Thomas B wrote:
I could not agree more. I have a special TFCD release that I use that states what the model gets and when ( I give a cd the same day of the shoot but you could put any timeframe) It also says all the usualt stuff about both parties using the images for portfolio/self promotion. But it also says that neither party can sell the images without the written consent of the other. I use this when money os not involved.

It has been said before and obviously worth saying again.  A Model Release is a photographer document signed by a model that allows the use of the model likeness.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Thomas, while your intent is noble to do the right thing whether TFP or otherwise, that is not a release written in proper form.  A failure to comply would render the release void, thus, it is best to keep image delivery obligations under separate cover.

A suggestion for Models would be for them to draft a deliverable document for photographer signature that would invoke the conditions of a Release upon receiving images, or agreement to a separate delivery document provided by the photographer upon signature of shoot agreement.

However, for TFP it is not in the best interest of the model to sign a release unless the imaging purpose is stated that allows release of the likeness.  If the imaging created is truly just for personal promotion then no need for a release is required.  If the imaging is for commercial use, the usage should be specific and provided and it should be explained in detail that the form of payment for that is just images which is well below fair market value.

Thomas B wrote:
Of course there are going to be the photographers who are used to doing it there way and not signing anything but if I were a model....I would not work with them if they could not promise a date that they would get images by.

If a model wants a deadline date for image delivery, all she has to do is one thing.

Pay me.

If I'm not getting paid, it gets done when it gets done. Of course I'll do it as fast as is reasonably achievable: I want the images too. But it takes a back seat to everything else. On the other hand, if I make a promise and take money for it, I *will* meet the terms of my obligation. Period. If I can't, I'll give the money back and I'll *still* do the best I can.

M

area291 wrote:

It has been said before and obviously worth saying again.  A Model Release is a photographer document signed by a model that allows the use of the model likeness.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Thomas, while your intent is noble to do the right thing whether TFP or otherwise, that is not a release written in proper form.  A failure to comply would render the release void, thus, it is best to keep image delivery obligations under separate cover.

A suggestion for Models would be for them to draft a deliverable document for photographer signature that would invoke the conditions of a Release upon receiving images, or agreement to a separate delivery document provided by the photographer upon signature of shoot agreement.

However, for TFP it is not in the best interest of the model to sign a release unless the imaging purpose is stated that allows release of the likeness.  If the imaging created is truly just for personal promotion then no need for a release is required.  If the imaging is for commercial use, the usage should be specific and provided and it should be explained in detail that the form of payment for that is just images which is well below fair market value.

Just to clarify some terminology for models and others who may not be familiar with the term. "deliverable" or "deliverables", which are the end deliverable result of some project, whether the project is photographic or software development or whatever.
So deliverables would be the physical image media.

As has already been stated, just don't shoehorn deliverables into the model release.

John

area291 wrote:

It has been said before and obviously worth saying again.  A Model Release is a photographer document signed by a model that allows the use of the model likeness.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Thomas, while your intent is noble to do the right thing whether TFP or otherwise, that is not a release written in proper form.  A failure to comply would render the release void, thus, it is best to keep image delivery obligations under separate cover.

No, the release would not be "void", it would be actionable in court. The model could (conceivably) sue for breech of contract, because a model release with all that extra crap thrown in is now a contract.

It is best to keep the release and "promises" seperate, but I do see the convienience of merging the two documents, at least for TFP/CD.

But as any photographer knows, don't sign anything a model gives you


Now, why shoudn't the photographer be allowed to sell images generated from this? The photographer has paid for his equipment, time and experience and has a right to be reimbursed. What is the model getting? Well, she should be getting images that she can use to "sell" herself, that will provide her with possible future income. Her contribution to the images (except for clothes, that she has anyway, makeup, etc...) cost her nothing. So, who comes away from a pure TFCD ahead? The model, of course. If the photographer can sell the images, that's just recouping his investment. Now, I also believe that the model should participate in any sales, but the model has the responsibility of letting the photographer know of her whereabouts. I used to have in an agreement that if I tried to contact a model 2 times and the mail came back (a royalty check), then she forfiets that and future earnings. I am not the CIA and can't spend ANY time tracking down people. They all thought that was fair.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Um, no.

