JonPhoto wrote:
Ummmm, you are speculating the photographer is making thousands/millions from the shoot. If that is the case, either the photographer or model/ or both are in high demand.

If it's the photographer, then the model can brag she was in an awesome shot and can use it in her portfolio to book jobs since this was a TFP. She is using the photographer for her career. So, should the model then pay the photographer for launching her career every time she gets a booking?

If that were the case both ways, then rather than the photographer just paying for every time one of the prints sold, he/she would also pay out each of the models in his/her book each time commissioned for work or booking a paid shoot.

If I paid out "my photographer" on each shoot I booked, I would be paying out 200 or so photographers each time.

K I C K H A M wrote:
If that were the case both ways, then rather than the photographer just paying for every time one of the prints sold, he/she would also pay out each of the models in his/her book each time commissioned for work or booking a paid shoot.

If I paid out "my photographer" on each shoot I booked, I would be paying out 200 or so photographers each time.

The hypothetical in this case is a tfp session. A photographer doesn't know what would sell or how much.

My hypothetical is what if the that one tfp session launched the career of the model as well. If models are upset that a photographer could make money off a tfp, then shouldn't they pay the photographer for future bookings?

K I C K H A M wrote:
You're talking about people who've been paid in cash, which is not what this thread is about.

I fail to see how the currency of the payment makes any difference to anything.

$500 in cash or $500+ worth of photography services (delivered as images). What's the difference? It's still payment.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That Italian Guy wrote:

I fail to see how the currency of the payment makes any difference to anything.

$500 in cash or $500+ worth of photography services (delivered as images). What's the difference? It's still payment.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1

Erlinda wrote:
Well, as a photographer I agree with you but as a model I would be pissed off if you made thousands/millions off photos my likeliness is in and all I get are the photos that I can't even sell lol

JonPhoto wrote:
Making thousands, much less millions is pretty much a fantasy, but lets keep it in the thousands.

If a picture is getting thousand dollars, either the photographer or model, or both are out of this world.

If that is the case, both are benefitting. For the model, if their pic is worth a thousand dollars, then they are in high demand and can book more gigs. Does the model owe the photographer for any gigs she may get using the pictures? This goes both ways.

Some day I'll come back to earth....

I have a few images that have sold for 25-350.00 several times over.
Even WITH the galleries taking their cut I have netted over a grand in the few 3+ years those photos have been on the market, and the value keeps going up.

If you did trade with me as a model, then you most likely were offered prints, that are the same quality that I sell. So YES, you CAN sell the prints on the market...

You can get your cash money if you sell the prints.

You can also use the tearsheets and use those to get more/better modeling jobs.

But the issue here is CHANCE:

In 2011 I did approximately 50 ish shoots, less than 3 images have sold regularly as "art prints"

In 2012 I did approximately 80ish, shoots, again only a few images have sold as "art prints"

You have to keep playing the game, as a photographer and as a model, and you have to know when to hold them, and when to fold them.

So even at banking a few grand on any one image, per year, that is still not worth the paperwork and office time to keep track of sales and split profits. So the model gets his/her prints, I get a signature.

Or they can hire me outright for a commision...
(That might be the better deal for models in the long run)

That Italian Guy wrote:

I fail to see how the currency of the payment makes any difference to anything.

$500 in cash or $500+ worth of photography services (delivered as images). What's the difference? It's still payment.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

The difference, in this specific case, is clarified by the fact that the thread is talking about a TF shoot.

While I agree that images are payment, this thread is, if the OP is correct, about trade shoots, which means bringing in circumstances for paid (being not trade) work is irrelevant.

Erlinda wrote:

+1

Dude... It's YOUR thread... And YOU'RE the one who said TF.

Erlinda wrote:
Hello ladies, just thought of an interesting topic. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

So lets say a photographer is looking to test (TF) with you for a gallery opening where his/her photos will be seen and most likely sold.

Or

A photographer wants to test (TF) with you for a coffee book table he/she wants to published (which he/she will try to sale).

Would you be comfortable with getting prints for these projects while in the future they will be getting paid for selling your pictures?

I mean it's no different than when you TF with a photographer and they give you a release that states you give them the right to sale your likeliness etc.

