|
Forums >
General Industry >
Paying a model and expected usage rights...
I'm doing a paid shoot with a model this weekend (I'm paying her for a 3 hour shoot) mainly because I'm interested in having her in my portfolio. I don't do many paid shoots, and every one that I have done, I've gotten a full model release for. This particular model asked for a copy of my release, which I sent her today, and she came back with wanting an addition stating that I could only use the images for my portfolio, that she would get edited copies of the choicest images from the shoot for use in her own portfolio...plus she wants to get paid. My question is...is this becoming a trend? TFCD terms in addition to getting paid? Her rates aren't cheap. I've no problem with investing in myself and my portfolio, but it seems to be that she wants to have her cake and eat it too. Am I just out of touch? If I pay a model, I expect those images to be mine. I know that anyone can ask for anything, but I'd like to hear opinions. Jan 12 07 12:43 am Link That's outrageous. Never heard of such arrangement before. edit: but again, if she is really someone you'd want to shoot and these are her conditions then the decision is up to you.  Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: Jan 12 07 12:48 am Link They're certainly terms I wouldn't agree to. Jan 12 07 12:48 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: You may be out of touch... depends on how much you are paying. Jan 12 07 12:49 am Link I would introduce her to a concept that is apparently new to her ..... "NO!" Jan 12 07 12:50 am Link J Merrill Images wrote: What if the OP is only paying $20 for a three hour shoot? Jan 12 07 12:52 am Link I've heard of some models making these demands, though I've never run across it. Models could also demand dinner, magazine subscriptions, and even gold-plated lady bug paper weights. You're free to make a counteroffer or decline. Jan 12 07 12:52 am Link I would tell her if she is paid you expect a model release...if she does not pay you will shoot her and give her some images. It is a two-way street. Often, I will work with modeling agencies knowing that I will not get a release from the guys/girls I shoot from the agencies(never would I pay the models in this case). But it is fine since I often get better pics from them since they are more experienced than people I cast thru craigslist or casting sites. I am very clear when I cast for stock pics always saying in bold "models are required to sign a model release" and then I get the release signed before the shoot. I don't want to bother with someone who is uncomfortable signing. Usually you can get someone in the end you like who will sign. If the model is so great that you know you will get good images than it is worth the time and energy without a release. Also, one other thing I do is say I shoot for a magazine and there is no possible way to resell the image because the talent in front of the camera is from an agency, I will often spend the time and money to recreate that image as a stock image hiring all the talent necessary to get the pics. You could think of the shoot with the non-signing model like that and perfect you idea and then just recreate it with talent that will sign. Jan 12 07 12:52 am Link She is way out of line. If she wants the images, offer her a trade shoot. Do not agree to those terms, there is no benefit for you to pay her. Jan 12 07 12:55 am Link NewBoldPhoto wrote: The OP said "Her rates aren't cheap." Jan 12 07 12:55 am Link Is she worth it? Can you get another model? Do you want another model? Jan 12 07 12:56 am Link J Merrill Images wrote: What does the OP think cheap is? Jan 12 07 12:57 am Link I have heard of these practices in shootouts many times... There are some photogrpahers who just shoot for their portfolios...  Jan 12 07 12:58 am Link RED Photographic wrote: Yup!!! Jan 12 07 12:58 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: What are her rates? If she is charging the same rates that commercial models charge for your basic usage in one magazine for a year, tell her that her rates are out of line for the usage restrictions she wants to impose on you. Jan 12 07 12:59 am Link Holy hell, look at the demands we've seen lately. Models bringing memory cards to shoots and keeping photos, insisting their escort's travel be paid, saying the photog can't use photos he paid her for. I'm tempted to go back to MySpace. They may not be working models there, but they understand trade shoots. Jan 12 07 01:03 am Link It depends on the rate you are paying. It is not uncommon to use images to lower the cost of the shoot to the photographer and a reduced rate for a limited release is not out of line either . If she wants photos plus top $$ plus a limited release she is asking for the world and the question is "Is she worth it?" and how good a negotiator is she. She may jsut be trying to get everything she can, can you blaim her. No's often bring counter offers Jan 12 07 01:03 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: I think that fact that she wants edited images are no big deal as long as you have final say on the images and she give you credit(may even lead to more work), but the fact that you can only use the images for your portfolio is total bullshit, if you are paying her price for a shoot you should have total control over the images and if possible make money off of them. Jan 12 07 01:05 am Link Jason McKendricks wrote: Not any worse than some of the photographers I have come across... Jan 12 07 01:10 am Link Thanks for all the responses. You're all basically telling me what I expected to hear, which is good. For those that were interested in her rates, she quoted from $75-$125 depending on types of images, up to implied. I wasn't originally planning on shooting implied with her, as I feel that it's not worth the $125 rate (again, I don't have a problem with investing in myself, and for the right model, for the right look, I'd pay $125...but I'm not sold on the idea with this model). I realize that any model can ask for any rate, and if someone will pay them, more power to you. It's not so much the rates that bother me, though. It's the restriction on usage rights and expectation of