MichaelBell wrote:
What prevents him from selling the pics to this magazine without her even knowing about it? I dont get involved with things like this, so I dont know the answer.

The simple answer is a model release.  If the pay is conditional so too should be signing a model release.  Depending on the type of magazine, a copy of the signed model release will be required before any submission is accepted.  Many times they will have a specific release the model must sign in addition to a photographer's general release.

If the model has doubts about a particular photographer, one might wonder why she is choosing to work with them, especially for no fee.  If a photographer lacks faith in the submission, they should (in a perfect industry) be open to a conditional release or a deferred signing of the release contingient on accepted submission. 

I have shot many times on a speculative basis.  In a sense, all work for sophistocate and adult magazines is a speculative submission.  There are few assignments in that industry.  Photographers with lengthy track-records of successful submissions understand the risks and rewards of working this way and pay in advance for models they feel are strong candidates.  Others pay a percentage up front and some defer payment.  Depending on the situation, I have done all three. 

If a model is not in my local area.  I will give her the magazine's release at the time of the shoot and tell her not to sign it or send it to me unless a submission is accepted.  That of course assumes that the model is motivated to be in print.  Many seem to be.

Mary wrote:
small magazines pay very little for photos, usually zero and from an unknown photographer shooting a non-agency type model....ZERO for sure....If one of the shots turns out great he could try to sell it for ad usage of some kind (assuming it's better then all the stock photos out there to choose from) but then he would have to have a model release or the client won't buy the shot.

Usually when photographers are shooting for submission the model and team never see the shot in a magazine.

Mary, this varies all over the place.  No one gets rich or even pays the rent shooting and submitting to the minor magazines, but they do pay up to something like $500 for a short photo feature and a single image sold from stock can bring up to $1600.  One of the majors, (NotOnly)Black+White, paid only $240 for an editorial feature, so for that kind of work no one's gonna get rich either, unless it's shot as an assignment - a whole different story. 

I haven't submitted anything to girlie magazines, so I don't know the protocols or rates for those.

I agree that most stuff shot spec never sees the light of day.

But most new models and photographers would be tickled to just see the pictures in print.

There was another comment questioning whether the photographer or model should submit images to girlie mags.  Seems to me it's the photographer that owns the images, so he should submit them.  If she submitted, then he'd have to license the images to the magazine anyway - one additional step.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

Mary, this varies all over the place.  No one gets rich or even pays the rent shooting and submitting to the minor magazines, but they do pay up to something like $500 for a short photo feature and a single image sold from stock can bring up to $1600.  One of the majors, (NotOnly)Black+White, paid only $240 for an editorial feature, so for that kind of work no one's gonna get rich either, unless it's shot as an assignment - a whole different story. 

I haven't submitted anything to girlie magazines, so I don't know the protocols or rates for those.

I agree that most stuff shot spec never sees the light of day.

But most new models and photographers would be tickled to just see the pictures in print.

There was another comment questioning whether the photographer or model should submit images to girlie mags.  Seems to me it's the photographer that owns the images, so he should submit them.  If she submitted, then he'd have to license the images to the magazine anyway - one additional step.

-Don

Yes he has to submit them, he does own the images...but reputable magazines won't use images without a proper model release.

Mary wrote:
Yes he has to submit them, he does own the images...but reputable magazines won't use images without a proper model release.

True.  I've had some ask if I had them on file, and others require that I fax them.  Foreign magazines often don't ask.

-Don

MichaelBell wrote:
Ok, thanks guys. So she should definitley get the name of the mag, address, phone and locations where it is sold? Then have a model release from this magazine, not just from the photog? I think I got my answer, thanks!

No you really didn't get your answer... I might tell you where they were submitted such as to the "XYZ Publishing Company" but often... very often in fact... print publishers have multiple titles they are dealing with, even in more than one country, and are often doing pre-publication design layups anywhere up to 6 months in advance, so pinpointing a particular publication by name where any given image "MIGHT" appear, or when it might appear, is often completely out of the question.

As for giving you the name, address and phone numbers of the publisher? A photographer only makes that mistake twice - the first time and the last time. The fastest way for a photographer to get his - YOUR -  images rejected, and maybe even anything else he ever submits again, is for a model to be calling the photo editor. The model has absolutely no business relationship with the publisher [zero; zip; nada], only the photographer does, and the publisher / photo editor just doesn't want to hear from you.

Lastly, a model release from the publisher? There is NO SUCH THING! The release flows from model to the photographer; then from the photographer along with a licensse to the publisher. There is no release the other way around. The only paperwork that flows from publisher to photographer is the pay check.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Lastly, a model release from the publisher? There is NO SUCH THING! The release flows from model to the photographer; then from the photographer along with a licensse to the publisher. There is no release the other way around. The only paperwork that flows from publisher to photographer is the pay check.

Studio36

Again with the emphatics.  Try posting about something you actually know about.  Several publishers have specific model releases they require above or instead of a photographer's model release.  I have three different publishers' model releases here on file.  Furthermore, there are several other types of paperwork that are possibly exchanged between publisher and photographer.  Again, several on file here. The fact that you do not know this leads one to believe that you have no experience in the publishing industry.  Whether you do or don't, stop posting inaccurate, absolutist statements.  It gets in the way of the useful exchange of information from knowledgable participants.  Just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or is even a norm.

Dan Howell wrote:
Again with the emphatics.  Try posting about something you actually know about.  Several publishers have specific model releases they require above or instead of a photographer's model release.  I have three different publishers' model releases here on file.  Furthermore, there are several other types of paperwork that are possibly exchanged between publisher and photographer.  Again, several on file here. The fact that you do not know this leads one to believe that you have no experience in the publishing industry.  Whether you do or don't, stop posting inaccurate, absolutist statements.  It gets in the way of the useful exchange of information from knowledgable participants.  Just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or is even a norm.

Well I've only been in the business one way or another for something like... well... since 1961. You figure it out.

The releases I use are at least as good as the publishers' that I have worked for... including as a photographer, a correspondent and photo-journalist... and as an editor. Given that, they will take mine as is. I have NEVER had to go around and chase up a model to sign a second release specifically on some publisher's form. NEVER ONCE!

Anything else I do paperwork-wise, or business-wise, between myself and the publishers is none of the model's business. That's what I said and that's what I meant. FULL STOP! END OF STORY!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Well I've only been in the business one way or another for something like... well... since 1961. You figure it out.

The releases I use are at least as good as the publishers' that I have worked for... including as a photographer, a correspondent and photo-journalist... and as an editor. Given that, they will take mine as is. I have NEVER had to go around and chase up a model to sign a second release specifically on some publisher's form. NEVER ONCE!

Anything else I do paperwork-wise, or business-wise, between myself and the publishers is none of the model's business. That's what I said and that's what I meant. FULL STOP! END OF STORY!
Studio36

I guess you have not had to deal with structured usage or conditional releases.  This applies to both photographers and models. I don't think anyone here cares what you haven't had to do in your apparently limited experience.  I'm sure there are a lot of facets of the professional magazine publishing/photography industry you haven't experienced despite your numerous years attempting.  Some here have stated specific experiences and information that were helpful to the question at hand.  You, however, chose to spout unapt and inaccuate information.  Now you are trying to fight for your discredited stand.  While usually I admire consistancy, in this case it sounds more like static. 

If the original poster has specific questions remaining, please contact me directly.