So, would you be okay with it? or would you think it's unfair?

o.O

Erlinda wrote:

Sometimes it can beneficial to the model only... Sometimes the photos the photographer takes aren't as good as the stuff in their portfolio so they don't use them but still give them to the model.

This right here is why I made my first response.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Erlinda wrote:
+1

Dude... It's YOUR thread... And YOU'RE the one who said TF.


o.O

LOL I know, he just made a good point… ahahahahaha (I'm weird)

MR J Photography wrote:
Personally just being new to all this I really don't know the "do's and don'ts" when it comes to the photography world so I just go by my gut feeling when I do things.

I pay my models and they know beforehand that if I pay them I own the rights to all my images I take, and they are happy with that because I don't sell my images, but if I did then I would more than likely give some of the money to the model because that is just who I am.

Because I wouldn't feel right as a person profiting off someone and not giving them at least something out of it.

But that's just me.

???? The models are profiting from you when you pay them to take their picture and again if you sale your picture of them…. That to me is bad business.

Danielle Reid wrote:
This right here is why I made my first response.

Yes but it's less likely to happen with talented and experienced photographers that do this for a living and work for magazine and advertising etc.

SoCo n Lime wrote:
contracts .. model releases.. blah blah what a crock of shite

Who are you criticizing here, models or photographers?

My position on non-agency testing (TF) is clear: trade with me and I will do my best to give you images that will enhance your portfolio and bring you paid work, but I reserve the right to monetize my images in any way I see fit (or not at all) as and when/if the opportunity arises.

If somebody doesn't like that then they shouldn't test with me. Period.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That Italian Guy wrote:
In a trade (TF) shoot the compensation for the model is the images received.

The model may subsequently make as much money as she likes booking work as a result of having those images in her portfolio without paying a cent to the photographer.

Why should it be any different the other way around? Aren't photographers allowed to profit from their photos? They took them; they own the copyright. If they have a model release (where needed) then that should be the end of the story.

^^^ This

Very few models on MM are well know enough to have a book produced solely of them so once profits (actual profits) have been divided there may not be much left over, even a best seller these days.

Galleries/exhibitions, again come at a cost to produce, some models see the price tag but don't take into account how many pieces need to be sold before all exhibition, promotion and production costs are covered.

It would also be interesting to know from those that share profits if they actually include their wage for all their time putting everything together for the book/exhibition? The few I've spoken to have not included their time in their costs.

Danielle Reid wrote:
As long as I'm able to submit those photos for publication and/or sell prints (signed 8x10s, Posters, etc.) then fine I'll sign that release. But if he's just giving me photos only for me to post online in hopes that MAYBE I'll get an actual paying job then yeah, I'll be pissed.

But I'm a noob...

Danielle Reid

While not likely if the photos are being sold as fine art, but there should be nothing stopping you negotiating a deal where the photographer produces the prints for you and allows you to sell them at mark-up.

Models submitting for publication is another matter best discussed with the photographer.

That Italian Guy wrote:
Who are you criticizing here, models or photographers?

My position on non-agency testing (TF) is clear: trade with me and I will do my best to give you images that will enhance your portfolio and bring you paid work, but I reserve the right to monetize my images in any way I see fit (or not at all) as and when/if the opportunity arises.

If somebody doesn't like that then they shouldn't test with me. Period.

if your clear, up front and transparent thats all you need to be .. its then up to individuals to decide wether its worth their while or not

however the words testing and trade (in my opinion) shouldn't be used together

'testing' under my understanding and opinion is working together and all participants receive the same and fair outcome.. to then go on and sell ability.

'trade' or 'trade for *' is an internet phenomenon and has been pushed in so many ways that it is not clear and precise as to what it is .. hence all the BS about having to refer to what was disccused at the beginning, contracts and the rest of the BS.. it is being used and pushed in so many different ways. yes, granted some good ways (under the old testing banner) but plenty fit with in the dubious category. its like being back in the school playground trying to trade with very little for lots of gain.

as for your question i criticize not only photographers for the language being used (as they are always the main drivers of such BS and mainly in the driving seat i.e have allot of control ).. but models, makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, set designers for taking them up on it. yes many feel they dont really have much choice but to go along with the BS setup as the person with the camera has allot of control. and yes it may be their own fault for trying to save money or for not testing with reputable individuals already in the industry (i.e cutting corners).

but lets stay on point here.. the OP is posting about people making money on the old testing formula

if the model gets the correct compensation for a gig then great i would not feel so bad for them. but a copy of the pictures is a cop out and isn't fair in my book cause even top of the pile photographers pay their assistants more in cash terms than a non agency model rates cause the assistants have bills to pay aswel just like them

Darren Brade wrote:
^^^ This

Very few models on MM are well know enough to have a book produced solely of them so once profits (actual profits) have been divided there may not be much left over, even a best seller these days.

