telling everybody and their brother how to do things.

I don't really give a flat fuck about how you handle your business, you ought do the same.

There was no guy who laid it out pretty well. As I mentioned he said nothing that was in reply or even close to what I wrote about. Please go ahead and quote what I wrote followed by something relevant to it that pawned it. You won't be able to do one. You are in a fantasy land.

sigh oh no you have nothing yet again so are going to pull out the white knight argument. I am shocked.

No one not even you came to tell me how to do things? Did you not read this thread or even just the responses you wrote?

I don't butt heads. I am sorry I pwned every miserable argument you have and maybe poped a bubble that you actually have any value to a nude model's career.

So why did you come into this thread and tell us? it was not asked or wanted in the OP. Seems to me you do give a fuck but are again living in a fantasyland that you don't.

Cherrystone wrote:

Subtle personal attacks.....veiled critiques. I quoted a guy back on the first couple pages that laid it out for you pretty well.

You came on to ask a question, presumably to get answers, you got many answers some from folks who are very well qualified to answer them and you butt heads with every fooken answer you get that doesn't seem to fit how YOU think it ought be done.

I figure it's two things.
1. You just wanted an excuse to troll and argue.
2. In some twisted way you think your gonna curry some favor.

I don't think anyone told you how to do things, but your surely telling everybody and their brother how to do things.

I don't really give a flat fuck about how you handle your business, you ought do the same.

There we have it......the chains are clankin,   that locks coming:)

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
I always get a release. If I forget or didn't have one with me I get it later. I don't shoot for free. I accept a release as payment for my work/time on TF shoots.

And I also give discounts if I get a signed release from a paying client sometimes. My goal is to build a library of work that I can use in my art so I always need a release or cash if the model does not want to sign a release. As some point in the future when I'm shooting only for art even if I'm hired I will still require a release as condition to shooting with me as a commissioned artist.

The reason for this is thinking ahead for books etc showing my early work.

I won't even shoot a girl I'm dating without a release. Business is business.

As far as the ending up on the porn site thing. My goal is to produce art so I don't see that happening unless maybe a piece of my art got featured in men's magazine or site but it would still be art not a photo sold to a porn site and would still be viewed as art.

And there is nothing wrong about doing it your way.  In your way, the model is hiring you and instead of paying you cash- she is paying you by signing a commercial release for you.  Nothing wrong with that.  Heck, a model could agree to even pay a photographer and grant him or her a full commercial release if she negotiated that and was ok with it.

I think the point is that sometimes models feel bullied into signing a full commercial release for a simple portfolio test shoot.  In my business I have a constant need to update my portfolio with beautiful samples of gorgeous girls to attract more paying customers so I have a need to consistently test new faces.  Also, I have a need to test new faces to see if they are someone I can recommend to a paying client or hire myself on a personally financed project for future sale.

In those cases- in a true portfolio trade scenario- in my opinion- the model has no need of signing a commercial release.  If there is a commercial need later- I can ask her than and if she wants payment then- we can negotiate that. If a client likes her look then we can do releases on shoot #2 where she would be getting paid and she is clearly aware that this is a commercial shoot- not a portfolio trade shoot.

There is nothing wrong with a photographer negotiating his terms of making a model sign her life away as a condition to shooting with them. Im just saying a model should know that going in and for most of the work I see don't in portfolio tests- there is absolutely no reason I would recommend a model to sign her life away for free.

CSDewitt Photo wrote:

Trust me the release I use covers ALL!!!

I am not an expert but have been told that combining a model release and usage agreement is not a good idea. You might want to look into that,

Greg Kolack wrote:

Please elaborate.

You claim to have shot many Agency models, playmates and pets tf all signing full releases yet I don't see any in your port.

291 wrote:

same question to you...

and are each of these documents defined in specificity?  does the model know exactly where the likeness will be used?  what about you knowing exactly where the usage will be used?

Yes, to your 1st 2 questions.... Plus more specific details... 

My release states for Commercial use....

DanK Photography wrote:

I am not an expert but have been told that combining a model release and usage agreement is not a good idea. You might want to look into that,

A Lawyer handled my Release...  No issues on my end....

DanK Photography wrote:

There was no guy who laid it out pretty well. As I mentioned he said nothing that was in reply or even close to what I wrote about. Please go ahead and quote what I wrote followed by something relevant to it that pawned it. You won't be able to do one. You are in a fantasy land.

sigh oh no you have nothing yet again so are going to pull out the white knight argument. I am shocked.

No one not even you came to tell me how to do things? Did you not read this thread or even just the responses you wrote?

I don't butt heads. I am sorry I pwned every miserable argument you have and maybe poped a bubble that you actually have any value to a nude model's career.

So why did you come into this thread and tell us? it was not asked or wanted in the OP. Seems to me you do give a fuck but are again living in a fantasyland that you don't.

You're right, I should know better.

Jose Luis wrote:

And there is nothing wrong about doing it your way.  In your way, the model is hiring you and instead of paying you cash- she is paying you by signing a commercial release for you.  Nothing wrong with that.  Heck, a model could agree to even pay a photographer and grant him or her a full commercial release if she negotiated that and was ok with it.

I think the point is that sometimes models feel bullied into signing a full commercial release for a simple portfolio test shoot.  In my business I have a constant need to update my portfolio with beautiful samples of gorgeous girls to attract more paying customers so I have a need to consistently test new faces.  Also, I have a need to test new faces to see if they are someone I can recommend to a paying client or hire myself on a personally financed project for future sale.

In those cases- in a true portfolio trade scenario- in my opinion- the model has no need of signing a commercial release.  If there is a commercial need later- I can ask her than and if she wants payment then- we can negotiate that. If a client likes her look then we can do releases on shoot #2 where she would be getting paid and she is clearly aware that this is a commercial shoot- not a portfolio trade shoot.

