Michael Sloane wrote:
I like to think that the nudes I do are fine art in the truest sense of the word. $100 an hour would need to be for the most experienced model who is going to bring something to the shoot.
Most models who do nudes are willing to pose naked for the camera but are not great models and need lots of direction. While I cannot always pay models who do nudes, I do offer a percentage of print sales. Generally between $25 - $50 is the range that I've paid.

Most fine art models (ie figure not playboy) tend to have a better idea of what good photography is and are generall artiscally inclined themeselves and if they like your work are usually willing to work out a deal that puts money in their pocket but not the expense of your budget.

mike

this is exactly what i've been looking for.

Model Sarah wrote:

Thank you. I charge 125/hr but I also negotiate with exceptional photographers. I do my job very well.

I think what is being implied here is an inexperienced model wanting that price. I very much agree with most of the responses on here in that case.

There are professionals out there people that diserve to be paid that.

yes, that is the main point of the post and what irritates me so bad about noobs wanting "experienced" model fees.

even if you are an experienced playboy nude model and have no experience for posing for artistic nudes you should NOT get your playboy nude rate or artistic nude rate (most freelance models i've seen lump anything nude together) because you have no experience posing in that field.

Paul Ward wrote:
even if you are an experienced playboy nude model and have no experience for posing for artistic nudes you should NOT get your playboy nude rate or artistic nude rate (most freelance models i've seen lump anything nude together) because you have no experience posing in that field.

But Paul do most models even know the difference between a playboy nude and an artistic nude?  I will even bet a lot of these GWC's that are here do not know the difference..

Seems that this type of post has been on some of the other forums in the past.  The question is what is art nude, artistic nude, palybody nude, glamour. Seems that everybody had a term for everything thing else.  Just an observation over the years.  bs

Paul Ward wrote:

yes, that is the main point of the post and what irritates me so bad about noobs wanting "experienced" model fees.

even if you are an experienced playboy nude model and have no experience for posing for artistic nudes you should NOT get your playboy nude rate or artistic nude rate (most freelance models i've seen lump anything nude together) because you have no experience posing in that field.

I can imagine with you being a photographer that has to get annoying.

Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
As much as I am enjoying to low cost of shooting digital,

Huh?  Low cost of shooting digital???  Perhaps I/m doing something wrong.  I have over $9K invested in cameras, $4K in a production computer, and both have a short life expectency.  I feel digital is much more expensive but more convenient. 

As far as paying models, I pay them for client shoots and pay the going rate depending on the style of shots needed.  I don't care if they are internet models or agency models.  If the client likes them that's all that counts.   I test with them first though.

Monsante Bey wrote:
Ok....

What Sarah meant was that both model and photographer are the key, depending on the subject.

I have shot models where if it wasn't for my knowledge, the shoot would have been stiff and lifeless.

I have shot models that have brought their influence, ideas and experience in to gel with mines.

I have shot models whom I haven't had to say a WORD of instruction to because they knew how to work the camera. Sarah is one of those models. So you might want to excuse her "totem pole" statement. It wasn't out of malice to photographers, it was just based on her skill level.

Trust me, she meant NO harm.

THANK YOU!! I blame lack of sleep from my newborn son... 

Model Sarah wrote:

By the way I first viewed your work via Melanie("renee"). I must say the images in the desert were stunning. That girl has so much energy and she absolutely loves what she does. She has the most amazing diverse portfolio.  I am glad I am good friends with her.

Having said that, I always wanted to see more of your work. It is very compelling.

Why thank you.  I am pleased that you like what I do.  I try. I get some good stuff sometimes and at times I do tend to suck.  But you do not see those shots I am afraid. hahah

Yes Renee is wild and crazy.  She has done some outstanding work for me in the past. 

Well I do have a lot of work on both of my sites.  I hope you have enjoyed what you have seen. bs

Model Sarah wrote:
No I was not speaking of art photography. Art photography is in a totally different category then, say, fashion. There are so much more than images in the fashion industry. Thats really all photographers contribute is exactly what I was saying. Models contribute to a lot more than that.

