|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
TFP shoots that end up on paid sites!
Has this happened to any of you? I did an implied nude TFP shoot months ago and suddenly friends are texting me freaking out that they saw me on a paid porn site! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr I was told by the photographer some of the photos would be used on his site so I assumed he meant a professional portfolio site not a paid site! If this happened to you what was the name of the website? Thnx Oct 15 12 05:18 am Link 1. did you sign a release? 2. if so, did you get compensated with photos? Unfortunately this happens with some photographers. Check references up front before doing TF. I'd suggest sending a nice, but firm email to the photographer in question linking to the site and ask him to have the image(s) taken down. Oct 15 12 05:27 am Link What's to say that the porn site didn't just take them off the photographer's site with out his permission and use them? Porn sites do that fairly often. Oct 15 12 05:36 am Link DiavoloRosso wrote: This. Oct 15 12 05:44 am Link If it's one of those girlfriend sites they probably stole it. Not only that I have seen people on Fiverr selling images they have stolen from around the web. Other than that ask where the images will be used. I won't shoot TF unless I can profit from it one way or another. And I know many photographers feel the same way. I'm just very upfront about it. It's not worth my time unless I can use it to recoup my investment in time, equipment etc... So if I shoot anything I'm going to try my best to make money from the photo one way or another. I have not sold to porn sites though as I don't want sell my images like that. Oct 15 12 05:49 am Link DiavoloRosso wrote:
Oct 15 12 05:55 am Link This is what happens when people confuse compensation with issues of release. How images are used is regulated by law, including the release you sign, not by the amount of type of compensation you receive for your modeling service. As previously stated, images can also be stolen and used in violation of release and state law. Oct 15 12 06:22 am Link Not saying you are gonna be happy about it but if you signed a release that gives the photographer the ability then they can end up anywhere. I always provide models I am going to work with PDF copies of the realease in advance of the shoot so they can read it through, suggest changes if they don't like something. You should have been provided a copy....... read it through and see if it allows him to do that. In general even without a release any images taken by the photographer are the property of the photographer. Within reason he/she can do whatever they like with them. Oct 15 12 06:47 am Link very possibly stolen from the photographer as well. i certainly don't think porn sites are writing big checks for implied pictures. and you can always come back to your friends with "and why exactly were you on paid porn sites?". that's always good for a laugh. Oct 15 12 06:58 am Link No they weren't stolen off the photographer's website. The paid site that I never knew existed is all his photography so it's not one of those websites where they steal photos. There's no nudity that I can see on it but when I google to look for my photos I find they are on a heck of a lot of websites with hardcore porn ads and links and why people are jumping to conclusions I am involved in porn. Oct 15 12 07:22 am Link You still have not answered Flirty Fun's question about whether or not you signed a release, and if so, what the release said. That's really the key to this issue. You either signed a release that allows this use or you did not. Which is it? (From your initial post, it also sounds as if you may have had a verbal release) Oct 15 12 07:28 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: Did you, or did you not get compensated with images from the shoot? Oct 15 12 07:29 am Link Not to sound harsh but how do you suspect this photographer pays the rent? If you didn't pay them then they have to be making money somehow. They should be upfront about it but you are a model, you won't always have control of where your images end up. Granted I cannot imangine why implied shots are on a adult pay site but that is another issue. Oct 15 12 07:30 am Link Who the heck pays to see implied nudes? Oct 15 12 07:35 am Link This is why I always tell models that pose for me if you are not proud of what we are doing or if you are worried anyone in your circle of family or friends are going to give you a hard time then you shouldn't pose for me. If you pose for a picture people are going to see it. If the idea was "well no one will really see it " Why bother wasting the film. (oops showed my age there) If you don't want your image to be seen Don't pose. Oct 15 12 07:40 am Link Model releases should specify who retains ownership/copyright of the images and who can use the images for what purpose. If it doesn't, you should ask for it to be in there and its up to you to negotiate that part of the release. My standard TF releases states I retain copy rights to the images, which means I have the right to use the images in any way I choose to. It gives the model a license to use the images for any and all promotional purposes including a a pay web site. It does not license her to resell the images without explicit permission by me. This is my standard - but I have modified it to suit a model's specific needs from time to time. It's up to you, as a model, to make sure the model release you sign suits your specific needs, including any limitation of usage of the images by the photographer. Oct 15 12 07:55 am Link Cherrystone wrote: Even if she did I think is shady of the photographer to not say her likeness was going to be associated with porn or that it would be for a porn site. If he would have been upfront she