Doug Swinskey wrote:
you dont shoot and i dont sign your voucher (you dont get paid) until you sign a release

ditto! this is "just business" in my world too ...

FML

Intensity wrote:
An about emails now  that you guys bring it up. Wasnt there a thread about photographers complaining that they didnt like emails that they like to schedule shoots and  stuff through the phone. What happens then?

Only a few.  Several of us, me included, were saying we have no issue with setting the details via e-mail, but if there can't be a meeting we'd like at least one phone convo to get a sense of you as a person, and it's good to have numbers in case of a flat tire or similar emergency delaying arrival at the e-mail confirmed time 

Andrea Barnett wrote:
aaaaaaaaaand the funny thing? Most of the "BIG name shooters" that I've shot with.... dont even pull out a pen. Y'all carry to much on a form.... who the hell cares. Unless you're publishing work, why does it matter?

Yeah who cares if you aren't making money from it?  The "big name shooters" must not because they don't use releases.  I guess they're independently wealthy.  Yeah that's the ticket.  And they have really good insurance just in case they get sued for defamation of character three years after they shoot a young model in a leather corset and now she's running for mayor.  No wait...they probably don't buy insurance at all, cause who cares about insurance?

Boy the money I'm going to save...

(public service announcement - this is sarcasm, and in print it comes over a little heavier than it is meant to be, apologies)

Hamza wrote:
When shooting TFP/CD, I do NOT give the Model a Model Release to sign!

It's not like I'm going to sell them or anything...  I don't need the 'Signed Release' to post them on my Web Space nor do I need a 'Signed Release' to print them and use them in My Portfolio.

As the copyright holder I am able to do anything I want with said photos except Publish or Sell them.  That is also come to question in recent years with people like 'Girls Gone Wild' who have been taken to court and won.  I believe the judge said something to the tune of, "You knew they were taking your picture and you looked at the camera, it appears to me as though you posed willingly."

A Model Release or Contract is only worth the paper it's written on.  If you DO NOT have the financial or legal backing to take someone to court, it's pointless!

What do you use for proof of age?

Andrea Barnett wrote:
aaaaaaaaaand the funny thing? Most of the "BIG name shooters" that I've shot with.... dont even pull out a pen. Y'all carry to much on a form.... who the hell cares. Unless you're publishing work, why does it matter?

Well, for a lot of content involving a model proof of age is a good thing.
And see my comments (somewhere around the bottom of page 2) for how the idea of "publishing" affects artists.
It covers a lot more than just paid publication in a book or periodical.

Mike Walker wrote:
I give my models a Cd of EVERYTHING right after the shoot and get the release at that time.  LAter they get another CD of the cleaned up images we agree on. Now I realize a few people STILL shoot film and they can't do this.
MIke

Thus far this is how the majority of my shoots have gone.  So far I've enjoyed this method as it gives both the photographer and I the ability to collaborate on which shots we both like so he does not spend unneeded time processing photos which don't need to be.

In the case of the others, there is a high level of trust involved.  But as long as both parties are acting in professional manners the whole conversation is moot  point and we both walk away happy.

My one and only bad experience came when the photographer sent me home with a faulty cd where only 25 of the 300 photos on the cd could even be read without crashing the computer.  The big problem?  He was 2000 miles away from me.  The 2nd problem?  He refused to send an additional cd for almost a month... I ended up using the power of the threat to get a new one and we've both separated paths.  There was no processing of the original photos so I was left with one and only one workable photo from a weekend of shooting.  C'est la vie.... I've moved on to bigger and better photographers and I'm not sitting around b****ing about it to anyone who'll listen to me long enough. 

I agree with a previous poster though - do your homework models!  Check with the models that they claim to have worked with.  Ask other photographers (privately, not in a forum) who have worked with them.  It is like Ebay in a way... if they've only got a 72% positive feedback rating are you going to think twice about purchasing?  Duh!

Intensity wrote:
So us as models we just have to trust  that the photographer will keep his promise  of sending the photographs.Because even if we have the right to sue  we would be  wasting  all that money  to get  old photos that are not worth nothing anymore. That Sucks for us.

TFP  SUCKS!!!!!

So don't model TFP.  Problem solved.

SLE Photography wrote:
And see my comments (somewhere around the bottom of page 2) for how the idea of "publishing" affects artists.
It covers a lot more than just paid publication in a book or periodical.

"Publishing" at least in English law, and I don't doubt for a minute would also be similar in the US and elsewhere if one were to look closely at case law, is "making the images available to the public."  That is not strictly a commercial use [e.g. advertising a product or service] but it is still "publishing" even if you are giving it away [e.g. on the internet] or merely showing it to the public in a gallery.