Could you translate that into english, please? It looks like you're saying that the only thing the photographer supplies is the image--the end result--while making that sound like a trivial part.

I'm curious as to what you actually meant, as there's a lot of conflict in that short paragraph that's not cleared up by the rest of the post--if anything, it's more confusing.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Could you translate that into english, please? It looks like you're saying that the only thing the photographer supplies is the image--the end result--while making that sound like a trivial part.

I'm curious as to what you actually meant, as there's a lot of conflict in that short paragraph that's not cleared up by the rest of the post--if anything, it's more confusing.

Arent we done with this yet? I think we proved the point that everyone gets irritated when inexperienced models want a high price. Leave it at that..

bobby sargent wrote:

But Paul do most models even know the difference between a playboy nude and an artistic nude?  I will even bet a lot of these GWC's that are here do not know the difference..

Seems that this type of post has been on some of the other forums in the past.  The question is what is art nude, artistic nude, palybody nude, glamour. Seems that everybody had a term for everything thing else.  Just an observation over the years.  bs

art/art nude goes hand in hand.  playboy (or palybody as you put it hehe) and glamour goes hand in hand.

art/art nude for the most part (and this is only my own opinion) is not made to sexually arouse the viewer.  The whole allure of art nude photos is the human body as a canvas for abstract play of light and shadow on human a human body or body part.

playboy and glamour nudes are made to sexually arouse the viewer for personal or group pleasure.

this is why i shake my head when i see playboy/glamour models expecting to get their playboy nude rate for artistic nudes when they have NO experience in the former form of modeling and have no artistic images anywhere on their official modeling pages.

that's like having an 8 dollar an hour clerk get a managerial job at a manager's top salary when he/she has never held a management position in their entire life.  there is just something wrong with that picture.

Model Sarah wrote:

I can imagine with you being a photographer that has to get annoying.

yes sarah, it definitely is.  and it's also the main reason i shoot so infrequently.

Model Sarah wrote:

Arent we done with this yet? I think we proved the point that everyone gets irritated when inexperienced models want a high price. Leave it at that..

I'd be happy to drop the issue of pay rates and experience, but that's not what I was asking about. Could you clarify what you meant to say, or add the word(s) that got dropped out?

Kevin Connery wrote:

Boyd Hambleton wrote:
As for you, in the span of a day I've seen you tell at least three photographers that their work sucks. You're tactless and arrogant without the credentials to back it up. I'm just wondering why it's taken so long for someone to call you on this.

They have, just not here yet. Paul uses up forums' patience fairly quickly, then moves to the next forum after getting banned, asked to leave, or "harassed" by other members tired of being insulted. (He's had an online history of this kind of behavior for longer than he's had a "studio".)


How about we hold a poll, and ask which--if any--of the people involved we'd like to see stay or leave? I really doubt you'd like the results.

I really wonder, have many people reported this guy to MM higher ups?  I don't know why he's even allowed to post in the forums, or even retain his membership on MM at this point.  True, he's not complete lout, but he's getting close.  It's the same story over and over again, so when is MM going to do something about it.

Great summary btw, you nailed it dead center.

Scorp

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
I have nothing against your point of view Sarah, it's healthy. Do models that get paid get copies of the pictures too?

When I get paid, I am giving up all rights to copyright or photos. Those, if I wished for them, I would expect to pay for. However, I do get many photographers who like to give me web images after shoots, because they would like the exposure of being in my portfolio, if I choose to publish their pictures.
Since I work with artists only, paid work is sparse, and I usually do get something for my portfolio when I am doing a paid job. Gallery artists often pay, as they will be making money from the images.

Udo R Photography wrote:
Decided not to get into this stupidity

COWARD ! ! ! ! !   

Lapis wrote:

When I get paid, I am giving up all rights to copyright or photos. Those, if I wished for them, I would expect to pay for. However, I do get many photographers who like to give me web images after shoots, because they would like the exposure of being in my portfolio, if I choose to publish their pictures.

You can never give up the copyright to images you pose for, you don't own them. The photographer owns the copyright.

