Todd Meredith wrote:

I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help.  As in another discussion about quality gear at give away prices, the millenial mindset that everything should be free or by the terms someone demands is what's killing this market and many others.  People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

There are rules?
One person's perception of value may differ entirely from another's.
I've worked many "grown up jobs" and the required conduct varied considerably.

You choose your path and I will choose mine. The people we work with will have their own paths.
Those paths may briefly coincide with ours or they may diverge, there is only one way to find out and we must perform the experiment with each and every encounter.

If we establish universal standards for everything so there is consistency then robots can take care of everything far better than absurd humans with their silly notions.

Todd Meredith wrote:
To those who felt slighted:

Yes, life has rules and, SURPRISE!, you get to live by them just like everyone else.  It amazing how many on here demand things that violate copyright laws (yep, those are rules) and can't follow simple mannerisms common in life like showing up for work (specifically a shoot on here) on time.  Oh yes, you can bargain your way among those like yourself who also have little clue about how the real world works and you may even get your way.

As most on here will never earn a dime from photography, I urge you to walk straight into your bosses office at the job where you earn your actual paycheck and start demanding the same types of things we see here on a daily basis.  Tell your boss you want new rules like not coming to work but drawing your wage that, effective immediately, is doubled.  After he/she fires you, please come back and tell us how your version of lif's rules worked out for you.

Wonder why this site, specifically the forums, is in its death throes?

Hi Todd,

I have aboslutely no sense of being "slighted".
The topic is "Let's go over what exactly TF means again".

I will try to keep this simple.
Model Mayhem is very diverse, there are hundreds of thousands of artists of all types here.

You want to do things a certain way. That's fine with me.
I would recommend you create a straightforward, single page document that clearly defines your requirements for engaging with other artists.
If another artist wants to engage with you, send them your requirements. This is no guarantee of their performance but it leaves no doubt what your expectations are for engagement.
If they accept those terms you can proceed.

If you want to engage with another artist and they agree, send them your requirements. This is no guarantee of their performance but it leaves no doubt what your expectations are for engagement.
If they accept those terms you can proceed.

There is nothing more needed or possible.

It is very easy to see from reading this thread and others like it, and the escort threads (there are MANY), that there are many acceptable strategies even if they are only embraced by one individual. All of these ways of working are valid.

When all the different ways of working are combined, as they are here on MM, there will be differences and congruences.
This will always be true. Again, that's fine with me, even though their ways may not be my ways and i may even strongly disagree with them.

One might wish to engender compliance to specific standards as your posts often indicate you would prefer.
One might also wish to push jelly up a hill with a rope, which is something I truly would love to see.
The prognosis for the outcome is similar but not hopeful in either circumstance.

Cheers,
Michael

Todd Meredith wrote:
I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help.  As in another discussion about quality gear at give away prices, the millenial mindset that everything should be free or by the terms someone demands is what's killing this market and many others.  People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

Abbitt injected common sense.  You injected nonsense. In both this post and the one you reference.  You must of felt really good about your lack of awareness about how business really works to have to come into another thread and toot about your other malodorous gaseous post.  Both posts are about bitterness and your inability to adjust.  You make a group generalization about millennials and a gross generalization about their attitude and you blame them for a changing market.  I have news for you bucko, the market has been changing for, like, forever.  The difference now is the pace of change.  Do you think the new fangled photographic stuff that came out in the 1800s didn't impact artists?  That each technological advance in photographic equipment and processes didn't impact the people in jobs already existing?  The technology that allowed mass production of the development of negatives and prints had to have displaced people and jobs, and then, all of sudden, the technology was in drug stores and you could stand there and wait for your pics to be spit out of a machine and the only person physically involved was a high school kid that didn't know squat about film developing.  All he had to do was stick a film canister into a machine and push buttons.  The  world survived the demise of dropping off film for three day processing.

