Richard Karlsen wrote:
Reading all the replies I came up with this way out radical idea:

Instead of asking people who have no idea what she is talking about, why not make a simple respectful inquiry to the model and ask what is  she is actually looking for??
...............

I would agree that understanding the mind set of this model and their perspective or the understanding of the photographers who committed to this agreement would make for an interesting topic. 

The OP may have seen that the model has credited no less than 7 MM photographers towards contribution of their work. One of them may also provide an answer .

Bill Tracy Photography wrote:
I just read this on a model's profile:

Nude/Genre Modeling: $100/hr + distribution royalties

What are "distribution royalties" ?

I don't think I would shoot with her anyway, but I'm just curious to see if anyone knows what this is, lol

Well she can ask. Getting is something else.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:

Well she can ask. Getting is something else.

Very true indeed!

Top Gun Digital wrote:

Unless her pics ended up on a giant billboard or in a popular magazine it's unlikely she would ever know that they had been published.  Sounds like another model with unrealistic compensation expectations.

You haven't booked any agency models, have you? Shooting rates might or might not include usage fees. In my experience with agencies that there are either different tiers of rates according to expected usage or there is a hourly/daily fee for the shoot and usage is an agreed sum based on scale.

Everyone here is making noise this this model is inexperienced or doesn't know what she's talking about. I read it differently. Sounds like she might actually know a thing or two that the apparent model-haters in this thread don't.

Zack Zoll wrote:
But we're talking at models that ARE paid, which means they're working-for-hire or in the capacity of an employee, essentially.  If I already paid you, I'm not going to pay you again for the same work. ...

More accurately and probably they would be working as a "contractor."

But, continuing, and in agreement with you, if, for example, I have a contractor build me a house and on completion I immediately sell it for more than it cost to build [and above inflation, taxes, construction financing costs, stamp duty and other relevant non-construction costs] generating an actual profit / gain for me, then no the contractor who built it does not get a percentage of that increased [above cost] value and the profit realised in the sale. He got paid the contract amount and that's the end of it.

Studio36

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
Everyone here is making noise this this model is inexperienced or doesn't know what she's talking about. I read it differently. Sounds like she might actually know a thing or two that the apparent model-haters in this thread don't.

I would really like to know what the definition of "distribution" is that is being applied here by the model in question.

There are assumptions being made throughout this thread but without any genuine understanding of the framework that actually comprises the referred to "distribution." Does it mean any use of the image? Sale of copies? Some or any licensing of the work and the licensing framework? Actual commercial or course of trade use? Any of these things? All of these things? A combination of these things? None of these things, and actually something else? Does it depend on the number of copies made? The number sold? Or merely the number licensed whether ever actually produced or not? Or, maybe the number of times an image is, in particular, viewed on-line, like per-click advertising revenues are derived. Does the model expect a fixed fee, lets say $0.0001 or maybe $0.001 or even $0.01, every time someone clicks on a web page containing their image?

Define "distribution"

For that matter does the whole "distribution royalties" concept being applied, in that model's mind, even depend on the photographer's "profit" or is it in more absolute terms independent of any profit = model > photographer: You display, sell, license, ect, the image you pay me. I don't care if you made anything on it at all!

Studio36

Bill Tracy Photography wrote:
Ah Ok.  I just never heard that term before, or ran into a model asking for that, lol

Funny thing is, how would she even know or be able to keep track of any royalties owed her, if someone were crazy enough to agree to those terms?

Might ask for sales statements of images sold/licensed. I worked that way with a greeting card company.

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:

You haven't booked any agency models, have you? Shooting rates might or might not include usage fees. In my experience with agencies that there are either different tiers of rates according to expected usage or there is a hourly/daily fee for the shoot and usage is an agreed sum based on scale.

Everyone here is making noise this this model is inexperienced or doesn't know what she's talking about. I read it differently. Sounds like she might actually know a thing or two that the apparent model-haters in this thread don't.

Model bashing is a non contact sport around these parts. One of the weirder aspects of MM to be sure.

Elizabeth-Amber wrote:
Since no one considered asking.... it's absolutely normal when the photos are used for more than portfolio work on display. Myself and plenty of other Cosplay models have our photos used in calendars or turned into illustrations for prints which is out of scope of a typical photo shoot. People found their Cosplay photos turned into skanky body pillows and being sold without their knowledge. This goes on. Fashion photogs may not be aware of the pop culture world.

Amber

I can take a image of a person and sell prints, pillows.., with that image on them and all without informing that person of this. And without any model release required. 

Edited: No need to elaborate.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

number of people who claim they consulted an attorney to answer a question on MM: one meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelion
number of people who actually asked that specific question to an attorney on retainer (or other mandate) ZEEEEERO
you were called on it.  don't try to BS your way out of stuff like this.

also...if all it took was a course during a graphic design course people wouldnt need (in general ) an undergrad degree to prepare themselves plus a 3 year degree in law prior to sit for bar exams (exceptions are out there yes yes but its not the rule) just to get their foot in the door in an IP firm.  the full subject is bigger yes. but you got it wrong.  plz dont spout this again.

1. Not sure how you or anyone else can know weather I've consulted an attorney or not ...so I'm not getting how you can say I was "called on it".

2. I never said I was studying to be a lawyer, just that the curriculum to get my degree included some law classes on copyright and trademark and the laws about royalties. Not sure where you got the idea I was claiming to becoming a part of a IP firm..don't know whose butt you pulled that out of.

Again, I've not been shown to be wrong.
"Royalty Distribution" generally refers to the payment paid to the owner of a copyright, and is generally a term used in the music industry.