(Wondering why the hell we're getting so damn solicitous to models, to a really unreasonable degree. You're selling what's left of our business down the river, people.)

I didn't know our business was TFP.  I thought our business was getting people to hire us and pay us money to take pictures.

As for the rest of this thread, "no comment."

Vito wrote:
Now, why shoudn't the photographer be allowed to sell images generated from this? The photographer has paid for his equipment, time and experience and has a right to be reimbursed.

I never said the photog shouldnt be allowed to sell them, I said "without the model's consent". I dont think you will find too many models who will agree to let you sell photos of them from a TFP/TFCD shoot unless they are getting some compensation out of it too. But in that case, its not really a TFP/TFCD shoot is it?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I didn't know our business was TFP.  I thought our business was getting people to hire us and pay us money to take pictures.

As for the rest of this thread, "no comment."

Testing is a part of the business. It certainly ain't THE business, and I can't believe you'd put those words in my mouth.

MichaelBell wrote:

I never said the photog shouldnt be allowed to sell them, I said "without the model's consent". I dont think you will find too many models who will agree to let you sell photos of them from a TFP/TFCD shoot unless they are getting some compensation out of it too. But in that case, its not really a TFP/TFCD shoot is it?

All of the models I've ever shot agree to me having full release on the images shot.  I don't see that changing any time soon...I don't want to have to track down 10 or 20 models just because I want to submit a set of images for stock...

raveneyes wrote:
All of the models I've ever shot agree to me having full release on the images shot.  I don't see that changing any time soon...I don't want to have to track down 10 or 20 models just because I want to submit a set of images for stock...

Indeed. Besides, and call me arrogant, but especially in the case of a new face model, they're getting value just from the test. I have absolutely no need to test (aside from the love of doing so) with a new face model. There has to be some potential benefit.

Vito wrote:
No, the release would not be "void", it would be actionable in court.

I stand corrected...it should have been written with the wording, "could."

Vito wrote:
Now, why shoudn't the photographer be allowed to sell images generated from this?

I didn't write they shouldn't be allowed, but an undefined release should be fully covered with the model.  Equipment expense has nothing to do with it as that does not come in to play for the agreement.  The agreement is based on the final product, not what is used to achieve creating it. 

What is important is that if the images are good enough to sell then the model is strong enough to be paid prevailing rates beyond just pictures...unless the model is made fully aware of the compensation of just pictures and agrees to the terms. 

Regardless, the use of model likeness or the potential of should be disclosed and the model has every right to demand knowing that.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Testing is a part of the business. It certainly ain't THE business, and I can't believe you'd put those words in my mouth.

This whole Internet 'TFP' thing has so bastardised 'testing', which was (and is), such an elegantly simple and beautiful concept.

John

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Testing is a part of the business. It certainly ain't THE business, and I can't believe you'd put those words in my mouth.

Mark, testing and TFP, although used interchangeably on the forums are not the same thing.  This is a thread about TFP, not testing, so let's put my comments and your comments in the context of the thread.

If I put any words in your mouth, I apologize, but I thought that all I did was click the quote button.  In any event, it wasn't an attack on you.

In the mainstream, testing does not generally involve a release at all.   In fact, in the mainstream, testing isn't even that common.

TFP is a relationship where a model trades her time in exchange for a photographer providing her images.  My comment, although not intended to be derrogatory is that TFP should not be thought of as part of the business.  It also should not be thought of as something bad.

MichaelBell wrote:

I never said the photog shouldnt be allowed to sell them, I said "without the model's consent". I dont think you will find too many models who will agree to let you sell photos of them from a TFP/TFCD shoot unless they are getting some compensation out of it too. But in that case, its not really a TFP/TFCD shoot is it?

The images that the model gets have value, and this is a payment. If the model had to pay for the shoot it would cost her some $$$$.