In jobs all over the world, the old ways are gone.  Hand labor, artisans, skilled labored, military, medicine- every job is impacted by technology.  What was once done one way, is now done with machines- or farmed out to cheap labor in the far reaches of the globe.  What was once done by four men can be done with one guy, or less, and technology in a fraction of the time. Time is money, and that is one impact on how business works.  So, as others have asked, what exactly are these rules that you are talking about?  Other than to do it the old way and your way?

But now technology has impacted your business.  And you are screwed.  Not a big surprise.  So, the only thing you can do is come into the forums and bitch and moan about people not following rules that don't exist.  Rules that you can't articulate.  When you tried to articulate them, the rules you mentioned have nothing to do with the post in which you brought it up, but once again, they are gross generalizations.  Nonsense about models not showing up for a shoot- as if this is a new thing that never happened prior to the millennials.  Got news for you bucko, there have always been people that are unreliable.  And everybody has bad days and occasionally, even the healthiest and most reliable person gets sick and doesn't go to work. 

Todd Meredith wrote:
To those who felt slighted:

Yes, life has rules and, SURPRISE!, you get to live by them just like everyone else.  It amazing how many on here demand things that violate copyright laws (yep, those are rules) and can't follow simple mannerisms common in life like showing up for work (specifically a shoot on here) on time.  Oh yes, you can bargain your way among those like yourself who also have little clue about how the real world works and you may even get your way.

As most on here will never earn a dime from photography, I urge you to walk straight into your bosses office at the job where you earn your actual paycheck and start demanding the same types of things we see here on a daily basis.  Tell your boss you want new rules like not coming to work but drawing your wage that, effective immediately, is doubled.  After he/she fires you, please come back and tell us how your version of lif's rules worked out for you.

Wonder why this site, specifically the forums, is in its death throes?

You want to sit at your computer and tell us about how the real world works when you live in a fantasy.  Post after post, you tell us how business works and about real life, when you don’t have a clue.  Life in the world of Todd is that anyone that disagrees with you is worthy of wrath. Anyone that doesn’t see the world through your stagnated vision is childish or worse.  Anyone that doesn’t do it your way is dismissed.  Despite the fact that many people disagree with your methods, you don’t ever consider that what is right for other people is the best way for them, and your method may be a nice a suggestion, but it is otherwise irrelevant. 

It is entirely predictable that when people point out the nonsense in one of your posts, you will dismiss this site and the people in it as being irrelevant because the site is in it’s death throes.  You have done it multiple times before.  The words are different, but each time it is an example of your short sighted, narrow minded view and self serving petulance.  Each time you do this, you seem oblivious to the fact that you are participating in this wretched site, distorted by it’s death throes.  Why are you still here, clinging to the rotting corpse?  Some guy asks too many questions, in your opinion, and you start a thread about reading the manual and not wasting our precious time by asking questions that can be answered in the manual- and you wonder why the forums are under utilized?

I have walked into my bosses office and told him what he could not see that was wrong with his company from the perspectives of the people that were doing the work.  Then I walked out of the company, by my own choice, and started my own.  But you would rather have us live in fear and be subservient to poor management and to suffer the abuses and be underpaid for our expertise, skills, creative abilities and dedication to a company that is stuck in the past or callous to it's employees.  I worked for a company when I was a kid that required us to clean the store after we closed, but we didn’t get paid one nickel for all those hours after closing.  Is that the kind of job you relish?  Your vision is to challenge us to make the most outrageous demands of our employers and then see what happens?  Not to pursue common sense solutions.  Not to protect our rights and values.  People that have the balls to call out management, or to demand their worth, have something you don’t.  Something you can’t even imagine.

Camera Buff wrote:
With regard to my TF* photography: I pay scant regard to nonsensical rules.

Let’s not overlook all the positives in doing TF* by arguing over rules (written or otherwise), or rarely used laws.

Remember: we can disagree without being disagreeable.

When rules of law was brought up here, it was in reference to issues related to copyright and laws related to issues of release such as rights of privacy.   Some here have for example said they assume a model will have shared copyright when it comes to a TF shoot.  While copyright may often not be enforced, I think it’s problematic to make such assumptions.  Changes to these rules can be made and often are made with simple model releases and usage rights agreements, but these “exceptions” in my view need to be discussed beforehand and not assumed just because a shoot is TF.  Rules of law don’t magically go away just because a shoot is TF.