Studio36

Hamza wrote:
When shooting TFP/CD, I do NOT give the Model a Model Release to sign!

It's not like I'm going to sell them or anything...  I don't need the 'Signed Release' to post them on my Web Space nor do I need a 'Signed Release' to print them and use them in My Portfolio.

As the copyright holder I am able to do anything I want with said photos except Publish or Sell them.  That is also come to question in recent years with people like 'Girls Gone Wild' who have been taken to court and won.  I believe the judge said something to the tune of, "You knew they were taking your picture and you looked at the camera, it appears to me as though you posed willingly."

SLE Photography wrote:
What do you use for proof of age?

These are both interesting comments.  In terms of SLE, proof of age you raise a good point but identification isn't always required.  If you do a fashion shoot with a minor and there is no release, you really have no need for proof of age.  The only reason you might want proof of age would be if there was a model release so you could demonstrate that the model was old enough at the time of the shoot to sign the release on her own behalf.  If there is no nudity or other borderline material and no release, the proof of age is a non-sequitor.

As for Hamza, the Girls Gone Wild Case is very deceiving.  First, it isn't precedent.  It was a lower court decision that was not later appealed and published so it is binding on nobody.  There is no way to know if another judge would rule the same way and he would not be bound to do so.  Second, if you read it, it was a very narrow decision.  These were girls who, in a public setting, knowingly posed for the GGW cameras.  The crux of the issue was that the judge found there was no right to privacy since they did this in a public setting.  The judge also distinguised this from a model shooting in private.  The mere fact that a model shoots doens't, in and of itself, waive her right to privacy and right to publicity.  Likewise, taking a picture in public, doesn't necessarily give a photographer broad rights to publish a photo.

There is a good discussion of model releases on Dan Heller's website.  Take a look, the link is:  http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Copyright allows the photographer the right to control unauthorized duplication and commercial use of an image.  It doesn't confer any specific rights to use the likeness of another without consent.  Because of copyright, the photographer can use an image in any way he wants that is otherwise not prohibitted by statute or common law.   It is important to understand.  Put another way, because of copyright, you are free to use images any way you want as long as come law or court decision says you can't.  Copyright also prevents the model from using the images in ways you have not consented to.

I hear it often repeated that a photographer can post an image to his own website without the consent of the model. This is very dangerous.  Commercial use doesn't necessarily have to be explicit, like on a direct advertisement.  If you are an artist, with no commercial interests, you may well be safe.  Displaying an artwork for non-commercial purposes probably does not require a release.

What if you are in the business of photography?  You are posting the photo to promote yourself.  There have been a lot of people in the past that have argued that this is not a commercial use of an image.  Read Dan Heller's article, and quite frankly, do some research on the web from genuine authorities.  There seems to be a growing concensus that there is a real danger that a court would find posting images on your photography site to be commercial use since the product you are endorsing is yourself.

I have stayed out of this discussion largely because I don't do TFP.  It is for those that do to decide how to handle the problem of photographers not delivering images.  However, my view is that in a TFP three things need to happen, a model needs to sign a release for the uses intended by the TFP arrangement (which is normally to give the photographer the right to make promotional use of the images).  Second, the photographer needs to give the model a written license permitting her to use the images for the purposes agreed upon.  Finally, there needs to be a written agreement that says how many images will be delivered, in what form (CD or Print) and the timeframe onto which delivery will take place.  These can all be in a single document, if that is more convenience.  The release is imply conditioned on actual delivery of the images.  Put another way, the release becomes valid upon delivery.

In that way, the burden is on the photographer to deliver the images.  The release should not be conditioned on the quality of the images or the model's satisfaction of them, simply upon delivery of them.  Then there release is not tied to subjective findings by the model.  More importantly, it places on the model the burden of picking a photographer she feels will give her good images.  If the photographer does a bad job, at least to some degree, that is the model's fault for picking a bad photographer.

However, if those three things are in place, there is no reason for image delivery to be an issue.  Also, proper documentation protects all parties.

BasementStudios wrote:
TFP is not restricted to internet models, get over it.  TFP has been around for as long as there have been photographers and models.

Pre-Internet and still to a great extent in the modeling world this was/is called testing.  Either the photographer or model through agency request would request this non-commercial process and no release was/is required. 

The reason was/is the imaging is for personal use and not subject to re-sale for extending the likeness of the model in commercial form that does not; a) provide due compensation, or, b) allow for imaging placement without knowledge of where that imaging is used.