Thomas B wrote:
I could not agree more. I have a special TFCD release that I use that states what the model gets and when ( I give a cd the same day of the shoot but you could put any timeframe) It also says all the usualt stuff about both parties using the images for portfolio/self promotion. But it also says that neither party can sell the images without the written consent of the other. I use this when money os not involved.

I fully agree.  I have a form, but I'm not to happy with it.  Would you mind possibly e-mailing me the TFCD release you have??

MichaelBell wrote:

I never said the photog shouldnt be allowed to sell them, I said "without the model's consent". I dont think you will find too many models who will agree to let you sell photos of them from a TFP/TFCD shoot unless they are getting some compensation out of it too. But in that case, its not really a TFP/TFCD shoot is it?

If the photographer wants to sell an image, he should pay the model and not do TFP/CD.  That's taking unfair advantage of the model.

TPF/CD should be limited to BOTH the model and the photographer using the resultant images for their self promotion portfolios.

As far as delivery of images from a TFP/CD, I agree that paid work takes priority.  But it is unprofessional to accept a TFP/CD shoot and when you can't deliver in a reasonable time period (I will deliver within 1 week, otherwise I won't take the job or I will make it clear what the deliver timeframe will be to the client or model).

BBC contributor's agreement - NO FEE for the contribution

PACT MODEL CONTRACTS 1999 Edition - Contributor's consent letter (no fee)

1) You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and hereby grant to us all consents necessary to enable us to make the fullest use of the contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered, without liability (save as specifically hereinafter provided) or acknowledgement to you.  You hereby grant us the right to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme in which it may be included and for such purpose to use and reproduce your name and photograph and recordings and/or copies of any description of the contribution....

I love it for the language they use, despite all the arguing that goes on here and elsewhere about model releases - who gets what, when, and how and on what terms and conditions and whether the release is valid if signed before or after the shoot - or maybe never... doo dah, doo dah. THIS is how the REAL world works:

[contributor] "...hereby grant[s] to us [the producers] all consents necessary to enable us to make the fullest use of the contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered, without liability (save as specifically hereinafter provided) or acknowledgement to you...."

Now, that said, my very own model release for stills work is roughly a parallel to this. Most models, and not a few photographers, really need to get kicked into touch with some of the harsh realities of this world.

For FEE PAID contributions the agreement is exactly the same except for this added part. You will notice the fee is referenced but is NOT set out here. that is done on a completely separate piece of paper - a fee agreement / contract:

"...In consideration of the above and your agreement that we may record [an exclusive interview with you] [your contribution] [of approximately _____ minutes' duration] we hereby agree to pay to you the Fee in full and complete satisfaction of our obligations to you  (receipt of which is hereby acknowledged)..."

If you are not taking care of business you surely, in the end, won't have a business to take care of.

Studio36

MichaelBell wrote:
I never said the photog shouldnt be allowed to sell them, I said "without the model's consent". I dont think you will find too many models who will agree to let you sell photos of them from a TFP/TFCD shoot unless they are getting some compensation out of it too. But in that case, its not really a TFP/TFCD shoot is it?

The model already consented. She/he signed a release. And they are being compensated. They're getting photos/images. As someone said previously, if there were not  TFP/CDs, they (the model) would have to be paying a photographer for the photos.

What I said about equipment costs, it is part of this equation. Everything you do with it is supposed to generate income. In a TFP/CD, where is the income? It comes later, possibly, if you can sell an image.

Vito wrote:
In a TFP/CD, where is the income? It comes later, possibly, if you can sell an image.

That's just it...there isn't income unless gained through unfair advantage through payment at less than market value.  Each party receives imaging for self promotion, fair trade.  One side selling images and not the other...unfair trade.

If producing income based on a barter is the objective it should work both ways.  The model should be able to sell signed prints or do what ever they want with the imaging without any further compensation to the photographer.  Producing income for one side beyond the promotion aspect through results isn't a fair trade, and TFP is a trade agreement.

For the TFP agreement to be truly fair, when handing a model to sign a release with one hand, the other should be giving him/her full and complete usage rights to what is produced.  Now it becomes fair play, as a model may never know where her likeness will appear, nor will a photographer know where their images will end up.

area291 wrote:
That's just it...there isn't income unless gained through unfair advantage through payment at less than market value.  Each party receives imaging for self promotion, fair trade.  One side selling images and not the other...unfair trade.

