Sxy6ftr wrote:
Can someone please explain to me what this contractual madness is all about, and how can I as a new model assure that I cover myself the same as the photogs?

Draw up your own contract with what you and the photog agree on, how the photos will be used, time frame to get prints back, etc.... and have them sign it....

I usually give a copy of the release the models sign to them for any questiones they might have down the road

Sxy6ftr wrote:
Can someone please explain to me what this contractual madness is all about, and how can I as a new model assure that I cover myself the same as the photogs?

Contracts shoudln't be neccessary if every one would just use thier brains and play nice.

However becuase of the Aemrican ecnomy's emminit collapse back to Pre WW2 conditions, people want to get thier hands on a hunkof money, and apparently many think suing a Photogrpaher is a great way to do so.

That's why we want contracts, and ones the pretty much hog tie a model.  A photographer rarely has  reason to sue a model, unless they break thier quipment or something, However model genrally an claim ignorance anddrag a photogrpaer to court over petty crap.

So as model, you are not open to a lawsuit genernally.  What you open to is losing your right to sue the photogtrapher, which is why contracts that would NORMALLY be biased in favor of the photographer are acceptable, because we are the ones at risk of getting sued, not the models.  Depsite all the PROFESSIONAL photographers telling me I'm crazy, I usually make my cotract to say basically" Ican't sue you, you can't sue me, we both have full image rights, have a nice day"  since I'm not making any money, I dont' have to worry about anything that way.

Mind yout hat only works for TFP witha hobbiest, a pro is goign to want to limit your rights.

phcorcoran wrote:
The photographer usually gives the model copies of the photographs, but since the photographer retains identical copies, he or she is really giving up nothing of tangible value.  Because of that, most TFP agreements wouldn't meet the legal definition of a contract if argued in an American court, so having such an agreement is madness.

Umm not really, it protects the photogtrapher from suites.  Its a relaease, whih is a drevitive of a contract.  Plus you CAN press for your prints if you don't get them.

Zeo wrote:

Umm not really, it protects the photogtrapher from suites.  Its a relaease, whih is a drevitive of a contract.  Plus you CAN press for your prints if you don't get them.

You can wave a model release under somebody's nose and a demonstration of what was agreed with them, but as a legal contract it has no standing unless it meets the criteria of a contract that I mentioned above.

There are plenty of legitimate model releases, my point is that in a TFP the photographer usually gives up nothing, a cheapness which invalidates any agreement that the model surrender rights.  It will not protect a photographer from lawsuits unless the photographer can show that he or she gave up something tangible in exchange for the model's rights.

phcorcoran wrote:

You can wave a model release under somebody's nose and a demonstration of what was agreed with them, but as a legal contract it has no standing unless it meets the criteria of a contract that I mentioned above.

There are plenty of legitimate model releases, my point is that in a TFP the photographer usually gives up nothing, a cheapness which invalidates any agreement that the model surrender rights.  It will not protect a photographer from lawsuits unless the photographer can show that he or she gave up something tangible in exchange for the model's rights.

Wow! Please DO NOT listen to or follow this wrong advice from phcorcoran.  It is extremely bad and misleading and legally negligent.

Doug Lester wrote:
"Draw up your own contract"  God what great advice! Any idea how much of a law school curiculum is devoted to contracts? Are you aware that one unintentional word or badly phrased clause can render a 'contract' void? If you are going to use a "contract", then have a  lawyer write it!

With that said, a model release is simply the model's consent for the photographer to show, use and profit from the images.  To be valid, the model MUST receive "something of value", so in a TCP if the photographer fails to deliver images and if the model was not paid, then the release if probably null and void.

When you want to discuss contracts, then talk with a lawyer.

Doug,
While I agree with what you have said, the real value of a contract in a TFP/CD situation is that it spells out what each party wants from the other, sets time frames, helps clarify expectations. Will it hold up in a court? Not likely. It may, however, prevent you from ever getting to that point. And that is a much better situiation.

phcorcoran wrote:
The photographer usually gives the model copies of the photographs, but since the photographer retains identical copies, he or she is really giving up nothing of tangible value.  Because of that, most TFP agreements wouldn't meet the legal definition of a contract if argued in an American court, so having such an agreement is madness.