A model may regularly violate “the rarely used laws” of copyright without any problems, until all of a sudden one time it is a problem, the same is true of obtaining a model release.  There’s no reason to argue over these laws or make assumptions. Rather, simply discuss issues of usage rights and release prior to a shoot, even when that shoot is TF.  This really isn’t that hard to do and avoids many potential issues. 

I also disagree these rules are nonsensical.   I think copyright, right of privacy, right of publicity and the means by which these rights can be waived in part or in full are overall very sensible rules of law.   

Disregard these “nonsensical rules” if you wish, but don’t be surprised when someday you have a major issue as a result.   Issues of release and usage/copyright don’t magically resolve themselves just because a shoot is TF.   Assuming they will has been the cause of countless rants here on MM, all of which could easily have been avoided by simply following a few basic rules.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
There is a saying about making assumptions......

Perhaps you also make assumptions.

I do not believe I described which TF* rules I consider as being nonsensical to my photography.

I do my best to understand and obey the Rules of Law. However, I do not follow all the TFP rules that have been discussed in this thread. Some of these rules on TFP have no intelligible meaning to my photography, but that’s not me saying they are unwise or meaningless in other people's situations.

The TFP rules that others make and choose to follow is their business, not mine.

Idyllic  wrote:
TFP: Neither are paid, ideas are mutual, and both have all access to images, selections, editing and distribution....
My main concern is where can I have some choice over selections and editing? Thanks.

C

To a point, I don't really agree with the model having rights to the editing of the images. If I shoot on a TF basis with someone I have no issues with giving them copies of the finished images to do with as they please as for as "use of the image", but I consider editing to be part of the photographers creation of the image just as much as their focus, framing, depth of field, color settings, lighting, etc. Most photographers have editing styles that is specific to their work in the way that brush strokes are for a painter, and the model should not alter that. If you don't like a photographers style (which includes everything from how they frame a subject to lighting, color balance, filtering, post editing and so on), then just don't work with that photographer. Many famous photographers have mastered their style so well that you can just look at an image and know who the photographer was.

Dan Howell wrote:
...

The model release (or lack of one) certainly impacts an image's utility. TFPs are the grandchild of the test shoot. Traditionally models did NOT sign any release for test/TFP shoots.

You don't seem to be expressing an opinion as to whether or not that tradition was a good thing. I suggest that not having a release is a bad idea if the photographer has any intention of ever publishing the image in any way.  And even if the photographer does not as he/she could later change his mind.  And not having anything in writing from the photographer giving the permission to use the images is not a good thing for her either.  Some  releases I have seen include space  for the model to write in  restrictions on use by the photographer.   Examples might include not to be published on revenge porn sites.  Not o be used for escort service ads ...

I met two people on a film shoot.  She was a MUA, background actor, and aspiring model.  he was an editor and aspiring photographer.   We both had a lot of mutual friends from the films shoot and a forum where we kept in touch.   So they got together and did a TFP shoot, agreeing that each other could use the images for their portfolios (his version).   No contract, no release. Just the unwitnessed verbal agreement.  After the shoot they both got on the forum to share with us what a great time they had working together. (BOTH -- remember that).   

So he selected and edited the pics, added his copyright notice, and gave her copies.   She re-edited the images, removed the copyright notice and began sending the images out to magazines.  At this point I am not clear if she was just sending them to promote herself or was actually trying to sell them.   Regardless, the photographer was not pleased and told her to stop re-editing, stop removing his copyright notice, and stop distributing.  She refused.  At that point the dispute moved from the forum to facebook and people asked the obvious questions like :  Did any money change hands?   Was there a contract?   Was there a model release?    A third party who claimed to be an expert because her husband was a photographer told the model that without a model release, the photographer didn't own anything -- the exact opposite of fact.   In retrospect I am not sure if she was merely mistaken or deliberately lied to make the situation worse.  It got worse.  The model totally blew off the photographer and kept it up until hired a lawyer to send her a C&D. 