Jay Farrell wrote:
I would only pay that kind of money for a well experienced model for a commercial or artistic nude project, to advertise my services....

I paid Melissa Troutt OMP#25930 that amount per hour, and it worth every damn penny. She was THAT good! Normally I do not pay models.

Melissa is an excellent, smart, very creative model. Very patient, willing to go that extra mile to get a shot.

C R Photography wrote:
You get what you pay for.

Hell, I dont even get $10 an hour... lol... I guess I suck. hehe

Vito wrote:

You can never give up the copyright to images you pose for, you don't own them. The photographer owns the copyright.

This is not always true. If a model hires a photographer, under a work for hire agreement, to photograph her, and the agreement states that she will own all rights to the images, then the copyright is hers.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
This is not always true. If a model hires a photographer, under a work for hire agreement, to photograph her, and the agreement states that she will own all rights to the images, then the copyright is hers.

Not true and won't work, because if the photogrpaher is not factually an "employee" of the model then copyright law says that the work is then one that is "specially ordered" or "commissioned". Ref: [US] Copyright Office Circular 9; Works Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act; Section 101 of the Act.

In that case two conditions must be satisfied:

1) The work MUST be one of a kind specifically listed in the copyright statute - there are nine very specific kinds of work listed:

a contribution to a collective work,
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
a translation,
a supplementary work,
a compilation,
an instructional text,
a test,
answer material for a test,
an atlas

2) The second condition is that there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

BOTH CONDITIONS MUST EXIST FOR A WORK FOR HIRE TO EXIST Photography as the principle purpose of the work is not a listed class of work. A written agreemnt alone won't do it to create a "work for hire" copyright ownership.

In the US the photographer will own the copyright.

The notes above apply to work done in the US. As I work in the UK I will also point out that UK copyright law abandoned the whole concept of "work for hire" some years ago. Work for hire no longer exists here. Now, it is either work done by an employee (employer owns the copyright) or work not done by an employee (photographer owns the copyright). There are only a few particular circumstances in the UK where a model would ever have even a prayer of claiming that they owned any part of the copyright... usually only by means of a written contract of copyright assignment (or a share in it) or some form of joint authorship claim.

Studio36

Andy Meng wrote:

COWARD ! ! ! ! !   

LOL... nope... I saved someone life by not entering... saw one of the most moronic posts earlier... wrote a serious piece of info and opinion that that person wouldn't like at all...

But I deleted it again, because it's not worth it for me to get more involved... I am too busy..., running late and well... it's just better to hold back...

Udo R Photography wrote:

LOL... nope... I saved someone life by not entering... saw one of the most moronic posts earlier... wrote a serious piece of info and opinion that that person wouldn't like at all...

But I deleted it again, because it's not worth it for me to get more involved... I am too busy..., running late and well... it's just better to hold back...

You saw a moronic post in THIS thread? Whoa.

Todd Steinwart wrote:

You saw a moronic post in THIS thread? Whoa.

I KNOW!, hard to believe... but yeah... it happened.

Andy Meng wrote:
I wish digitial cameras had never been invented, then the GWC's/perverts/molesters could go to their titty bar and drop their 500 and photography would be a cleaner business.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

studio36uk wrote:

Not true and won't work, because if the photogrpaher is not factually an "employee" of the model then copyright law says that the work is then one that is "specially ordered" or "commissioned". Ref: [US] Copyright Office Circular 9; Works Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act; Section 101 of the Act.

In that case two conditions must be satisfied:

1) The work MUST be one of a kind specifically listed in the copyright statute - there are nine very specific kinds of work listed:

a contribution to a collective work,
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
a translation,
a supplementary work,
a compilation,
an instructional text,
a test,
answer material for a test,
an atlas

2) The second condition is that there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

BOTH CONDITIONS MUST EXIST FOR A WORK FOR HIRE TO EXIST Photography as the principle purpose of the work is not a listed class of work. A written agreemnt alone won't do it to create a "work for hire" copyright ownership.

In the US the photographer will own the copyright.