Wrong. The photographer also gives the model a limited license to use the photographs in their portfolio. This is valuable consideration under the law.

Also, the courts do not rule on whether consideration was adequate, only that it was bargained for. This means that the model cannot later claim that the photos were not good, or that any monetary payment (even $1) was not enough for the contract to stand.

IANAL/TINLA

Richard Tallent wrote:
Wrong. The photographer also gives the model a limited license to use the photographs in their portfolio. This is valuable consideration under the law.

The photographer does not "give the model a limited license," the photographer actually asks the model to give the photographer some of the model's copyrights--to give up something to the photographer.  Remember that U. S. Copyright is clear: "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary."  It is called a model RELEASE because the model is asked to release some of his or her rights.

Let me walk you through it:

You and I do a photo shoot together.  You take the pictures and I model for you.  Both of us get copies of the pictures.  It doesn't matter whether you take the pictures home and give me copies or whether I take the pictures home and give you copies--we both get copies of the pictures.

But you ask me to sign a release giving you rights to sell the pictures for money while giving up my rights to do so.  That makes your copies of the pictures much more valuable, financially, than my copies.  You  have asked me to give up something.

Legally we both got something: pictures.

But I gave up something--rights--and you gave up nothing.

To be a legal contract in the United States an agreement must identify the parties involved and state what each party RECEIVES and what each party GIVES UP.

Now suppose you sell one of our photos for--$100.  I demand my share of the $100.  It ends up in court, and the judge asks what you gave up of tangible value as part of our arrangement.

You say, "Uh, I spent fifty cents on the CD with the pictures."

Copyright law does not require that our contract be fair, but if you want to prove division of rights in court you'll have to show a legal agreement, preferably in writing. 

Since you gave up nothing of tangible value in return for the rights you asked of me, no judge or appeals court would uphold our agreement as legally binding. 

So, we have no legal agreement, and I repeat that copyright law says, "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary."  Copyright law is clear that I share rights with you, and our agreement to the contrary wasn't legal, and so the judge will make you give me a share of the money.

My friend, the Internet is full of misinformation, repeated so often that it becomes taken as gospel.  An afternoon of book reading about copyright law at your local public library is certainly worthwhile to any serious photographer.

Sxy6ftr wrote:
When doing a TFP or TFCD should I request "dual copyright" with the photographer?

that won't happen

you will get the right to use the images to promote yourself...but he will have copyrights to them..unless you pay for the copyrights or unless he is super nice

Doug Lester wrote:
"Draw up your own contract"  God what great advice! Any idea how much of a law school curiculum is devoted to contracts? Are you aware that one unintentional word or badly phrased clause can render a 'contract' void? If you are going to use a "contract", then have a  lawyer write it!

With that said, a model release is simply the model's consent for the photographer to show, use and profit from the images.  To be valid, the model MUST receive "something of value", so in a TCP if the photographer fails to deliver images and if the model was not paid, then the release if probably null and void.

When you want to discuss contracts, then talk with a lawyer.

Contract can be found on websites already reviewd by a lawyer... try googling photographer assciations.... they ususally have them up for photogs to use...

CrazyIsabelAurora wrote:

that won't happen

you will get the right to use the images to promote yourself...but he will have copyrights to them..unless you pay for the copyrights or unless he is super nice

The photog is well known and he possibly may use them in a book, no guarantee (did I spell that right?) but I want to have some say if my pic is gonna be used in a book.

Sxy6ftr wrote:
The photog is well known and he possibly may use them in a book, no guarantee (did I spell that right?) but I want to have some say if my pic is gonna be used in a book.

that's what we call a tear sheet..you don't need copyrights for that

Perez Imagery wrote:

Contract can be found on websites already reviewd by a lawyer... try googling photographer assciations.... they ususally have them up for photogs to use...

I guess the word contract was not appropriate, since everyone is saying "release", should I have such a release for shooting so that I can get hi res copies of the prints?

Sxy6ftr wrote:

I guess the word contract was not appropriate, since everyone is saying "release", should I have such a release for shooting so that I can get hi res copies of the prints?

ok ok i think we have a little confusion here

you should sign a "release". the release tells you what you are entitled to and what the photographer is entitled to.  if you want hi resolution copies, you should have it in the release

Sxy6ftr wrote:

The photog is well known and he possibly may use them in a book, no guarantee (did I spell that right?) but I want to have some say if my pic is gonna be used in a book.