Outside the Internet (read what Mary wrote), the agency level of modeling carries a fiduciary duty by the agency to know where, when and how much compensation is to be made for imaging produced and used, thus releases are very specific in nature.  If that specificity can be stated in a TFP agreement then it stands to reason a release should be provided and signed.

Much of the TFP being shot does not provide that specificity, rather the release is wide in scope and leaves the model vulnerable. There is nothing wrong with utilizing a release, but the release must be specific in nature or it becomes a foolish thing for a model to sign without having a full and complete understanding to the potential where imaging might be used.

The equal consideration not given is how photographers act upon providing usage rights to models on images provided.  Photographers generally are very specific on where and how images can be used, yet same/similar consideration (model release) for likeness use is not deemed to be fair.

For an unspecified TFP release to be truly fair in nature, the photographer would provide a complete set of imaging to the model with full irrevokable rights without further compensation or awareness of where the use the imaging may appear.  Doing so would invoke the balance of worth in the barter arrangement.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I never have a problem with models signing my release at the beginning of the shoot.  Models never have a problem obtaining images from me in a reasonable time frame.

Oh yeah...I forgot -- it's 'cause I'm the Mack.

Bwahahaha
Remind me to do a photo of you dressed as a pimp with a bunch of models in fetish gear trailing behind you on a leash 

Morningstar wrote:
I have been hearing an inreasing number of complaints lately from TFP/ TFCD models who aren't getting they're thumbnails/contact sheets, CDs or prints for months after a shoot (or not at all), that I am now starting to advise them not to sign the release and/or not give the photographer permission to publish shots untill they get what's promissed to the model. Now, this is coming from a photographer who used to never start shooting untill I had the paperwork done.
Models - Photographers comments please...

If the model hasn't been paid (ie given what is due as per the contract/release) the photographer has no right to publish the images. This is what the release allows him/her to do in exchange for what should be given to the model.

SLE Photography wrote:

Bwahahaha
Remind me to do a photo of you dressed as a pimp with a bunch of models in fetish gear trailing behind you on a leash 

Well you can just come up to the house and photograph me like that anytime...after all, that's how i roll pretty much everyday.

...P1mpin' ain't easy...

Sara Green wrote:
Yes there is a difference between the agency world and well here, this is based on the latter...

I appreciate the concern for those of us who are getting jipped on TFP

It’s happened to me and signing a model release does not protect from never receiving images

Scroll through the forums and you’ll see that the most frequent recommendation is to just let it roll off your back (like water on a duck)

As far as checking references, that’s helped avoid most of the “weirdosâ€? but even those with good references goof or have skeletons in their closet. The first photo shoot I did was with a well-known photographer and he said I would have to shoot with him again naked in order to get my images

The best advice I’ve seen is to incorporate a clause into the agreement that states if the images aren’t received within a time frame, the agreement defaults to paid work

Would anyone sign this? In my experience requesting a change to the model release or a paper for them to sign, is grounds from them to move on to the next model... again something that would not happen in the agency world, as releases are VERY carefully reviewed, negotiations are made and there's pay

Adding things to a release can make their legality questionable unless you pay an attorney to make sure it's done right.
The main problem I can see with such a requirement is that it again makes you dependent on the model to sign something after the fact when she may suddenly decide to regret what she did.
For what you're suggesting to work, you'd have to get something from the model to attach to the release saying "I received my agreed on compensation photos."  So what does the photographer do when he spends all the $ and time & shows up with the pics & she refuses to sign that?
His original release is null & void without that proof.

SLE Photography wrote:
For what you're suggesting to work, you'd have to get something from the model to attach to the release saying "I received my agreed on compensation photos."  So what does the photographer do when he spends all the $ and time & shows up with the pics & she refuses to sign that?
His original release is null & void without that proof.

That's why you mail the photos to the model return receipt certified or similar, so you have legally verified proof that the model received the images
Businesses deliver products and services all the time  - "TFP" has no reason to be a black hole of chaos with no solution

Doug Swinskey wrote:

how about qualifying your observation?

in a TFP context, why is this bad advice?...

1 because you leave yourself to the model NOT signing it EVER. sure she won't get her CD but you don't get to use the images... if you post them on the internet and she contacts you saying.. take them down.. you have to take them down....and wasted a shoot over it.

2 a signature should not be used as a hostage negotiation. 

3 better advice would be to AMMEND the model release to state something like.....
if I don't recieve my images by this date......you will be assessed my modeling rate of .......... in the even of nonpayment I will pursue legal action and you will be held liable for any and all expenses, fees and loss of wages.... Im not a lawyer so I don't know how to word it but you CAN have that clause.

