Fall River Photo wrote:
I have had two models in the past who wrote additions to the model release (making it, essentially, a modeling agreement) which I initialed and gave a signed copy to each model as well. But with the post-shoot request to veto potential publication sites, I'm in new territory...

The WORST thing you could do is alter a model release into being another type of contract or 'modeling agreement'. 
The model release should ONLY be a model release, and for your needs you're looking to have the model sign a "Limited Model Release" which spells out any condition where, when, and how the image may be displayed, published, or used.

The ONLY signature necessary on a model release is the Models.  If it's NECESSARY to have someone else's signature (other than a parent or guardian if the model is a minor) it's NOT a Model Release.

A Copyright License is what the copyright holder (typically the photographer) submits to the model and/or other party(s) that are using the images, and just like a model release those can be limited to where, when, and how the image may be used.

While it's always convenient to have a release/license around it's not required and can be an "on demand" item, meaning that neither document has to be created until there's a use for them.  This is probably the best scenario for the OP's dilemma. Instead of displaying a list of where, how, and when images can be used (and be in danger of leaving something out) the parties may opt not to have any release or license until it's needed.   This is especially important when you're trying to get exclusive deals (mentioned towards the end of my response).

That scenario works best for the case that the OP mentioned.  If a model doesn't want nudies from a session going to anyone that wants them but would be happy if they were published in a particular magazine.

MANY photographers combine model releases with copyright licenses. There are THOUSANDS of reasons why doing so is a TERRIBLE thing to do, while there's probably only one reason that it's a good idea (it saves paper).  Keep 'em separate!

A less talked about agreement may also come into play and usually done with publications.  The client may require an exclusivity agreement limiting the rights to who/where/when the copyright holder licenses the image.  This is typically done when a client such as a magazine is doing an important story and doesn't want competitors using the images.

MoRina wrote:
"... but the only thing she can do is not shoot images that she will later regret. That is the extent of control she has."

This is a key piece of good advice to models who want to control the type of image(s) they don't want to see released.

I accept that in some situations it may not be easy for a model to say "no I won't do that". Especially when they're being encouraged/pressed by their peers and/or others around them to step outside their personal comfort zone.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
I would advise the model to choose another line of work besides being a paid model.

Changing a contract after the fact isn't reasonable and there is no obligation for you to give this model any more of your time.

There is no mention of payment. 

The OP did however mention respect, respect would oblige the Model,  or He can kiss any chance of working with them (and any referrals) in the future away.

Choose wisely. 

Camera Buff wrote:
This is a key piece of good advice to models who want to control the type of image(s) they don't want to see released.

I accept that in some situations it may not be easy for a model to say "no I won't do that". Especially when they're being encouraged/pressed by their peers and/or others around them to step outside their personal comfort zone.

From what I read the issue is not about the type of images that were shot,  the Models concerns are over where the images will be published.

Fall River Photo wrote:
But then she asked WHERE the images might be published.

Fall River Photo wrote:
—snip—

But then she asked WHERE the images might be published. The sites on which my work appears include DeviantArt, Diverxity, and BentBox where there are explicit and, by some definitions, pornographic images and videos available from other photographers and models. Her concern is that anyplace that pornography could be posted is therefore a pornographic website and she doesn't want her images to appear there. (Of course, some of what appears on Model Mayhem, again by some definitions, is pornographic. And I should mention that we met through her profile/portfolio on Model Mayhem.)

—snip—

Do not cede the high ground. If US Code 2257 had any usefulness, it was to define pornography in US Code 2256. ModelMayhem does not allow pornography. Report images that are porn, but read up on what is/isn’t porn.

When confronted with this same request, I informed the model I have no control what a website publishes beyond our images. I cannot search every image on a website to know if a pornographic image was published there before I might post. I certainly cannot be certain someone might post something pornographic after I have posted. The best I can do is to promise I will not post anything pornographic with her images. I do not take those images.

Some models ask for approval prior to publishing, aaah, No.  I have no assurance they with ever respond to a simple request. Nor do I want the burden of keeping those images in quarantine forever.  The best I can offer is to delete images the model is uncomfortable with ever showing on the internet after she views the proofs. If she tries to flag half the shoot, I will gently remind her that she willingly posed for those images and received compensation.

Now, I have agreed a few times to remove nude images of the model when their life circumstances changed. These requests might come years after the shoot. I can take down the images from my portfolios, but I leave it to the model to find any copies stolen and posted. I will assist with a C&D order, but I will not make it my life mission to verify those images were taken down, nor pop up again.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
There is no mention of payment.

The OP does mention compensation, he says "My standard model release notes that for compensation the model allows …”

Compensation is a payment typically in money or its equivalent or of things of value by one party to another in exchange for services provided by them, or to fulfill a legal obligation.

