Lens N Light wrote:
You pay the shoot, the photos are yours. I pay the shoot, and the photos are mine. (Unless cntracted otherwise, of course.)

I concur. My only stipulation: If you (the model) alter the photo I created, DO NOT put my name on it. I will not have someone judge me for someone else's work.

Wm

PlasticPuppet wrote:
Haha, well if a photographer is turning you into a frog then you probably didn't look too much at their portfolio long and hard enough.  Most photographers do simular stuff over and over, so there *should* be no suprises...

...Just becareful that your contract doesn't go to far, or the photographer might say 'well if you are going to have that many stipulations in the contract, why don't you just pay me for them?'

Exactly...

Lens N Light wrote:
You pay the shoot, the photos are yours. I pay the shoot, and the photos are mine. (Unless cntracted otherwise, of course.)

Be careful here--just because you pay for a shoot, that doesn't automatically give you ownership of the copyright.  That's a seperate matter that must be explicitly stated in the contract.

However, if you pay for a shoot, you will probably be given creative control (and responsibility ).

But the most important part of getting the photos you want is communication with the photographer before, during, and after the shoot.  Discuss everything, and make sure that your needs are being met.  In a collaboration, you are more than a warm prop.  Act like it.

Jayne Jones wrote:
MM'ers:
I've read, more than a few times now, about models that have worked with photogs and never gotten photos back from a shoot. . .or that photogs have totally altered their photos in the name of "art". . .or other things that really appall me.  Why does this happen??  Where is the model's protection?  What is she/he to do. . .never shoot again??

Well folks I propose that models develop their own release.  True indeed the "picture" is the photog's art and useage of that art should be at the discretion of the photographer.  BUT how fair is it to PS the model into a frog???  How fair is it for a model to do all that is possible to help the photog and him/herself have a favorable shoot. . .and get nothing to show for it???  Has this ever been done?  Would it be a good thing (not talking major contract, just a minor release with the model's best interest in mind)?

Let's have it!

you don't need a release....you need a contract. If you want something specific from a shoot and you and the photographer have both agreed to it, it's always best to get everything in writing. If I promise a model 30 shots from a shoot I would have no problem signing a seperate contract saying that I agree to provide him/her with 30 images. But I am not sure what you mean by release.

Second Glance wrote:
My only stipulation: If you (the model) alter the photo I created, DO NOT put my name on it. I will not have someone judge me for someone else's work.

Wm

Did Lord, yes... I've stopped worked with one model whose claim to being an expert with PS is greatly exaggerated. "Do you mind if I touch these up a bit" sounded fine when I imagined adjustments to brightness, contrast and a stated desire to desaturate, but the end result looks nothing like what I shot in the first place and I am insulted, frankly, to have my name splashed across the image.

I have since written into my release that no electronic manipulation is permitted.

As to the OP, just as with photographers, feel free to design your release any way you want. If you don't like my terms, don't pose for me. If I don't like your terms, we don't shoot. No hard feelings; it's all business. There are enough photographers and models out there for each to find what best suits.

lll wrote:
I find this utterly funny.

If you don't get the images and have a contract, what would you do.  Sue him/her for unknown quality images? How much does it cost to sue?  How much would it have cost you to PAY for a good photographer to shoot a set of guaranteed good images who are professional-grade and will deliver within a week?

Also, if someone just wants to put your head on a frog, it's a LOT of work.  If someone wants to put your head on a naked body...are you kidding, he/she can just hire someone who'd do nude for very little money.  It's not worth the time, I don't think we have that many celebrities here to be worth doing that.

Get real.

And editing another artists' work is not only illegal without permission, it has always been considered as extremely rude.

It doesn't always have to be litigious, just use common courtesy and common sense.

Check references, look at the photographers' book and see how quickly he delivered in the past.  Clarify the deliverables, and timeline.  It's just simple communications, whether it's business or not.

This all makes good sense.  However, in a situation where the model might have expenses such as travel, lodging, wardrobe, MUA etc. it would not be out of line I suppose to have a simple agreement that says if the photographer fails to deliver the images within an agreed period, then the model would send a bill for services rendered.  The model's time does have value which is represented in the resulting photos.  When a photog does not deliver photos on TFP terms, then it is essentially a breach of the initial agreement.  I have not had a problem with anyone yet, and I suppose if I did, I would assume that some problem happened where the images did not turn out.  I think most photogs want to get good images into model's portfolios because it's good marketing. - So it is not something I would spend much time worring about.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
it would not be out of line I suppose to have a simple agreement that says if the photographer fails to deliver the images within an agreed period, then the model would send a bill for services rendered.

Forgetting the fact this is your 666th posts on MM - this statement IS out of line. What do you think photographers time is worth? Less than models? What do you think additional time spent on post production is worth? How much do you think a photographer has to pay for his equipment, its maintanance, upgrades, etc? I don't see it real, that any photographer would agree to such OUT OF LINE request.  Models just keep coming with more and more ridiculous demands. OMG, when is this going to stop?

Jayne Jones wrote:
MM'ers:
I've read, more than a few times now, about models that have worked with photogs and never gotten photos back from a shoot. . .or that photogs have totally altered their photos in the name of "art". . .or other things that really appall me.  Why does this happen??  Where is the model's protection?  What is she/he to do. . .never shoot again??

Well folks I propose that models develop their own release.  True indeed the "picture" is the photog's art and useage of that art should be at the discretion of the photographer.  BUT how fair is it to PS the model into a frog???  How fair is it for a model to do all that is possible to help the photog and him/herself have a favorable shoot. . .and get nothing to show for it???  Has this ever been done?  Would it be a good thing (not talking major contract, just a minor release with the model's best interest in mind)?

Let's have it!

What can I say? Women come to me for their photos because of my experience and my craft, but primarily for my 'vision'. If I feel the model's 'look' and the concept calls for it, then I'll make her into a frog. Actually I havent thought of that, sounds interesting.   I will not ever surrender creative control of my images to a model, any model. I've no objection at all to minor 'corrections, such as resizing or other minor manipulations, but that's as far as it goes. But if she pays me for a private commission, then the photos are hers and she can do anything whe wished with them, just leave my name off of them if major alterations are made..

If a model comes to me with a self written "contract", I'll thank her for her time and move on the the next model. However I have no problem at all with adding an addendum to the standard release, a separate sheet of paper with an agreement as to the time frame in which the images will be sent to her. Not received by her, but mailed to her. (Stuff does get lost by the USD, FEd EX, UPS and all of the other carriers, whi8ch is why I always get a receipt as to when the CD and prints were shipped. AS for photographers who simply fail to provide the agreed up on images, then I've no problem at all with the model plastering his/her name all over the internet. Not providing images within a reasonable amount of time is totally inexcusable. Well, once I was about 6 weeks late in mailing the images, but I was in the hospital for 3 weeks. But short of death ir serious illness, there is no excuse. Sometimes a photographer might be broke and not able to afford to make prints, but a CD costs a buck and shipping the CD cost about a buck and a half. If that's not affordable, then fishing might be a better hobby.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Togs have 'em. . .should models?

Togs are gardening clothes.  What exactly should models have in your question?