Then she went on modeling sites accusing him of being a creep (Remember, the day after the shoot they had nothing but praise for each other.)  And so she got banned from the modeling sites. 

The moral of the story is that verbal agreements, even if they are legally binding (which they often are), are still not worth the paper they aren't written on.  It is a bad idea to rely on verbal agreements.   It takes but a minimum of effort to execute a release using standard forms available for download.  If the agreement allows the model to use the images as in a typical TF, then get that in writing too. That can keep a shitstorm like this from happening, or at least provide some protection if it does.

Even between friends.  Those two were friends.

Ivy Wild wrote:
When I first started out, I got spoiled by photographers who would immediately transfer over every image from the shoot. All of them, even the blurry out of focus ones. I got into a habit of going through the shoots in detailed and studying them. Which poses worked, and which didn't? Did I give the same face for 50 frames?  What could I have done better?

.

Reminds me of when I first started in photography.  I kept a notebook and recorded the subject, f/ and shutter speed for every roll of film.  (Yes, I am that old)
r.

Ivy Wild wrote:
All of the photographers who gave me every image paid me, btw. I have literally never had a photographer pay me and refuse to let me see at least the best images from the shoot. I wouldn't expect a photographer to spend extra time editing the images I want, but they always send me their favorites or the images that they processed because they planned to use. More often than not, I find that photographers who refuse to give any images are doing it to be punitive.

Twice I gave a set of pics, all of them, to models I shot saying they could use them in their portfolio if they like so long as they credit me as the photographer.  Nothing about it on the model release, just my word. They both used them in their ports. Neither gave me credit.   I wrote once to each asking them to edit the descriptions to credit me.  Never heard back from either.  I left it at that partly because it was no big deal, partly because it can be very short trip from having no respect for the person you work with who just gave you gift you clearly appreciated, and boiling a pet rabbit.  Another reason was that I set the sync wrong on a couple of the shots so that only half the frame was exposed and she decided to use those.

I am far from convinced that putting it in writing that they were to credit me as the photographer if they used them would have made any difference. 

So now I would be very careful about what images I give to a model, and very clear (in writing) about how she could use them. Maybe that comes across as punitive, and punishing the wrong person.  Sorry about that, but I already tried the other way and it did not work our well for me.

ShutterDoug wrote:
Then she went on modeling sites accusing him of being a creep (Remember, the day after the shoot they had nothing but praise for each other.)  And so she got banned from the modeling sites. 

The moral of the story is that verbal agreements, even if they are legally binding (which they often are), are still not worth the paper they aren't written on.  It is a bad idea to rely on verbal agreements.   It takes but a minimum of effort to execute a release using standard forms available for download.  If the agreement allows the model to use the images as in a typical TF, then get that in writing too. That can keep a shitstorm like this from happening, or at least provide some protection if it does.

Even between friends.  Those two were friends.

You really think that a piece of paper would have changed her actions? You do realize that a model release would only benefit the photographer in that situation. It would not have defined usage allowances regarding copyright, right?

You asked what my opinion of the issue is. If I were advising a model, I would say do not sign a release unless you are satisfied with the compensation for the specific shoot. I would stress that most amateur/web/ModelMayhem photographers will seek an all-rights model release for their shoots. I would not advise any model sign one on a TFP shoot.Simple as that.

If I were advising a photographer, I would say that I don't know their business but I have, for the most part, not sought all-rights model releases from TF_ shoots unless it was agreed upon in advance of a shoot and specifically set up for that purpose. Both parties were fully aware of the implications. And I would say that I have negotiated fees with models for conditional and all-rights releases when they were sought and signed. I would say if asked why, 1. because it is fair 2. because it affords me access to better models.

My practice might not suit all photographers, but I would hold fast on the advice to models.

Matt Schmidt wrote:
TF = 'Trade For' (anything you agree to, open-ended i.e., 'Trade you Skittles for a new Boat')

Skittles are way better than a hole in the water you throw money into.  Now usage of someone else's boat would be a whole lotta skittles.