Lasting Blueprint wrote:
Im shooting one with a model this week. It doesn't bother me that I have to give away rights. More so in it for exposure and being able to say that I got in Maxim ya know?

They'll take snapshots, you weren't in Maxim, it's a contest....

I will not shoot them, wanna pay me a significant fee for the copyright to the photo, sure...

ACPhotography wrote:

They'll take snapshots, you weren't in Maxim, it's a contest....

I will not shoot them, wanna pay me a significant fee for the copyright to the photo, sure...

I mean more so a girl I shot won the contest type thing.

Lasting Blueprint wrote:

I mean more so a girl I shot won the contest type thing.

It's still not a tear sheet, you're not being published in Maxim, it's a contest to attract males to their site/magazine...

I've had a few girls forge the paperwork, but they didn't have the high res copy and I wasn't signing it over!

Personality Imaging wrote:
Maxim doesn't give photo credits, so better get $$ or something

Hometown Hotties contest? No money; no credit; and a license to them that includes them using the images for everything under the sun including sub-licensing to 3rd partes and use in 3rd party advertising.

No use in a photographer doing it for "the exposure" cause you ain't gettin' any.

The Hometown Hotties contest is the mother of all rights grabs.

Studio36

ACPhotography wrote:
I've had a few girls forge the paperwork, but they didn't have the high res copy and I wasn't signing it over!

Hell, in that case, I'd have threatened them BOTH with infringement if they even thought about publishing the images. End of story.

Studio36

Inner Vision Images wrote:
As a photographer I have shot several submission packages for a number of on-line adult website including Hometown Hoties.

What I have done in the past it sell the images to be submitted to the model in the number, size and format required for the submission for a flat fee. Usually I charge $75 per hour of shooting time plus $25 per hour of Photoshop time. So usually the charge for a 2 hour shoot is around $200.  The model now owns the images and can do whatever she wants with them. Please note that some for-pay websites require scores of images.

The model signs a release allowing me to use images that are not part of the submission package in my portfolio with the restriction that they ARE NOT published even to a website.

Good approach.  This comes up every once and a while, and I'm going to try your approach.

studio36uk wrote:

Hometown Hotties contest? No money; no credit; and a license to them that includes them using the images for everything under the sun including sub-licensing to 3rd partes and use in 3rd party advertising.

No use in a photographer doing it for "the exposure" cause you ain't gettin' any.

The Hometown Hotties contest is the mother of all rights grabs.

Studio36

I haven't read over the paperwork in a while, but from what I got out of it was that Maxim could stop you from using your own photo after signing it over to them....

Just went and looked... Pay attention to this line...

Copyright Holder waives in favor of AMG and anyone authorized by them, any and all moral rights that s/he may have in any of the Submitted Assets.

You have no more rights to the photos you sign over....

ACPhotography wrote:
Just went and looked... Pay attention to this line...

You have no more rights to the photos you sign over....

Means nothing to you US guys as you can't benefit from MORAL RIGHTS, whereas in most of the rest of the world photographers can. Though the scope of moral rights varies from country to country universally they include the right to be identified as the author of the work - that is to receive a credit. That is primarily the right you are giving up... not all rights to the image.

Just one more reason to watermark your images, which they will then promptly reject.

What bothers me a lot is that they will also put THEIR name on the images. [I don't think so!!!] Apparently in an effort to protect THEIR rights.

Studio36

RSM-images wrote:
.

"Hometown Hotties" is a gimmick to gain free magazine content that can, in turn, be legally sold to porn sites.



.

1+

Why pay people, when there are people stupid enough to work for free? A sucker is born every second. This saves Maxim tons of money and they have no need to search for women to pose for their magazine. They are just hand fed great pictures and they give nothing in return...

studio36uk wrote:

Means nothing to you US guys as you can't benefit from MORAL RIGHTS, whereas in most of the rest of the world photographers can. Though the scope of moral rights varies from country to country universally they include the right to be identified as the author of the work - that is to receive a credit. That is primarily the right you are giving up... not all rights to the image.

Just one more reason to watermark your images, which they will then promptly reject.

What bothers me a lot is that they will also put THEIR name on the images. [I don't think so!!!] Apparently in an effort to protect THEIR rights.

Studio36

It actually does apply to us, but not as strongly as it does in Europe...

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html

Janos - wrote:
Why pay people, when there are people stupid enough to work for free? A sucker is born every second. This saves Maxim tons of money and they have no need to search for women to pose for their magazine. They are just hand fed great pictures and they give nothing in return...

+100000

Janos - wrote:

1+

Why pay people, when there are people stupid enough to work for free? A sucker is born every second. This saves Maxim tons of money and they have no need to search for women to pose for their magazine. They are just hand fed great pictures and they give nothing in return...

If a pretty girl who wants to enter the contest pays me for my time, I don't need Maxim to pay me, too.

ACPhotography wrote:
It actually does apply to us, but not as strongly as it does in Europe...

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html

True, but the statement "You have no more rights to the photos you sign over...." is still not true.  You still retain the copyright, you are just licensing it to them at no cost to them.  That's OK with me as long as the girl in the photos pays me for my time.  These are throw away images.  Three nicely lit and composed shots of a pretty girl that are lost in a sea of millions of such images online.  The truth is that on their own they have almost no value at all.  In all seriousness, how much do you think Maxim would pay as the fair market value for 3 low resolution images of yet another pretty girl?  I am a great believer in photographers knowing the value of their work so they don't get used and abused, but that includes knowing the difference between when you have produced a Faberge egg or a nicely cut and polished piece of quartz.

Art of the nude wrote:
I can think of ONE model I'd do it for just because.  Others, who I would normally expect to pay, I might do it as a "mine / yours" trade.  But she'd have to be pretty remarkable.