Galleries/exhibitions, again come at a cost to produce, some models see the price tag but don't take into account how many pieces need to be sold before all exhibition, promotion and production costs are covered.

It would also be interesting to know from those that share profits if they actually include their wage for all their time putting everything together for the book/exhibition? The few I've spoken to have not included their time in their costs.

if your selling a product and not your ability then its a commercial set up which ever way you look at it.. model should be made aware first and foremost what the setup will be. if they choose to then go ahead for just a copy of the pictures then more fool them if they don't charge a fee up front

being fairly compensated is all anyone is asking for

people who massage something into what its not are con men/women

in my opinion of course

and p.s self published books for someone with zero profile are mainly vanity projects and have little to do with making money

SoCo n Lime wrote:

if your selling a product and not your ability then its a commercial set up which ever way you look at it.. model should be made aware first and foremost what the setup will be. if they choose to then go ahead for just a copy of the pictures then more fool them if they don't charge a fee up front

being fairly compensated is all anyone is asking for

people who massage something into what its not are con men/women

in my opinion of course

and p.s self published books for someone with zero profile are mainly vanity projects and have little to do with making money

I totally agree, if the initial intention is to monetize the images from the get go all should be up front.

What I think happens here (on MM) is somewhere down the line the photographer creates a book (or exhibit) of his work (yes often for vanity) and then the model assumes "lots" of money is being made.

Drew Tommons wrote:
a fairly well known case.  It seems that the model was happy with his fee for the job....then, sometime later he wasn't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … oster.html

Aw! Don't you just love the Daily Mail's (UK trashy tabloid) ability to bring together two people and poke them with a stick until they dish the dirt. They make the models looks like real losers and Athena the bad guys.

A more balanced article from the Independent makes a more interesting read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th … 32331.html

That Italian Guy wrote:
In a trade (TF) shoot the compensation for the model is the images received.

The model may subsequently make as much money as she likes booking work as a result of having those images in her portfolio without paying a cent to the photographer.

Why should it be any different the other way around? Aren't photographers allowed to profit from their photos? They took them; they own the copyright. If they have a model release (where needed) then that should be the end of the story.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That's not true.. the "trade for" agreement can be anything both of you agree to.. prints, CD pics, food, costumes, jewlerey, roayties.. anything depending on the value of the trade.

Here we are talking about someone potentially making money off your work, so why not share? The trade can be as little as a dedication in the book.. but everything has to be stipulated in writing so there is no argument in the futuer if this book happens to take off... potential value!

CONTRACT IS EVERYTHING!.. and it works both ways.

Darren Brade wrote:

I totally agree, if the initial intention is to monetize the images from the get go all should be up front.

What I think happens here (on MM) is somewhere down the line the photographer creates a book (or exhibit) of his work (yes often for vanity) and then the model assumes "lots" of money is being made.

While I agree there are misconceptions (I've been in a few books that haven't done well enough for the photographer to likely make any profit, let alone the models), I'm going based on the photographer having actually made money. In books it's less likely, but if a piece is up at a gallery, with a $4000 price tag and a note that says "SOLD" on top of it, you know that one made money.

Those are the circumstances where, if it was a TF model, I think it would be cool to throw something her direction. Not saying half, nothing like that, just a cut of what you make AFTER your gallery costs are taken out.

I understand these situations are rather rare, but not so rare that they don't happen.

Camabs wrote:
I don't see why this is an issue. The model decides whether he or she feels the photographer is good enough to shoot tf with. If so, then shooting tf with that tog is a good deal to the model. Whether or not the photographer earns moneu from the pictures, does not change the deal for the model. The pictures are worth the time, or they are not.

