Photographer
Davis Images
Posts: 93
Tampa, Florida, US
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this?
Photographer
Raquelly
Posts: 625
Newark, New Jersey, US
I wouldn't shoot with her.
That's absolutely ridiculous - those are GWC terms.
Photographer
Davis Images
Posts: 93
Tampa, Florida, US
Yeah, I passed too. Guess she doesn't to hire someone for her web photos.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Photographer
Gems of Nature in N Atl
Posts: 1334
North Atlanta, Georgia, US
NEXT!
You pay ME my fee, you got the images, all rights released. I've even had some "adult" models bring in their own Compact Flash Cards.. I'd shoot, they take the cards and bye bye.........but they paid my fee.
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6985
Fairbanks, Alaska, US
Davis Images wrote:
giving her all of the photos and pay her um ... those aren't models
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Davis Images wrote:
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this? Sounds like an escort service with cameras..
You should have asked how much the happy ending upgrade was.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
Sounds like an escort service with cameras..
You should have asked how much the happy ending upgrade was. Well in that case...lol.
Photographer
markEdwardPhoto
Posts: 1398
Trumbull, Connecticut, US
Yes there seems to be a plethora of 'Models' that are advertising/demanding of work.
I believe they are trying to play on the Male Hormone issue and get you to pay them for images so they can use it commercially.
Bat Eyelashes, Show so T&A, Get the photog to pay for it because he is a horny bastard, and use the images for your pay website. Ahhh Capitalism at its best.
M
Photographer
Gems of Nature in N Atl
Posts: 1334
North Atlanta, Georgia, US
Now, now boys, settle down... personally I LIKE a pocket full of crisp $20's - that's how they get paid...
As far as happy endings, isn't that when you hear them crank their car on the way out of the parking lot?
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
Davis Images wrote:
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this? It's one or the other- she doesn't get money and the release.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Yes there seems to be a plethora of 'Models' that are advertising/demanding of work.
I believe they are trying to play on the Male Hormone issue and get you to pay them for images so they can use it commercially.
Bat Eyelashes, Show so T&A, Get the photog to pay for it because he is a horny bastard, and use the images for your pay website. Ahhh Capitalism at its best.
M Yes, it seems she misunderstands the term "shoot."
Photographer
Split Images Studio
Posts: 456
Seattle, Washington, US
If I am paying her , she sure as hell does not get rights to the photos!!!!
Photographer
Davis Images
Posts: 93
Tampa, Florida, US
Yep, never gonna work with her. I can understand less of a fee for x amount of photos, but she's gonna sign my release. Now if she wants to hire me, that's different. But who knows how many times she does this and has tons of photos?
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
Davis Images wrote:
Yep, never gonna work with her. I can understand less of a fee for x amount of photos, but she's gonna sign my release. Now if she wants to hire me, that's different. But who knows how many times she does this and has tons of photos? Unfortunately, you're probably right. As with any case of supply and demand, she wouldn't demand it if there weren't photographers out there willing to supply it.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
Sounds like an escort service with cameras..
You should have asked how much the happy ending upgrade was. Did you know that if you filmed yourself while having sex with a prostitute, then it is pornography and NOT prostitution, which makes it perfectly legal in most states 
Please check your local laws....
Model
Samantha Grace
Posts: 3228
Los Angeles, California, US
I would never expect that.
If you want to own your photos, pay for them.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Ty Simone wrote:
Did you know that if you filmed yourself while having sex with a prostitute, then it is pornography and NOT prostitution, which makes it perfectly legal in most states
Please check your local laws.... Yes, Ty, check your local laws. Some of the best legal minds serving the adult industry will disagree with your basic claim, however. EXCEPT FOR CALIFORNIA, where the courts have ruled on the question specifically [hiring someone to perform sex acts for the camera] hiring someone IN ANY OTHER STATE and PAYING them to perform a sex act IS prostitution or a related offence. Even in California if there is no camera OR the charge is [production of] obscentity then it is still classed and considered as prostitution.
In sum.... in at least 49 states [California excepted] it has either been tested in law and found to be prostitution; OR, it remains untested in law on the specific question... but it is NOT factually, clearly, and unambiguously legal to film people paid to have sex on camera in ANY state except in California.
Commentary of Freeman vs other similar CA cases - the distinctions:
Ref:
People v. Freeman, 46 Cal.3d 419, 758 P.2d 1128, 250 Cal.Rptr. 598 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1017, 109 S.Ct. 1133, 103 L.Ed.2d 194 (1989)
The court there interpreted California's prostitution statute to require payment for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. The court found no evidence that the defendant paid the actors to perform for his sexual gratification, their own, or that of other persons present. To the contrary, the actors were paid for performing in a film. While the film might ultimately have induced sexual arousal or gratification in the hands of remote consumers, the performers were separated from such consumers by time and the distancing medium of film. Any question of illegal sexual arousal or gratification thus required a judgment concerning the nature of the film--a judgment indistinguishable from the question of obscenity.