Exactly.

Lasting Blueprint wrote:
Im shooting one with a model this week. It doesn't bother me that I have to give away rights. More so in it for exposure and being able to say that I got in Maxim ya know?

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

Really cant put it any better than that...

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

I find it inconceivable.

But it is becoming increasingly true.

"contests" that are little more than "rights grabs" and photographers all too willing to GIVE AWAY their work to someone else to MAKE MONEY from.

Is your work, the product of your creative soul, really worth zero?  Are you really simply going to give it away as valueless?

Digitoxin wrote:
But it is becoming increasingly true.

"contests" that are little more than "rights grabs" and photographers all too willing to GIVE AWAY their work to someone else to MAKE MONEY from.

Is your work, the product of your creative soul, really worth zero?  Are you really simply going to give it away as valueless?

Its every other weekend when I'm shooting some professional sports event and I'm always amazed by the number of people there willing to just give away their work just to "be there" or maybe see their name in some newspaper/publication... sad.

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

A couple people above have talked about licensing the images to the model for (including the shoot) $200 or so.  If I'm getting $200 worth of value in other modeling, or if it's one specific model, who has been a great friend for three years, then yes, I would.  And I'd give whoever she was as a reference for my glamour work.

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

Perfectly stated.

MLR Photo Glamour wrote:
A couple people above have talked about licensing the images to the model for (including the shoot) $200 or so.  If I'm getting $200 worth of value in other modeling, or if it's one specific model, who has been a great friend for three years, then yes, I would.  And I'd give whoever she was as a reference for my glamour work.

Your license to the model would have to be at least as inclusive of her license to the publisher. I really don't think you have, or understand, the full picture here about the extent of the license that Maxim requires. 200 bucks, inclusive of the shoot, is flat out derisory. I'd be ashamed to even admit I did it [or would do it] for that.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

I can't speak for anyone else, but -
1 - No.  I expect to be paid by the person commissioning the photographs.
2 - See #1 
3 - See #1
4(a) - Would someone please tell me exactly what the licensing value is for three low resolution images of a random (hopefully) pretty girl?*
4(b) - See #1
5 - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that commercial clients often don't provide credit to photographers.  Also, what exactly would be the value of this credit?  It's not as if the images are going into the magazine.  Having images in the contest doesn't remotely count as a tearsheet.  Perhaps it would provide advertising to other potential entrants in my local area, but that is a double edged sword.  I'll post again later when I dig out a specific example of what I mean. 

And yes, the images aren't even going into the magazine, which actually reduces the potential value of the license that they want.

* This is not a rhetorical question.  Would someone please provide real world, hard numbers so we all are on the same page about the alleged commercial value of the images?

Aaron D Lewis wrote:
Maxim takes all ownership of the images once submitted. Read the rules and FAQ.

Takes? Takes? They can't legally "take" fuck all.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

I agree whole heartedly

Lasting Blueprint wrote:
Im shooting one with a model this week. It doesn't bother me that I have to give away rights.

I think you should really think about how it sounds to say "It doesn't bother me that I have to give away rights".........that's pretty sad in my opinion!

Robert Lynch wrote:
* This is not a rhetorical question.  Would someone please provide real world, hard numbers so we all are on the same page about the alleged commercial value of the images?

You seem to be thinking, referring to low res images, in terms of paper publications. Maxim is thinking in new media terms. For the web whatever you submit will have to be web practical, say 400 x 600 pixels minimum... and if it is web practical when submitted then they can make use of it anywhere, and for anything, that will appear on the web. You don't need multi-thousand pixels and gigabyte file sizes for that.

There are various systems for determining the commercial value of images for web use. Some images, even at 400 x 600 pixels, licensed for long term advertising use on the Internet will command many hundreds, even thousands, of dollars in licensing fees.

Maxim also wants to be able to license to 3rd parties. Do you suppose that they do that on the same terms as they want you to license to them? Not bloody likely!

You can bet the images have commercial value. And you can also bet that value, at least in Maxim's office, is not merely alleged.

I've never worked for them; I don't live in their knickers; I don't have insider information; but I can tell you this, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, they are making, or planning to, more money from your images than the "ZERO" you will be getting from them.

Studio36

Aperature6 Images wrote:

I think you should really think about how it sounds to say "It doesn't bother me that I have to give away rights".........that's pretty sad in my opinion!

That is the beauty of opinions. It is yours and I can respect what you have to say about. The same for y'all.

If the girl makes it, I will be happy. It's not like it's some random chick that hit me up asking me to do it.

studio36uk wrote:
So lets see if I have this right...

Some of you [but not all, of course] are willing to, and from the looks of it even eager to:
1) give your work away without payment;
2) but even without payment also to give it away without credit;
3) allow that publisher to commercialize it, indeed use it for commercial purposes, for their own profit, without you getting anything out of the deal at all;
4) allow that publisher to carry the licensed work as their own intellectual property asset adding to their net worth - because it's not the actual work itself that has that value the value is in the license you gave them; and
5) for that publisher to even put their own name on your work;

- AND - you are not even being published in their actual magazine?

What a truly sad bunch of f**kers you are!

Studio36

I see that attitude a lot here. People hiring models so that they can give usage rites and high res images to pay sites like michelle7 ... that is a great deal for everyone except the photographer: model gets a job (at least someone on MM benefits); the site gets to collect twenty bucks a month from a whole raft of wankers and for twenty bucks said wankers get access to thousands of eBay-resolution images for their own (illicit) profit.

Whatta deal, eh?

I've never been one to whine about TF* stealing paid work from photographers but those attitudes of paying to produce work for the profit of a comercial site certainly devalue everyone else's work.