images in addition. I don't think I've ever done a shoot where I didn't offer at least a few images of the model's choice...mostly because I've been VERY lucky with the models I've shot with. So far, knock on wood, every one has had a great attitude, contributed to the shoot, and just in general been a lot of fun...but I'd rather give them as more of a thank you for a good shoot, not have them expected as part of her payment for the shoot. Jan 12 07 01:20 am Link If she'll be using your pictures it is only better for you, more exposure for you, form her portfolio. Why does it bug you so much that she'll use the images. If I were paying a photographer I'd be all for him using my pics in his port. Jan 12 07 01:23 am Link For me if you are paying the model her standard work for hire rate, the photographer gets a full release and the model has no rights to the images. Normally in this situation most photographers will not even offer any prints or images for use by the model. A lot of photographers would in fact charge the model for prints or a usage fee if she wanted to use the images for her own promotion. Think of it this way, you are the client in this case as you are paying for the model, the studio, the wardrobe and the props. Unless she is giving you a discounted rate, why would you give her any rights to the images or restrict your own rights to possibly recover your investment. The reason her hourly rates are high are to compensate her for the usage of her likeness. In this case she has the right to ask, but you have the right to refuse the terms. Most photographers paying for a shoot have some expectation of getting the money back through selling the images either to a magazine, a stock service or through art prints. I don't think you want to restrict your ability to do that. I am guessing that she is trying to test you. If the rates are near the commercial rates, I am guessing that she will accept your terms if you push back. Maybe she is unique and getting lots of booking under these terms, but I would doubt it. When it comes to paying modelling and photography is at the end of the day a business after all. If she wants to give up the fee and has more booking than she knows what to do with, all the power to her. Jan 12 07 01:24 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: Kevin, Jan 12 07 01:25 am Link Iona, you make a fair point, but isn't that the flip side of my point? A trade shoot is ideally where both photographer and model benefit and I do believe the benefit should be equal to both. Jan 12 07 01:28 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: Just move on.............................. Jan 12 07 01:29 am Link Jason McKendricks wrote: Oodles of agreement Jan 12 07 01:31 am Link Christopher Ambler wrote: gold-plated lady bug paper weights Jan 12 07 01:39 am Link Julia wrote: It doesn't bug me at all, actually...I think a model using your images in her portfolio is a rather nice pat on the back. It means she thought enough of my work to want to use it to promote herself. My point is that she is getting benefit from using them. She also wants to be paid. She also doesn't want me to be able to sell those photos or make money from them in any way beyond what they might contribute to getting me more work by being in my portfolio. It's the combination of the three terms that I have issue with. Jan 12 07 01:39 am Link tell her you have no problem with her "terms" and she is more than welcome to ... purchase copyrighted and watermarked images she can use for her portfolio and nothing else. she is also welcome to place a link on her "paid porn site"(just a guess here) to your images of her on a fee per hit basis. and btw ... "you are not cheap either" rich Jan 12 07 01:47 am Link richard boswell wrote: Actually, she doesn't shoot nudes...just up to implied. She isn't, as far as I can tell, looking to use the images for anything but her portfolio...she just doesn't want me using them for anything else, either. Jan 12 07 01:50 am Link No way!she is being paid and you get to use them as you wish.Period.Hire someone else Jan 12 07 01:53 am Link Iona Lynn wrote: Amen! Jan 12 07 01:58 am Link paying models for your library of content is fine. restricting usage of images is fine. shared usage is fine. ... paying a model for the privilege of providing them with images is a poor business model imo. you do what you want. rich. Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: Jan 12 07 02:03 am Link models dont eat cake.... you pay, the pics are yours.... I might ask for a few great pics to add to my port IF thats ok with you,the photographer, cause i think the more people showing the image the more attention it gets....good for business, on both parts.... well, good luck.... -Phoenix Jan 12 07 02:10 am Link If you're paying her, you are the client. She has no right to demand anything from you. Her job is to show up and shoot the shots, as you need them for your port. Period. If you wish to sell her the rights to the images, then discuss that with her, but no one has the rights to images you paid for and it speaks of how little she understands the business or this business. Tim Jan 12 07 02:13 am Link Kevin Langevin Photo wrote: God, now she's dictating use? My advice: get a different model, and fast. Tim Jan 12 07 02:15 am Link Iona Lynn wrote: Assuming you are saying "portfolios" tongue in cheek I would add "And wallets, and lockers and...." lol Jan 12 07 02:15 am Link Pamela Hunter wrote: Models who don't read the model release and realize there's no specified amount or size of images that will be delivered get what they agree to. READ the release. That's what it's for. It should say how many edited images you should expect to receive and size and resolution (72dpi for web, 300 dpi for printing, or both). Discuss this in advance, read the release when you arrive and before you ever shoot. Period. Don't blame the photographer (although that is a bit extrme on his/her part in your example) for giving you what you agreed to. Jan 12 07 02:18 am Link Tim Baker wrote: This was my take on the situation, too. Thanks... Jan 12 07 02:18 am Link ruh roo ... watch out for tex, he may be lurking here abouts. Tim Baker wrote: Jan 12 07 02:28 am Link |