could have made a decision to decline the shoot. Oct 15 12 08:02 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: Oct 15 12 08:03 am Link Abbitt Photography wrote: I signed a model release form. That's not even my issue with it. I should have been told about this website and if he had told me about it then I would have definitely demanded to be paid or I would have said no don't want to be on a paid site and made him put that in the release. Oct 15 12 08:05 am Link You should have asked to see his site before you agreed to work with him. I have refused to do shoots because I have seen site content that I thought was subpar. It is your image that you are protecting. Be a little more proactive. Oct 15 12 08:16 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: I'm afraid that's all there is to it - you signed a release - he can do with them pretty much as he pleases. Oct 15 12 08:55 am Link my 1st question would have been "what are you doing looking at paid porn sites?" Oct 15 12 09:01 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: That's exactly your issue. The usage was within the terms of the release you signed. It is not a photographer's obligation to inform you of usage that falls within the terms of that release - that's exactly what the release is for, to put in writing what it is you do and do not agree to, and his use falls within what you agreed to. You also agreed to images as compensation. It is not the obligation of a photographer to compensate you more than you agreed to. Oct 15 12 09:07 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: My advice is : Get it on ink and signed, that way you are covered as a model, verbal agreements are difficult to make them stick in a court of law, I'd rather spend 30 minutes doing paper work than spend months back and forth with misunderstandings on any agreement. Oct 15 12 09:10 am Link 
Model Posts: 6639 MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica Abbitt Photography wrote: +1 Oct 15 12 09:26 am Link
Model Posts: 6639 MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica valley photomaster wrote: No. Not true. Oct 15 12 09:27 am Link MoRina wrote: +1 Oct 15 12 09:31 am Link valley photomaster wrote: She was compensated, she got images. If you notice the declaration of independence mentioned life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness - people are not automatically entitled to much else. Oct 15 12 09:37 am Link Does the photographer have his website linked to his MM account? I guess I'm hoping there's a way he could reasonably expect you to know what he meant when he referred to his website, and that this is a case of poor communication rather than deliberate obfuscation. Oct 15 12 09:41 am Link valley photomaster wrote: Hope this isn't too far off the topic but do you know what TFP means? Oct 15 12 09:53 am Link have you tried discussing it with the photographer to see if there's anything he's willing to do about it (assuming he was the one who posted the images)? depending on the release he may have been within his rights to do that. you may want to brush up on releases and don't sign them if they are too broad (or add your own no-porn clause -- of course a lot of people think mayhem is a porn site). AshleyD_Model wrote: Oct 15 12 09:54 am Link valley photomaster wrote: First post on MM and you come up with a line like that. If their agreement was that she got 4 prints for the shoot (for the sake of argument) and he sells a photo for a million dollars, as long as the photographer provides her with the 4 prints, she got the agreed upon compensation, end of deal. Oct 15 12 10:26 am Link valley photomaster wrote: MoRina wrote: I'll add absolutely to that. Oct 15 12 10:39 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: did you ask your friends why they are looking at paid porn sites? Oct 15 12 10:43 am Link Eros Studios wrote: A document that specifies copyright ownership and usage rights is no longer just a model release. You can confuse many people by calling it such. Oct 15 12 11:46 am Link AshleyD_Model wrote: AshleyD_Model wrote: AshleyD_Model wrote: Case closed... Oct 15 12 11:57 am Link This should really be a lesson in Modeling 101 for the OP. This is not a slam, it is a learning experience: 1. Good communications is important for both you and the photographer. He told you that it was going up on his site. You assumed that it was a portfolio. If you have questions, ask them; and 2. The release is the release. Some photographers use a release for self-promotion for a TF shoot, others use a full release. Read the release BEFORE you shoot and know what it says. If you don't want the photographer to have the right to do what he did in this case, make sure the release doesn't permit it; but ... 3. Also be aware that the photographer has a say. If you don't want to sign a full release he may choose not to shoot you; so 4. Be prepared to walk away, with no hard feelings, if you can't agree on the terms. You have the right to say "no" as does he. You have the right to ask questions, so does he. This is a business. Do business like a professional and there will be no problems. Once the release has been signed, it is too late to complain about it. You signed it, you probably shouldn't have. It is done. Live with the mistake and move on. For the record though, and in your defense, I am not sure the photographer was as forthcoming as he could have been. That doesn't mean he did anything wrong. He just could have explained better. Oct 15 12 12:16 pm Link AshleyD_Model wrote: Why are your friends members at porn site? Oct 15 12 12:23 pm Link Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute" If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation. Oct 15 12 12:32 pm Link What Fun Productions wrote: Do you know any guys who don't visit those sites? Oct 15 12 01:01 pm Link |