If producing income based on a barter is the objective it should work both ways.  The model should be able to sell signed prints or do what ever they want with the imaging without any further compensation to the photographer.  Producing income for one side beyond the promotion aspect through results isn't a fair trade, and TFP is a trade agreement.

For the TFP agreement to be truly fair, when handing a model to sign a release with one hand, the other should be giving him/her full and complete usage rights to what is produced.  Now it becomes fair play, as a model may never know where her likeness will appear, nor will a photographer know where their images will end up.

First, I have no problem w/a model selling autographed images. But that's me.
Second, what money outlay has the model brought to the table? Any clothes she buys are for her use after the shoot, same with shoes, etc...
The model, basically brings...the model. Which is an important part.
The photographer is bringing his skill, photo equipment, studio space, etc..., all items that cost him money that was spent to make money on shooting photos. What does the photographer get from a TFP/CD? He gets some images, but that's about it. What does the model get? She gets some images, but, in the big picture, those pictures she got are supposed to "sell" her to other people that will hire her, that will bring in money for her. Her time at the TFP/CD will pay off in the long run. Of course, this is all if everything works out right, as that's the goal of a TFP/CD. Selling the images for stock or whatever is the photographers pay off. If he can. Selling a photo from the TFP/CD is the photograhers way to recoup his investment (of time, equipment, space, film and developing (if not digital).

Should a model give the photographer a percentage of any money she makes from any subsequent jobs she gets as a result of someone seeing (and liking) a photo? Should every photographer who contributed to her portfolio get a percentage? Hmmm? That would be the equvalent.

Vito wrote:

First, I have no problem w/a model selling autographed images. But that's me.
Second, what money outlay has the model brought to the table? Any clothes she buys are for her use after the shoot, same with shoes, etc...
The model, basically brings...the model. Which is an important part.
The photographer is bringing his skill, photo equipment, studio space, etc..., all items that cost him money that was spent to make money on shooting photos. What does the photographer get from a TFP/CD? He gets some images, but that's about it. What does the model get? She gets some images, but, in the big picture, those pictures she got are supposed to "sell" her to other people that will hire her, that will bring in money for her. Her time at the TFP/CD will pay off in the long run. Of course, this is all if everything works out right, as that's the goal of a TFP/CD. Selling the images for stock or whatever is the photographers pay off. If he can. Selling a photo from the TFP/CD is the photograhers way to recoup his investment (of time, equipment, space, film and developing (if not digital).

Should a model give the photographer a percentage of any money she makes from any subsequent jobs she gets as a result of someone seeing (and liking) a photo? Should every photographer who contributed to her portfolio get a percentage? Hmmm? That would be the equvalent.

You both make valid points the only arguement I have on the situation is that the photographer uses the model's images also in self promotion, with the hope of "selling" themself as a photographer. TFP/CD is not required and it obviously costs money on both parties. If you look at the flip side to the situation, yes, the model brings and spends money on clothing and makeup but gets to use it after the shoot if they feel it necessary, the photographer does the same thing. It's not like they bought their camera that day specifically for that shoot (well maybe a GWC with a disposible camera but I highly doubt that's what we're taking about here). The photographer gets to use his camera at other shoots and potential make money from those shoots. When a model buys clothing for a shoot (if it's something specific for the shoot) they aren't getting compensated for the money they spent on that outfit and they more than likely won't be able to wear that same outfit and get paid work. Although the money a model spends on TFP/CD doesn't seem like a lot it does add up. Hair cuts and colors only last for so long, a tank of gas can only get you to so many shoots (I know this holds true for photographers as well if they are driving someplace other then their studio), you can't have the same shirt/pants/dress in every shoot, makeup gets used (quickly). A good camera/equipment/studio can get years of use. Keep in mind I am talking more along the lines of digital work I understand with film the cost to the photographer is considerably higher with developing (whether done by the photographer or sent out) and printing and the actual cost of the film. I also don't want images of me airbrushed onto nude models on adult websites and in a typical model release that's a BIG loop hole as I see it!!!!