Then ask agencies why they don't like their talent signing commercial releases on test shoots.

Darren Brade wrote:
I totally agree, if the initial intention is to monetize the images from the get go all should be up front.

What I think happens here (on MM) is somewhere down the line the photographer creates a book (or exhibit) of his work (yes often for vanity) and then the model assumes "lots" of money is being made.

K I C K H A M wrote:
While I agree there are misconceptions (I've been in a few books that haven't done well enough for the photographer to likely make any profit, let alone the models), I'm going based on the photographer having actually made money. In books it's less likely, but if a piece is up at a gallery, with a $4000 price tag and a note that says "SOLD" on top of it, you know that one made money.

Those are the circumstances where, if it was a TF model, I think it would be cool to throw something her direction. Not saying half, nothing like that, just a cut of what you make AFTER your gallery costs are taken out.

I understand these situations are rather rare, but not so rare that they don't happen.

Sorry but no.  Now, maybe if I really wanted to go to the bother of tracking out a series, for the overall profit of a series maybe.  If I shoot a full series, I more than likely have to sell more than one print to break even.  Either way, I'm not about to bother with it.  I negotiate terms up front, and that's it.

Also, once you leave fashion, for lifestyle work (which almost no photographer wants to do, other than for potential stock sales) it isn't uncommon to do that as trade for a model's portfolio, as long as you have the right to sell the images as stock.  If not, why in God's name would anyone shoot it unless the model or a client were paying you to do so.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Darren Brade wrote:
I totally agree, if the initial intention is to monetize the images from the get go all should be up front.

What I think happens here (on MM) is somewhere down the line the photographer creates a book (or exhibit) of his work (yes often for vanity) and then the model assumes "lots" of money is being made.

Sorry but no.  Now, maybe if I really wanted to go to the bother of tracking out a series, for the overall profit of a series maybe.  If I shoot a full series, I more than likely have to sell more than one print to break even.  Either way, I'm not about to bother with it.  I negotiate terms up front, and that's it.

Also, once you leave fashion, for lifestyle work (which almost no photographer wants to do, other than for potential stock sales) it isn't uncommon to do that as trade for a model's portfolio, as long as you have the right to sell the images as stock.  If not, why in God's name would anyone shoot it unless the model or a client were paying you to do so.

Hell no! Haha. I will not trade for stock. I'm not, however, against paying for commercial images.

So far as the first paragraph, yes, I realize that it's a bit of a fantasy world. The thing is, though, that some of us actually prescribe to that. It's not necessarily written into the documents (as that turns into a headache really fast), so if the model doesn't get anything, well, it happens.
But I DO know photographers who use such a system, and it's one that I find rather ideal. This is, of course, in the situation that you shot for TF not planning to make money and then ended up making money-- not selling a few prints and not even breaking even.

Again, this isn't ideal-- writing in to the paperwork would be a huge headache an potentially offer the model a "percentage" of such a low sale that it wouldn't make sense, but NOT writing it in the contract means the photographer can do whatever the hell they want.

I'm going back to my first statement: I work with people who aren't dicks, so if it's agreed that upon a big sale I (or any other model) would get a cut, even if it isn't in the contract, I tend to know how things will play out.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
When I sell a print that originates from a trade shoot, I normally pay the model $100 for each print sold.

People have told me I don't have to, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't.

Oh hai!

K I C K H A M wrote:

While I agree there are misconceptions (I've been in a few books that haven't done well enough for the photographer to likely make any profit, let alone the models), I'm going based on the photographer having actually made money. In books it's less likely, but if a piece is up at a gallery, with a $4000 price tag and a note that says "SOLD" on top of it, you know that one made money.

Those are the circumstances where, if it was a TF model, I think it would be cool to throw something her direction. Not saying half, nothing like that, just a cut of what you make AFTER your gallery costs are taken out.

I understand these situations are rather rare, but not so rare that they don't happen.

What if you as a model get a job from the print. Should you pay the photographer a percentage?

K I C K H A M wrote:

Oh hai!

Hi there!

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
When I sell a print that originates from a trade shoot, I normally pay the model $100 for each print sold.

People have told me I don't have to, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't.