Releases can authorize the photographer to use the pictures any way he wants (and for TFPs often do) or they can be so tightly written that only a very narrow type of usage for a limited time and place can be made of the pictures.  There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

TFP/TFCD results from a negotiation between the model and the photographer.  You can ask for anything you want.  He will agree or he won't.  Most likely won't.  If he doesn't, you find a photographer that will, if you can.  The more restrictions you put on use, the lower the motivation of the photographer to work with you.

If he does agree, you put your restrictions in the release you sign.  Or you don't sign a release at all, and he can't publish the pictures without your consent (which is called "a release").

Sxy6ftr wrote:
Sorry that I confused everyone, I am learning so much about the verbage used on this site.  So to recap I should do the following:
1. Have an open discussion with the Photog
2. READ his entire release and discuss areas of disagreement
3. Request HI RES copies of the photos for self promotion.

If there is a possibility that he will profit from the photos in publication and won't agree to "dual copyright" how do I make sure that I receive credit especially if my face may not be completely visible?

1. please call us photographers.
2. look at the contract/release if it is not acceptable to you, don't shoot.

Mike Cummings wrote:

1. please call us photographers.
2. look at the contract/release if it is not acceptable to you, don't shoot.

Sorry Mike I get lazy with my typing sometimes please accept my apology Photographers

Sxy6ftr wrote:
If there is a possibility that he will profit from the photos in publication and won't agree to "dual copyright" how do I make sure that I receive credit especially if my face may not be completely visible?

"Dual copyright" is not something you're going to see, you need to ask for USAGE RIGHTS for the images & have them spelled out.

Kinda like this (this is one example):
B.    I agree that, while I may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of my Modeling business, including but not limited to advertising, portfolios, composite cards, exhibitions, contests, and promotional internet web sites, I will not sell publication rights in any or all of the Photos without Photographer's prior consent.  I understand that original copyright remains with photographer and copies of print images require his permission. 

In other words, you can do pretty much anything you want with the pictures EXCEPT sell them or publish them for uses other than self promotion (since some folks would certainly argue putting them on a website is "publishing."

But the way I understand copyright law & the way my lawyer explained it to me, contrary to what some folks here say, you cannot share COPYRIGHT.  At least not with film images, there's no (to my knowledge) definite case law on digital (disclaimer, I'm NOT a lawyer, so I could be wrong on that bit.)

So in general what you want are well-defined USAGE RIGHTS that explicitly spell out your rights/ability to use the images to promote yourself, not COPYRIGHT.

Sxy6ftr wrote:
If there is a possibility that he will profit from the photos in publication and won't agree to "dual copyright" how do I make sure that I receive credit especially if my face may not be completely visible?

Credit has nothing to do with copyright.  If you have a contract with him (say, a clause in the release) requiring that you get credit, then you should get it.  Otherwise you generally won't.

BTW, it is very unusual for commercial use  of pictures to include a model credit.  The fact that it is required may make the pictures unusable for advertising or editorial use.

images by elahi wrote:
so you thought modeling was what if not business?

business requires contracts, agreements, deal memos, releases

business requires offeres, negotiations,

business requires legit agents, managers, attorneys

"madness" you say?

Only "madness" because I had no idea of the intricate nature of the exchange of services.  Not saying that I don't recognize it as a business.  I have become well informed and provided a bevvy of info to draw from...

Sxy6ftr wrote:

Only "madness" because I had no idea of the intricate nature of the exchange of services.  Not saying that I don't recognize it as a business.  I have become well informed and provided a bevvy of info to draw from...

cool..oh yes...and well put...a lot of folks dont know the intricate nature of the REAL BUSINESS.....as I always advise..."treat your one photo as a million dollar commodity...because it could be one day..."

images by elahi wrote:

cool..oh yes...and well put...a lot of folks dont know the intricate nature of the REAL BUSINESS.....as I always advise..."treat your one photo as a million dollar commodity...because it could be one day..."

Hopefully one day I will be able to take that advice straight to the "Bank"!