The notes above apply to work done in the US. As I work in the UK I will also point out that UK copyright law abandoned the whole concept of "work for hire" some years ago. Work for hire no longer exists here. Now, it is either work done by an employee (employer owns the copyright) or work not done by an employee (photographer owns the copyright). There are only a few particular circumstances in the UK where a model would ever have even a prayer of claiming that they owned any part of the copyright... usually only by means of a written contract of copyright assignment (or a share in it) or some form of joint authorship claim.

Studio36

No studio, you've misquoted it, and misread it or misunderstood it. A written work for hire agreement prior to commencing work is valid and binding. We've been through this before and I've posted and explained the relevant passages. It's true, and it's done all the time unfortunately.

Gregg Welker wrote:
~~~By the way, what's all this high brow stuff about wanting camera's to cost $10K or more and wishing for the days before digital?~##$@  Any photographer worth his salt won't be wishing for worse or stagnant equipment technologies just because he has to compete with "amateurs".

This is the same sentiment I saw quoted about black & white photographers lamenting the development of "Color" and instamatic cameras back at the turn of the century (no I'm NOT that old, but I do read occasionally ;-)

Along with the tremendous ease of access digital provides, (e.g. all the dross and CRAP that comes out) there are GEMS that you would never see because the creative people behind it didn't have the $10K to shell out like the "pros".

So you have to compete(?) with amateurs, I think that's good! Work to keep your vision alive and let's you up on your lazy-ass toes!!!   Not really a rant, but really, let's just accept the way things are and go with the amazingly improved workflow that digital and all that provides for ALL of us (pro's, amateurs and everyone in-between...)

It used to be that only British aristocrats could afford rigs, was that a GOOD thing?

Gregg

PS: Doesn't everyone start out with a cheap rig, and work their way up to the more expensive gear?  Well, maybe not the aristocrats of photography LOL

Wow, I hope I edited the quote OK and didn't foul things up.

Anyway Greg, I think some of the points people were making went way over your head.  I don't really wish for no digital, but the fact remains that now someone can go buy a cheap digital, get a hacked version of photoshop, horribly expose a photo, go into photoshop, click a few buttons and voila, what appears to be a well exposed photo.

So these people go shoot for free for clients, or worse yet go do the Ujena Bikini Jam and actually pay the client to produce their work, etc. etc.   Well, as a professional photographer, it's pretty hard to compete against free.  A little off track here, but a similar concept to the task at hand.  Remember when you used to get paid for magazine work?  Well, now depending on the magazine, a lot of them are either not paying, or charging photographers/models for the opportunity to be in their magazine.  Again, pretty hard to compete against free or people paying.  Not to name a magazine, but they sell their cover, which is typically a fairly pathetic shot and certainly the worst one in the magazine.

Back to this topic.  So you get hoardes (sp?) of "photographer" GWC's running around with cameras paying these rediculous rates to get a model nekked and hopefully score.  Not only are they paying but giving images with copyright away, cause they already landed the big one to get the model nekked.  Wooo hooooo, as good as a titty bar.

Now, model comes back and figures "well, if sleezes pay xxx for me to get nekked, then real photographers must pay more since it's the real thing", and poof, we see 125-150/hour for casual portfolio work with no commercial release, and model gets full image rights.  Again, way back when models would pay for portfolio development and get it back in modeling jobs with a client.  Now, models expect to be paid to have their portfolio developed.

If you were to see the raw images from some pretty well known photographers (and I have), you would be amazed at how totally bland their photography skills are, then they create magic in photoshop, and charge big bucks for it.  MUA's should be concerned too, as some really crafty photoshoppers are digitally adding makeup rather than getting it done before the shot.

So, to sum up as I think I'm rambling, but I'd be happy to stack myself up against an amateur and a lot of the "big boys" in photography, not digital art which is the fabrications we see today.  Not that I'm the worlds best photographer with some huge ego, but I'm better than most.  Unfortunately, I'm only fair at photoshop. 

Geez, now where were we?  Yea, 100/hour for non-commercial photography?   Too rich for me, unless it's me being paid for my services.