Yet the Freeman court approved as "fundamentally distinguishable" an earlier case in which a prostitution-related conviction had been upheld without proof of obscenity where "members of the 'theater' audience [paid] for sexual conduct with the 'actors' hired by the theater owner for that purpose." describing People v. Maita, 157 Cal.App.3d 309, 203 Cal.Rptr. 685 (1984). In the stage show considered in Maita, the performer stripped and fondled herself before a paying audience, then let members of the audience suck her breasts and perform cunnilingus if they chose. Finally, a male volunteer was selected from the audience for fellatio on stage and, on at least one occasion, for intercourse offstage. The defendant owner-manager was convicted of pimping, pandering, keeping a house of ill fame, and keeping a house used for prostitution.
The California Court of Appeal acknowledged that "theatrical performances have, in recent years, been afforded broad First Amendment protection," and further acknowledged that the state's unquestioned authority to prosecute under the pimping and pandering laws presents an incidental restriction on appellant's First Amendment freedoms. However, that restriction is no greater than is essential to further the substantial government interest in controlling prostitution. After all, the pimping and pandering laws do not prohibit the presentation of live nude entertainment--they merely direct that the entertainer cannot have sexual relations with the audience. Studio36
Photographer
HungryEye
Posts: 2281
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I have had similar offers and some even more bizarre.
I have a simple and direct response.
"Ummm... no."
Recently quoted to a 5' 4" 145lb "model" who contacted me, saying she would shoot topless with me for $700.00 per hour.
Repeat after me:
"Ummm... no."
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Split Images Studio wrote:
If I am paying her , she sure as hell does not get rights to the photos!!!! Hell she may not even get ANY photos..Werd up!
Photographer
Cogito Ergo Zoom
Posts: 5105
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
HungryEye wrote:
I have had similar offers and some even more bizarre.
I have a simple and direct response.
"Ummm... no."
Recently quoted to a 5' 4" 145lb "model" who contacted me, saying she would shoot topless with me for $700.00 per hour.
Repeat after me:
"Ummm... no." Hell I'd shoot topless under those terms.
Photographer
Cogito Ergo Zoom
Posts: 5105
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Side note: Is there anything we sign to release the photos to models, or we just give them to them and they pay us?
Photographer
Royal Photography
Posts: 2011
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Davis Images wrote:
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this? You are the client paying her and she wants to set the terms?
LOL
Move on to a professional model in that case.
Photographer
Davis Images
Posts: 93
Tampa, Florida, US
Hey I didn't shoot her, I moved on. But there are models like this.
Photographer
Edge Images
Posts: 631
Thousand Oaks, California, US
Davis Images wrote:
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this? Next time you talk with her, tell her, "hahahahahaha"
Photographer
DigitalJack Photography
Posts: 134
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, US
Next time you talk with her, tell her, "hahahahahaha" curious, how did you deal with jeskur.... when you shot her?
Her site asks for lots per hour...?
Photographer
Lightwave Photography
Posts: 585
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
Was she an SWT -Stripper With Thug.
An SWT(not referring to nice, honest strippers) is a Stripper who pretends to be an aspiring model and brings a large knuckle dragging thug to steal/extort a GWCs or Pros money, photos and/or equipment.
This is one reason I always get the full name and phone number of any "escort" in advance from "models" wanting photos.
I always allow new models to bring people but I require their full real names and phones to deter the SWTs and other riff raff.
Photographer
Photos By Deej
Posts: 1508
Tumwater, Washington, US
Yup, been there done that! Had two models require me to sign a release. The first model who I met on here said that he would contact me if he sold any of the pics to give me part profit. After the shoot, he turned into a mad man and starting threatening me and basically never contacted me again even after I made several attempts to contact him.
The next model who I also met here had me sign a release which stated I couldn't sell the pics and some other restrictions I can't remember. He didn't come to the shoot with the things we agreed upon in advance so I cancelled the shoot yet he was paid in advance and I never got a partial refund which the release said I would get if the shoot was cancelled.
Photographer
photosbydmp
Posts: 3808
Shepparton-Mooroopna, Victoria, Australia
the only way to stamp out this behaviour is to boycott these people. i love to share images with models i work with, and do as all my models can attest to, but flash a release for a paid shoot under my nose the door will not even hit your ass on the way out.
Photographer
Timmor
Posts: 159
Redding, California, US
Davis Images wrote:
I contacted one model for a shoot and she said I'd have to sign her release giving her all of the photos and pay her. She's an adult model and as far as I can see, this is a gimmick for her to get free photos and pay. Anyone else experience this? If you're paying her you should retain the copyright. She probably has the attitude that her getting nakey for you should be such an incredibly fantastic and rewarding experience for a peon like you that losing ownership of the photos and paying for the privelige is a great deal for you... turn and run.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
DigitalJack Photography wrote:
curious, how did you deal with jeskur.... when you shot her?
Her site asks for lots per hour...? Yeah, she charges, but she doesn't also expect to own the pictures later
Photographer
DigitalJack Photography
Posts: 134
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Yeah, she charges, but she doesn't also expect to own the pictures later Just wondering, not that I have that kinda money to spend buying a model, Thanks.
|