EVERY model is responsible for taking part, looking over and ammending the Model Release. Its a contract and IT IS negotiable.

Sara Green wrote:
The best advice I’ve seen is to incorporate a clause into the agreement that states if the images aren’t received within a time frame, the agreement defaults to paid work

Would anyone sign this? In my experience requesting a change to the model release or a paper for them to sign, is grounds from them to move on to the next model

It would depend on what the time frame is and what the default amount would be.

As a rule I'm not sign signing something that increases my liability.  What if there's a death in the family?  What if I break my leg or have a kidney stone right after you walk out the door?

How do I prove I sent you the cd?  Certified mail maybe.  Extra cost who pays for it?
How do I prove the disc wasn't blank?  Get notarized witnesses?  More paperwork? Extra cost who pays for it?

I would also have to wonder what kind of problems will crop up during the shoot since    unfortunately the model appears to have "baggage" from other photographers.

More often than not I would probably just say - next model.

Quick question for you though - would you be willing to sign a pre-contract that says if you don't show up for the shoot at the scheduled time and place  it becomes a paid shoot in favor of the photographer?  In which you don't show and now you owe the photographer for 3-4 hours of at his normal rate?

Sara Green wrote:
That's why you mail the photos to the model return receipt certified or similar, so you have legally verified proof that the model received the images
Businesses deliver products and services all the time  - "TFP" has no reason to be a black hole of chaos with no solution

That signifies receipt of an envelope, not of its contents.  The only way to make it legal woul be a signed form that she received her compensation (*NOTE, I am NOT a lawyer, but this seems logical).
SK's points about something happening to the model & the issues of other pre-contract requirements are very valid here too.

SKPhoto wrote:
Quick question for you though - would you be willing to sign a pre-contract that says if you don't show up for the shoot at the scheduled time and place  it becomes a paid shoot in favor of the photographer?  In which you don't show and now you owe the photographer for 3-4 hours of at his normal rate?

If it's not something that you would sign yourself, don't ask someone else to

SKPhoto wrote:
As a rule I'm not sign signing something that increases my liability.  What if there's a death in the family?  What if I break my leg or have a kidney stone right after you walk out the door?

SKPhoto wrote:
More often than not I would probably just say - next model.

Like I said

SLE Photography wrote:
That signifies receipt of an envelope, not of its contents.  The only way to make it legal woul be a signed form that she received her compensation (*NOTE, I am NOT a lawyer, but this seems logical).

Repeat: That's why you mail the photos to the model return receipt certified or similar, so you have legally verified proof that the model received the images
Businesses deliver products and services all the time
Re - read that last line in bold. Businesses do this all the time.
There is legal advice available - and that is what is recommended. First google link that came up: http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/certmail.php
"The purpose of Certified Mail is to provide an indisputable record that an article was actually delivered, or attempted to be delivered to a recipient. " It's family law Here's consumer law http://www.yourconsumerlaw.com/documenting.html There's thousands, it's the web, great resource

SLE Photography wrote:
SK's points about something happening to the model & the issues of other pre-contract requirements are very valid here too.

Addressed above

If you have an alternative solution that CYA of the model's, let's here it!
an attempt to keep the thread on topic -and- productive Sad irony in this industry the tendency to destroy than create

Sara Green wrote:
If you have an alternative solution that CYA of the model's, let's here it!
an attempt to keep the thread on topic -and- productive Sad irony in this industry the tendency to destroy than create

As with any industry, this one has it's share of flakes, both models and photographers.  Almost no one, on either side, is going to sign anything that increases their $ liability.

Would I sign it?  No. Why? Because I don't have to, there are plenty of models willing to work without asking for something like that(regardless of what they may tell their friends or post on MM).

If a photgrapher doesn't produce the goods, don't work with him again.  And if you really like his work and want to work with him again do it with the understanding that you're probably not going to get your images.

Same goes for no show models, you don't call them again.  If you decide you really want to work with one in particular you enter the situation knowing that there's a good chance they won't show up.


*In reference to the certified mail question -
What is to keep me from mailing you a blank cd or blanks sheets of photo paper via certified mail just so I make the deadline in the contract? 

Or you from claiming I did so you can claim I owe you several hundreds of $?

SKPhoto wrote:
*In reference to the certified mail question -
What is to keep me from mailing you a blank cd or blanks sheets of photo paper via certified mail just so I make the deadline in the contract? 

Or you from claiming I did so you can claim I owe you several hundreds of $?

That was my point.
Certified mail says someone received a package.  It in NO way verifies the CONTENTS.
It would come down to the model's word as to whether or not the contents matched what was agreed on.
And I & most of the photographers I know have been burned too many times by models to trust them on things like this.