You're a good person, Jorge

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
When I sell a print that originates from a trade shoot, I normally pay the model $100 for each print sold.

People have told me I don't have to, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't.

Can I clone you?

JonPhoto wrote:

What if you as a model get a job from the print. Should you pay the photographer a percentage?

If a photographer gets a JOB from a photo he or she took of me, I wouldn't expect them to give me a cut. We are talking about direct sales.

I'm also a photographer and I operate the same way on both sides.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
When I sell a print that originates from a trade shoot, I normally pay the model $100 for each print sold.

People have told me I don't have to, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't.

Admirable, and I'll assume sustainable. Can I ask if you sign agreements to this effect? I ask because I do something similar to this but will not sign agreements stating the same.

Erlinda wrote:

MR J Photography wrote:
Personally just being new to all this I really don't know the "do's and don'ts" when it comes to the photography world so I just go by my gut feeling when I do things.

I pay my models and they know beforehand that if I pay them I own the rights to all my images I take, and they are happy with that because I don't sell my images, but if I did then I would more than likely give some of the money to the model because that is just who I am.

Because I wouldn't feel right as a person profiting off someone and not giving them at least something out of it.

But that's just me.

???? The models are profiting from you when you pay them to take their picture and again if you sale your picture of them…. That to me is bad business.

As a photography business case you are correct. Many here, though not necessarily those who are actually in the business of photography, somehow feel morally bound to ignore that fact.

Just like any other actual business:

* you order the raw materials and hire the talent;
* you pay the supplier and the talent;
* you create the product;
* you sell the product, or, in the case of photography, the rights to make more of it [copies];

***** you DO NOT then turn around out of the goodness of your heart, or by some moral imperative, and send the original supplier of the raw materials or the talent a share of the sales revenue. Where would it start and where would it end?

The talent, at least around here, seems to believe they are somehow "entitled"; but hell, what about the company that made your camera; the company that made your studio lights; the company that made your computer; Adobe if you use Photoshop; Ilford if you print your photos on their paper; Cannon if you use their printers; your electricity supplier, because without them you couldn't power all of the stuff above; and on and on ab absurdum. Do they ALL get a check, not just the talent, when you sell an image? If not, why not?

The genuine business case is that NONE of them get a check, exactly because they have already been paid!

Studio36

Flex Photography wrote:
My view on trade shoots is that they are an arrangement to benifit both parties, not just one. Both donate their time and skills, and neither party pays or receives money for the shoot. Both are "paid" in the agreed use of the images from the shoot. We both agree that the images are for our portfolio and personal use only, not direct financial gain. The images are a marketing tool, intended to perhaps attract future paid opportunities. They are not, in themselves, the product for direct gain. Also stated in my TFCD shoot agreement, is that both parties agree to credit the other. I see TF as a shared arrangement.

That's you. Personally, I have a different business model as you no doubt observed in the post immediately above this one. And so do a lot of others.

Studio36

K I C K H A M wrote:

While I agree there are misconceptions (I've been in a few books that haven't done well enough for the photographer to likely make any profit, let alone the models), I'm going based on the photographer having actually made money. In books it's less likely, but if a piece is up at a gallery, with a $4000 price tag and a note that says "SOLD" on top of it, you know that one made money.

Those are the circumstances where, if it was a TF model, I think it would be cool to throw something her direction. Not saying half, nothing like that, just a cut of what you make AFTER your gallery costs are taken out.

I understand these situations are rather rare, but not so rare that they don't happen.

It's still all rather subjective since you're assuming that there will be profit from that sale. Often it takes many sales to turn a profit.

For instance, the cost of a cheap gallery costs around $4000 per week to hire before you even start with any of the other costs.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Then ask agencies why they don't like their talent signing commercial releases on test shoots.

because agencies want their cut.

Darren Brade wrote:
It's still all rather subjective since you're assuming that there will be profit from that sale. Often it takes many sales to turn a profit.

For instance, the cost of a cheap gallery costs around $4000 per week to hire before you even start with any of the other costs.

Don't start that Darren. You'll have them demanding "first dollar" agreements = Fuck YOUR costs I want a share of your sales from the first dollar not just a share of profits AFTER you recoup your costs.

Studio36