There is nothing wrong with a photographer negotiating his terms of making a model sign her life away as a condition to shooting with them. Im just saying a model should know that going in and for most of the work I see don't in portfolio tests- there is absolutely no reason I would recommend a model to sign her life away for free.

Careful there going to get all pissy and say tf is not free and ...yeah we know all the tf value arguments=D

Cherrystone wrote:



You're right, I should know better.

yes, after all you have been here 6 years. knock yourself out of the fantasyland you are in. good boy.

Merlinpix wrote:
Do what makes you happy.
I do what makes me feel safe.

+1 Nuff said

DanK Photography wrote:
yes, after all you have been here 6 years. knock yourself out of the fantasyland you are in. good boy.

Wait...do you have any relatives a few states to the west?

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Careful there going to get all pissy and say tf is not free and ...yeah we know all the tf value arguments=D

Right- but my counter is ... if the girls you are testing for your portfolio aren't sooo amazing that they need to pay you just for the pleasure of shooting with you- maybe be more selective in who you test with ... after all, as they say- tf is valuable.  Therefore, don't throw it around to everyone who asks.

Now if your willing to shoot an alternative compensation deal where you are shooting with models who don't have portfolio value for you but could have possible commercial value for you and you are willing to accept a full commercial release in lieu of payment- thats not quite a portfolio test shoot in my eyes- thats an alternative compensation paid shoot.

Cherrystone wrote:



Wait...do you have any relatives a few states to the west?

No.

291 wrote:
actually, jessie has been spot on in her position.  i'm thinking more models aren't responding because they simply don't care, meaning they are too stupid to understand their likeness is an asset.  and the truth is, a model release is not just for the photographer, it is equally a component for model compensation.

a photographer shooting tf* thinking images will be used commercially "years from now" as you stated is pure speculation.  that speculation comes with a cost, and it's much more than, "here's some nice pictures for you to use for the next six-months."  to think otherwise is really missing the point of a model release from both sides of the equity coin.

Jose Luis wrote:
No, a model release does not benefit a model necessarily.  Its a release from liability.  Its the model legally releasing her ability to sue the photographer for invasion of privacy or commercial appropriation.

the benefit to the model is knowing exactly how the likeness will be used.  a blanket release does not provide that.

Jose Luis wrote:
Are you honestly trying to suggest that agency fashion models are advised to sign full commercial releases when attending a portfolio building trade shoot?

no, i'm saying the exact opposite.  they sign releases daily for specific client assignments.

Cherrystone wrote:
Tossing brick and mortar BS into a MM fora where for the vast majority it has little relevance is ridiculous.

the relevance goes to those who dip their toe in here and have possibility for success beyond.  you're saying it's wrong to school people properly for going beyond the tf* mm world?

i'm off to a party.  have fun.

AtomicPenguin wrote:
Bottom line for me, I don't make money off of this, for it to be worth it, even if you think I suck at photography, I need to know that I can't be legitimately sued for posting pictures to my portfolio for personal pleasure or commercial gain through general publicity.

you can't.

studio36uk wrote:

Well that's you. I'm better off, in the UK, with no release at all. And with no release at all, here, I can do all the things you seem to be complaining about.

On the other hand, let's say you only allow, in the release, the photographer to post an image of you to their MM port... and absolutely no other use. Chipped in stone! Some third party in Lower Slobovia comes along and infringes the image by putting it in a porn site or slapping it on an advert or even the packaging for vibrators. Who ya' gonna' sue? The photographer? Not bloody likely! That and a couple of bucks wouldn't get you a frapaccino at Starbucks.

Studio36

Now why would I limit use to MM?  I would expect the photographer to get it pulled immediately.  Ive seen you mention Lower Slobovia before,   sounds like a lot of shadiness goes on around there=D. And Im not complaining just pointing out bs:)

studio36uk wrote:
Ah, just what we needed for a nice quiet Saturday afternoon. A release thread.

Studio36

lol

Thomas 2345 wrote:
A couple of years ago I shot a TFP with a young woman without a release and made some really good shots. She later sent me a FB friend request, which I denied (I keep a small FB list) and she threw a temper tantrum with several emails to me stating she did not sign a release and refused to let me use the photos on my website. Im not going to get into a pissing match over a few photos and decided not to use them.

Anyway, now I always "try" to get a signed release. It just spells out your usuage rights. And I did say "try" because many of the people I shoot are not models and the idea of signing a release makes them uncomfortable.

DanK Photography wrote:
you can't.

I'd prefer them to know, to a near certainty, that not only can they not prevail there but that any mainstream theory is going to go nowhere.  Honestly, if I had any indication that my use would be otherwise, we would be talking about something entirely different here and we would be bargaining for cash.  Ultimately it makes me feel better and provides a cushion and something concrete to fall back on for both of us as the release also contains my license to them.

Mercy wrote:
Since there was some talk about there not being another models voice in it....

The people I shoot trade with could (not that they would) sell our images for 1mil or to a herpes company (I think that's the way it was put) and I wouldn't care. Why? Because the people I trade with are that fucking good. It would be worth it to have my photo taken by them. I've signed all exclusive releases before. I don't have that problem and it's not because I don't care, that I'm bad at business, or I'm stupid. I just know what I want and what I'm willing to risk to get it. I'd like to mention though that I highly doubt the herpes thing would happen as the people I want to trade with don't shoot stuff that's anywhere near that horrible.





I wonder if they knew this was gonna be used for this:



Or them??



Maybe they thought there sh*t was too good for it to ever happen too? Lmfao=D

AtomicPenguin wrote:
Are those even commercial productions?  Those posters are made by the thousands with software by forum users...

Lol, its just a jk...in response to all the herpe talk