SKPhoto wrote:
No signed release = no shoot happening today thanks for wasting both my time and yours.

Amen.

theda wrote:
Check your local laws concerning privacy rights.  Many states have them as well as rights of publicity, which means, no, a photorapher can't do anythign he or she wants with an image except endorse a product.   The laws are slightly more complex than that.

I know few pro models who will sign a release prior to recieving images for TFP arrangements.  I very rarely do. Then again, I very rarely sign releases for TFP arrangements because if the photographer wishes to sell the images for stock, I expect to justly compensated.  The horrors. I'm so "uppity."

As usual, legal threads on these forums are full of misinformation. there seems to be conspiracy among netographers to keep net models misinformed about what they are entitled to.  As Brian said, many releases are worded in such a way as to technically negate them if TFP images aren't delivered.

Check all the references you want; you'll  still get burned.  If a photographer really insists on having a release signed giving him or her additional right, I typically make it clear in an addendum that the release is invalid until I get paid.

Theda, what about artists such as myself who aren't looking to sell the images  commercially but need releases for the reasons I cited?

SLE Photography wrote:
Theda, what about artists such as myself who aren't looking to sell the images  commercially but need releases for the reasons I cited?

Sorry, but I'm not going back through this thread to find those reasons again.  I work almost exclusively with artists and they almost invariably pay me.

The fact is someone has to trust someone else for any business to ever be transacted. This thread is just an endless clusterfuck of models and photographers trying to figure out how best to tie the others' hands behind their backs.

Morningstar wrote:
I have been hearing an inreasing number of complaints lately from TFP/ TFCD models who aren't getting they're thumbnails/contact sheets, CDs or prints for months after a shoot (or not at all), that I am now starting to advise them not to sign the release and/or not give the photographer permission to publish shots untill they get what's promissed to the model. Now, this is coming from a photographer who used to never start shooting untill I had the paperwork done.
Models - Photographers comments please...

Well, you just gave the photographer carte blanche to use the photos without restriction.

Better to sign a release staing that the photographer has no rights to the images until the model is paid in kind...ie the TFP/TFCD images in the models possession.

Stage the release in two tiers...two sections that must be signed.  The first acknowledges that the shoot has taken place and that the use of the images, agreed by both, is contingent upon the reception of the images.  When the model recieives the images, the second half of the release is signed.  This way, there is a contract spelling out a letter of intent and performance agreement that can be more easily enforced in court if need be.

MichaelHaynes wrote:
Well, you just gave the photographer carte blanche to use the photos without restriction.

Better to sign a release staing that the photographer has no rights to the images until the model is paid in kind...ie the TFP/TFCD images in the models possession.

No. The release doesn't restrict the photographer's usage. It expands it.  And this is why I should never read these threads.

Morningstar wrote:
I have been hearing an inreasing number of complaints lately from TFP/ TFCD models who aren't getting they're thumbnails/contact sheets, CDs or prints for months after a shoot (or not at all), that I am now starting to advise them not to sign the release and/or not give the photographer permission to publish shots untill they get what's promissed to the model. Now, this is coming from a photographer who used to never start shooting untill I had the paperwork done.
Models - Photographers comments please...

I never sign a release form untill I see the pictures (sharons advice), actually you are the only photographer that I've signed a release form for. The other photographers havent approached me about signing one o_O.

James Jackson wrote:

No, you're fishing...or more appropriately...TROLLing

I'll be happy to burn a CD at the end of the shoot.  Just wait about an hour while I batch convert all the shots to 400 px wide on the long side JPGs and edit out all the flubs.

I have yet to meet a model who's willing to wait around for me to actually burn a CD

The reason I wouldn't want to do that is because I like to spend time fixing the photos and burn the final product onto the cds, I don't want them shown or posted as raw because that is a reflection on my work.  However, I would always give a date and time they would be finished.  Heck, I even throw into the release forms that the model WILL in fact receive their cd of the final product.

SLE Photography wrote:

Adding things to a release can make their legality questionable unless you pay an attorney to make sure it's done right.
The main problem I can see with such a requirement is that it again makes you dependent on the model to sign something after the fact when she may suddenly decide to regret what she did.
For what you're suggesting to work, you'd have to get something from the model to attach to the release saying "I received my agreed on compensation photos."  So what does the photographer do when he spends all the $ and time & shows up with the pics & she refuses to sign that?
His original release is null & void without that proof.

Send the cd via registered mail. Registered mail has to be signed for. Keep the receipt from the post office. You now have your proof.