A paid model assuming she is owed some kind of royalty is ludicrous.
Work for hire, or purchasing the copyright from a photographer; yes. Just say she wants this, not.

Remember, I was attempting to answer this question very generally.

KenBrandon wrote:

I have consulted an attourney (I in fact pay him a yearly retainer fee), I also studied copyright and trademark law as part of my degree in Graphic Design.
Of course the full subject of royalties is bigger than this forum is for, but in a nutshell, whoever owns the copyright, or patent is who get the royalty.

I was seeking to give a basic answer to the question as applicable to the context of what the forum creator was asking for.

In music every artist gets a royalty and they don't own their masters and sometimes not even the songs.

You're adding unnecessary detail that's making your statements inaccurate.

Richard Karlsen wrote:

Reading all the replies I came up with this way out radical idea:

Instead of asking people who have no idea what she is talking about, why not make a simple respectful inquiry to the model and ask what is  she is actually looking for??

No wait, this is MM, common sense has no place here!!

Because she has no idea what she's talking about.

Distribution royalties is a made up term.

KenBrandon wrote:
Again, I've not been shown to be wrong.
"Royalty Distribution" generally refers to the payment paid to the owner of a copyright, and is generally a term used in the music industry.

I get royalty statements for records I've produced and I am not a copyright owner on those records. The artists get royalties as well and they are not the copyright owners for the master recordings.

That Italian Guy wrote:
HAHAHAHA

NEXT!!

KenBrandon wrote:

1. Not sure how you or anyone else can know weather I've consulted an attorney or not ...so I'm not getting how you can say I was "called on it".

2. I never said I was studying to be a lawyer, just that the curriculum to get my degree included some law classes on copyright and trademark and the laws about royalties. Not sure where you got the idea I was claiming to becoming a part of a IP firm..don't know whose butt you pulled that out of.

Again, I've not been shown to be wrong.
"Royalty Distribution" generally refers to the payment paid to the owner of a copyright, and is generally a term used in the music industry.

A paid model assuming she is owed some kind of royalty is ludicrous.
Work for hire, or purchasing the copyright from a photographer; yes. Just say she wants this, not.

Remember, I was attempting to answer this question very generally.

Actors, directors and writers on television shows get royalties for their contribution, and none of them own the copyright, it s always held by the studio or production company.  Royalties are calculated using a variety of methods depending on union, agent negotiations, what the initial budget is etc.  royalties are generally paid when the program is distributed and might be a percentage of sales/revenue, or the audience size/date/time etc.

An actor who appears on a lunch box or t-shirt for a movie/tv role usually gets a royalty based on units sold or total revenue, even though someone else holds the copyright for the artwork on the lunch box or t shirt.

When booking models through agencies for commercial projects it is quite common for the usage fee to be calculated on number of impressions and duration of use.  If the image is needed outside that scope then new usage fees are negotiated.  A high profile model can likely negotiate even better terms for usage.

I agree it is likely foolish to enter into this type of arrangement for most photographers and models on MM as very few of us have the necessary infrastructure to manage such complex agreements. 

I never took a law course in school, but spent 15 years in the TV production business where at various times my job involved contract administration for actors and writers, so I've been privy to plenty of discussions about royalties for non-copyright holders.

Just my $0.02

MC Photo wrote:

Because she has no idea what she's talking about.

Distribution royalties is a made up term.

Exactly the reason to ask!!  Possibly she wants something way out of line, OR possibly something very simple and is just using the wrong term.  A simple question would likely get a better answer than dozens of people guessing.

Again what was I thinking,  No place for common sense here!!!!

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
In my experience with agencies that there are either different tiers of rates according to expected usage or there is a hourly/daily fee for the shoot and usage is an agreed sum based on scale.

Everyone here is making noise this this model is inexperienced or doesn't know what she's talking about. I read it differently. Sounds like she might actually know a thing or two that the apparent model-haters in this thread don't.

You are of course correct about how agencies charge their clients.

This is MM. Here, models tend to be booked by photographers, not clients. Any model with the look and credentials to be working for the kind of clients most agencies prefer would, in all likelihood, already be signed by such an agency and doing that kind of work through them.

Therefore an independent model trying to impose the same kind of conditions on photographers as agencies would impose on their B2B clients is unlikely to get many takers, especially here.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Elizabeth-Amber wrote:
Since no one considered asking.... it's absolutely normal when the photos are used for more than portfolio work on display. Myself and plenty of other Cosplay models have our photos used in calendars or turned into illustrations for prints which is out of scope of a typical photo shoot. People found their Cosplay photos turned into skanky body pillows and being sold without their knowledge. This goes on. Fashion photogs may not be aware of the pop culture world.

Amber

Feverstockphoto wrote:
I can take a image of a person and sell prints, pillows.., with that image on them and all without informing that person of this. And without any model release required. 

Edited: No need to elaborate.

There is one point that needs elaboration.  The relevant laws are different on your side of the pond.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Elizabeth-Amber wrote:
Since no one considered asking.... it's absolutely normal when the photos are used for more than portfolio work on display. Myself and plenty of other Cosplay models have our photos used in calendars or turned into illustrations for prints which is out of scope of a typical photo shoot. People found their Cosplay photos turned into skanky body pillows and being sold without their knowledge. This goes on. Fashion photogs may not be aware of the pop culture world.

Amber

There is one point that needs elaboration.  The relevant laws are different on your side of the pond.

Same in Canada though. Own it, do what I want with it (provided model is not endorsing a product..blah blah)