Where the OP says “... and photographer (who invested two hours of travel, two hours of shooting, and more hours of editing …" I did think it unusual not to include any reference to compensation/payment.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
From what I read the issue is not about the type of images that were shot, the Models concerns are over where the images will be published.

That may well be the overall issue, but my response was in part to Fall River Photography’s comments.

"Prior to the shoot, we corresponded in great detail regarding the boundaries of anything provocative, no matter how clothed she might be. I granted that she could review the images and she found four that she thought looked as though they might be "implied nudity" due to where her hair and hands were.”

Apparently after discussing boundaries beforehand, this model posed for images that she later thought were outside her comfort zone and requested that these particular images not be published.

She then asks where the (other) images might be published.

I was simply supporting MoRina's advice to models that the most control they may have over images (they may later regret) is before they're taken.

I am not suggesting this OP photographer has acted improperly. At times, I've worked with models who, without any encouragement, have wanted to push the limits of their personal comfort zone and do a few ’sexier’ shots ... but not for publication purposes.

ROUA IMAGES wrote:
Do you intend to profit off these images you took of the model; or, to use them only as a showcase of your work?

Series of, and individual images are made available for sale on several sites. I have other examples of the work for which I am paid by clients for their own images.

Did that answer your question?

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
How much value do You place on Your working relationship with the Model?

Thank you for asking, because before, during, and after a shoot, that is my primary concern. Perhaps it's a function of my anxiety disorder, but it's also due to the vulnerability I experienced as a model and actor and the resulting empathy for the risks inherent in the industry. But whenever I shoot with a model, one of my main goals is for them to walk away looking forward to the next opportunity we have to creatively collaborate together.

Camera Buff wrote:
I accept that in some situations it may not be easy for a model to say "no I won't do that". Especially when they're being encouraged/pressed by their peers and/or others around them to step outside their personal comfort zone.

Very true. Especially when the model is being "encouraged" by the escort she brought along to exceed the boundaries she had previously discussed with the photographer!

MoRina wrote:
One of the most difficult things to learn as a model is that you don't have any ownership of images of yourself when they are shot by someone else.  Even in a tfp arrangement, there is no shared ownership (although many models think there is.)

This country has only become more puritan over the decade-plus I have been shooting.  I can sympathize with a model not wanting her images associated with adult material, but the only thing she can do is not shoot images that she will later regret. That is the extent of control she has.

As a possible solution to your issue, though... I knew a photographer that put in his agreement a buy-back option.  Say for instance the photographer pays the model $200 to shoot images or video that he intends to profit from.  He has invested his time and money into the shoot. He allows models to buy back their images for a pre-arranged amount that is stated in the contract if they later regret shooting those images and want him to take them down.  His agreement also states that he can't control images that were already sold and downloaded, and that he only agrees to stop selling/displaying them himself.  His take-down fee was something like $1000. In signing this agreement and explaining it upfront, anyone who later asks for the images not to be published knows what it would take to do so.

Excellent recommendation about the "take-down fee." I think including it in the model release would at least give pause and suggest that the model consider the very real lesson you mentioned: you're giving up rights to control the images you've creatively collaborated in making...for compensation. If you want to try to get some of that control back, it's expensive...and probably impossible.

Mark Salo wrote:
to Fall River Photo:
You have misquoted above. Camera Buff made the post that you have attributed to MoRina.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's repaired now.

Fall River Photo wrote:

Series of, and individual images are made available for sale on several sites. I have other examples of the work for which I am paid by clients for their own images.

Did that answer your question?

It does.  I ask that because it appears that with the amount of discussion mentioned with the model beforehand regarding concerns about what would be considered "implied nudity," there may have been some miscommunication regarding the intentions behind the shoot. At least in the sense of her interpretation of what the images were being used for vs. what the blanket release actually states.  I.e., the terms of the actual agreement beforehand.
Was she under the impression that these were a portfolio build for her and yourself or was she aware that they'd be part of a set for sale afterward?

Fall River Photo wrote:
Prior to the shoot, we corresponded in great detail regarding the boundaries of anything provocative, no matter how clothed she might be. I granted that she could review the images and she found four that she thought looked as though they might be "implied nudity" due to where her hair and hands were. I omitted those from the working folder; they will not be published.

That seems a significant amount of correspondence covering issues of what she did and did not want to convey during the shoot to indicate her concern in wanting to maintain an overall model identity and image that is specifically not that of a model who shoots nudes, adult, etc.

If her concern was not in even having a series of "implied" in the set at all, it can be understood where she might not want to be associated on a site where the bulk, if not all, of the images shown there are those of models who've willingly and knowingly signed over the rights for permissive exploitation also.  But that could have been communicated more clearly ahead of time.

However, If it had been and the model signed everything and agreed to the shoot knowing all of this ahead of time then there's no reason to want to have a say in where the images will be used or published afterward.