Vito wrote:
Selling a photo from the TFP/CD is the photograhers way to recoup his investment (of time, equipment, space, film and developing (if not digital).

Should a model give the photographer a percentage of any money she makes from any subsequent jobs she gets as a result of someone seeing (and liking) a photo? Should every photographer who contributed to her portfolio get a percentage? Hmmm? That would be the equvalent.

You really don't get it, Vito.

area291 wrote:

You really don't get it, Vito.

No, I think you don't get it. A model gets tangible items from a TFP/CD. These items in turn were created to "sell" her as a model to make money (eventually). If there was no TFP/CDs, the model would be paying a photographer for her pictures. What does a photographer charge for a portfolio shoot? $400, $500, $700? Not an unreasonable figure. So, the model is getting $400-700 (or more) in value. The photographer isn't. To recoup the costs of the shoot (film, studio, camera*) he should be able to sell the images. What part is hard to understand? Unless a photographer can sell some of the images, a TFP/CD is a loss for him.

*camera: Yes, you don't buy a camera for every shoot, but I guess some people never heard of amortization. That's when you spread the cost of the equipment over the useful life of the equipment. So, for example, if a digital camera (body, lenses, cards) cost $6000 and he shoots 2 shoots a month, he amortizes the camera over 4 years. That's $1500 per year, $125 per month, $62.50 per shoot. Do this for the studio and other equipment and you get what the camera costs for that particular shoot, your rates will vary. This is a simple business principle.

Zunaphoto wrote:
No Model, no pictures...Lot's of stone age thinking present here.  Perhaps it's different on the enlightened side of the Northern border, who knows.  But coming from an Arts background, removing the subject from the discussion is beyond contempt.  Models, simply tie-in your requests/timeframe/whatever with the release, it can indeed be more than one purpose (please).  No pics, no use!  Happy?

There's another model right around the corner who is waiting to benefit from photos that she will obtain from a TFP/CD. Yes, the model is important, but we're talking business here. The model is being compensated for her time with images that have a value, whether future earnings or what she would have paid the photographer at his regular rate.  At some point, if photographers realize they can never recoup their money from a TFP/CD, they will stop doing them and the market will be wide open for GWCs.

theda wrote:
I think all the models and all the photographers in this thread should get together in a big pit and fight it out.

We really do like to play us vs. them way, way too much around here.

All I'm saying is that a photographer, via a release, should be unhampered from selling photos generated from a TFP/CD, if he can, with no further burden (having to track down a model who may or may not want to be tracked down). I believe both parties benefit from a TFP/CD, but the model benefits in more tangible ways at the time of the shooting or closer to it.

Vito wrote:

All I'm saying is that a photographer, via a release, should be unhampered from selling photos generated from a TFP/CD, if he can, with no further burden (having to track down a model who may or may not want to be tracked down). I believe both parties benefit from a TFP/CD, but the model benefits in more tangible ways at the time of the shooting or closer to it.

Wouldn't that depend on the model and the photographer?

theda wrote:

Wouldn't that depend on the model and the photographer?

Of course, but in this thread, we have to start from the premise that we're talking about a model who is marketable and a photographer who is competent. It's all hypothetical, for now.

Vito wrote:

A model gets tangible items from a TFP/CD. These items in turn were created to "sell" her as a model to make money (eventually). If there was no TFP/CDs, the model would be paying a photographer for her pictures. What does a photographer charge for a portfolio shoot? $400, $500, $700? Not an unreasonable figure. So, the model is getting $400-700 (or more) in value. The photographer isn't. To recoup the costs of the shoot (film, studio, camera*) he should be able to sell the images. What part is hard to understand? Unless a photographer can sell some of the images, a TFP/CD is a loss for him.

What if the photographer uses the photos to "sell" her or himself as a photographer to make money (eventually)?  That's why I do it.  If I don't need the photos for my portfolio, I charge for them.

If any given shoot is going to result in a loss, don't do it.  That's pretty simple, right?