Forums >
General Industry >
Photographers: Making a profit from shoots?
How does this work? If you pay a model for a shoot, do you have the rights to sell those photos to intrested parties? or is that something you need to discuss with the model beforehand? I am of the mind that if you pay for the photoshoot, you should be able to use them as you wish. Jul 05 05 02:21 am Link Legally you own all images you shoot.. It all depends on the contract and what is stated on what becomes of the images.. Just cause you shoot them does not mean you can do what you want with them Jul 05 05 02:26 am Link Depends on what you agreed - and that will depend on who is involved, and how much you are paying. Jul 05 05 02:28 am Link Model release forms should state that the photographer has all rights to do as he/she wants to do, profit or to sit in an album. This applies if you pay a model or not. The release form is in place to protect the photographer and in cases the model. If models want to use the images they would need specific permissions from the photographer unless specifically stated in a modified release form. Jul 05 05 02:38 am Link Can anyone send me a copy of a model release form? Jul 05 05 02:46 am Link Posted by lobo estepario: Jul 05 05 02:49 am Link Thank you. i really apreciate it. I have used home made ones and need to see what the industry is doing, since most of my work has been with art. Thank you again, Miguel Jul 05 05 02:51 am Link Legally fokes, when a photographer takes a picture, he or she owns the copyright for that image and can do whatever he/she wants to do with it. Model release forms allow the photographer to use the image in publications or anything that requires the release of the copyrighted image from said photographer. No one can use that image, including the model without permission of the photographer. Doing so, opens that person for legal action and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages. Jul 05 05 02:51 am Link Posted by MyLeah: Only for stock use. Otherwise it would be more usual for the release to be quite specific - stating use (or categories of use), territory and duration, just like the licence the photographer issues to the client. Jul 05 05 02:58 am Link Thanks for the replies and sample model release form Jul 05 05 03:15 am Link "and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages" Submitting images under Title 17 is irrelevant to your subsequent ability to bring litigation against someone who infringes your copyright. This is one of several common misunderstandings I see on photography-related message boards. Jul 05 05 06:34 am Link Posted by MichaelBell: Botton line...it boils down to usage of image.....OK so you don't known or understand copyrights just yet. YOu are the creator of said images, but don't be stupid in not understanding that your a$$ might get sued up the yen/yan for not making it clear to the model the usage of said image and where it will be reproduced. So now that the model has taken you to court and sued every last dime out of your stupid a$$ for not doing the simple thing of getting a model release and stated the usage of image and period that is will be used and please don't forget to inform them each time. You need to take business course if anything, please stop taking what is a business for most of us with a digital camera and state you are a pro, I mean no ill intent in what I am just saying to you...but this is business..be smart! Jul 05 05 06:45 am Link Posted by IndianaGlamour: It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits Jul 05 05 06:51 am Link Posted by Aaron_H: Posted by IndianaGlamour: It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits Is putting an image on the web considered publication? Jul 05 05 08:21 am Link Posted by Arice: This is not always true; Jul 05 05 09:31 am Link Posted by Jack D Trute: Posted by Aaron_H: Posted by IndianaGlamour: It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits Is putting an image on the web considered publication? If you are talking about a portfolio, it all depends on whch side of the issue you want to argue. Jul 05 05 09:36 am Link It is my understanding that registration is NOT required to bring a copryright infringment suit. Registration provides a quick, easy proof of authroship and broadens your copyright protection so you can recieve punitive damages rathe rthan just actual damages. And yes, the internet is publication. And self-promotion of your commercial enterprise is a commercial use. Jul 05 05 09:37 am Link Posted by theda: I think you are right. I have had to collect twice, when my photographs were published. Both time it was settled out of court, with me getting paid a fair amount. (One newspaper, and one Airline.) Jul 05 05 09:42 am Link Posted by theda: Correct. Posted by theda: I think this is correct. I have been looking for a ruling by a judge that says a model release is required for use of an image in a portfolio on the internet. I know it's not copyright law, but it seems like a related issue. Jul 05 05 09:46 am Link Posted by Marvin Dockery: Seems the best way to be paid as a photographer is to have your image stolen by a deep pocket company..... hmmmm STEAL my images .. please.. Jul 05 05 10:22 am Link Again...Photo copyright 101 The photographer own the copyright to any and all images unless the photos are "works for hire", a specific contract granting copyright to another party. As copyright holder, the photographer has the right to use and publish any and all images (yes, I will get to that). Even an image of a person can be used without a release for editorial purposes. This is when the image stands on it's own without commentary, explicit or presumed endorsement. A portfolio, online or physical would easily qualify. Now, it is still best to have a release as sombody can always decide to sue you. The release simply and effectively negates such an issue. That said, it is not necessary under those conditions. Anyone OTHER than the photographer must have a specific contract granting rights of use of any image used that is not in the public domain. For photographers, enforcement of your copyright is limited depending on whether the work has been submitted to the copyright office. Works not submitted have limited protection. Works that have been submitted (prior to, or within a specifc timefram of public dislpay) have full copyright protection and specific monetary damages can be enforced. Images can be copyrighted in bulk on CD or DVD media for a very reasonable fee. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html Jul 05 05 12:34 pm Link For all photographers and possibly models as well, I would highly recommend "Business and Legal Forms for Photographers". This book covers just about any contract you would need, and includes a CD with both text and PDF versions. Jul 05 05 12:36 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by theda: Correct. No, incorrect. I'm sorry but you must register your copyright to sue for infringement, look it up. It's not really that relevant because the relevant part is to register prior to the infringement because that's a preventative measure if your clients or others know you've registered, or it's the "club" that puts you in strong negotiating position when looking to settle with or just bill an infringer. In most cases, without a timely registration there is little risk to the average infringer, he knows you're not likely to get more than he should have paid for the usage in the first place and that there is little chance of being sued due to the costs of filing a federal copyright suit along with the attorney fees. It would be a losing proposition unless it was a slam dunk case with very major usage where the original fee would have been substantial and the profits were substantial. But if it's a good case and the images were properly registered then an attorney might be willing to take it on contingency. Jul 05 05 04:09 pm Link Sheesh, your copyright situation is worse than I thought. What happened to the (pretty much) universal situation that the copyright automatically belongs to the artist? - A situation that is effectivly undermined if you can't protect your rights without additional action. Jul 05 05 05:31 pm Link Posted by Michael Feinberg: Very few photos are published completely without commentary or stand on their own with no caption or context. But commentary or being used to illustrate a story doesn't remove it from the realm of editorial use as opposed to commercial use - endorsement, promotion or advertising. A picture of a baby in a story about babies, or motherhood or whatever, or a picture of a baby enjoying the summer sun in a park used as a newspaper feature filler with just a caption about people enjoying the sunny day are all editorial uses. Any of those same pictures used in an organizationâs marketing materials or an annual report, or of course in an advertisement, would be commercial uses and would need a release. Jul 05 05 05:34 pm Link Posted by piers: Well Piers, it does automatically belong to the artist unless there's a specific agreement otherwise aside from a true work for hire situation where there is an actual and existing employee/employer relationship and the art is created as a normal or expected part of your job (a simplified explanation). However even though it belongs to us the protections and remedies are complicated. Jul 05 05 05:50 pm Link Posted by Aaron_H: You're right. That is the case in the US. Jul 06 05 11:13 am Link Usually either "personal use" or "commercial use", depends greatly with the digital age moving forward like a freight train - places I occasionally use for printing copyright ALL proofs on the back of each print. With the "I'm sueing" attitude - everyone is cautious. Do I make a "profit"? I hope to in the next 3-5 years, had to re-invest in new equipment for my sports/action/fashion freelance business. I'm getting to like pork-n-beans with water, MMMMM! Jul 06 05 02:38 pm Link There is a flipside to this argument that i think many people are ignoring. Just because own your own image or because you get a general model release I would not feel like you can use your own image for anything you would like. Does anyone have info on the Folger's or Taster's Choice Model that just won a judgement for $15million? The model signed a model release, I believe, but just a general release and sued for the usage fees as the image was used for an international campaign. I would not shoot a model test, get some business forms model release, and expect or later sell that image as an advertisement. You are asking for trouble. Be specific with your plans. If it is for stock, then state it is for stock. I wouldn't turn around a directly sell it to a client unless your release says that you are free to sell this image for national and international ad campaigns. If I were a model, I would NOT sign any open release for a few lousy bucks or a free test and would be careful with stock photo releases. Be fair and honest as most people will work within the budgets available. Also, there is one other backdoor that people use to sue photographers regardess of copyright, and that is defamation of character. If you take a photo of a model and it is out of charcater from the rest of the shoot and it could affect them negatively then you could be liable. However, models if you agree to get naked, and later wish you didn't..... i don't think you have a case. Does anyone know any successful or unsucessful cases of this? Best of luck and be nice and honest, Thanks Michael Creagh http://michaelcreagh.com Jul 06 05 05:58 pm Link Posted by Michael_Creagh: But "stock" is not a type of usage in the same sense. Any image that you keep copyright control of automatically becomes "stock" beyond any initial usage agreed to as part of an assignment, or if there never was an assignment. If you have an unrestricted release then advertising, which is a form of usage in the sense we mean, is one of the ways a stock image can be used. A cautiously worded full, unrestricted release will actually list a bunch of potential types of uses, including advertising. So if they've signed such a thing then yes indeed you can use it for pretty much anything. Posted by Michael_Creagh: But if they sign a full release in exchange for money or something of value such as needed test shots or portfolio shots then they understand that's what they're doing when they sign. They must decide at the time whether they think it's a fair exchange or not. It's not unfair or dishonest if that's what was agreed to. Jul 07 05 06:18 am Link You have to discuss selling any of the photos with the model. I've worked with photographers who will mention before hand they would be interested in selling my photos and they would be happy to pay me one flat fee or give me a % of each picture that was sold. Jul 07 05 09:36 pm Link Posted by CO Model Amber: False. If a model release has been signed by the model allowing the sale the model has no say. This includes TFP. If the model has chosen barter for payment then it can be considered a done deal, no other discussion or compensation is required. Jul 07 05 10:10 pm Link as regards to having a legal right to any image you shoot... the best advice is for you to refer to the model release you had the model sign at the photo shoot. basically, if you didn't get a release... then you don't know what your rights are. understand. ALWAYS use a release regardless what the agreement is, that way all parties involved know exactly what to expect. business is business ClevelandSlim Jul 09 05 08:40 am Link Posted by Aaron_H: Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by theda: Correct. No, incorrect. I'm sorry but you must register your copyright to sue for infringement, look it up. It's not really that relevant because the relevant part is to register prior to the infringement because that's a preventative measure if your clients or others know you've registered, or it's the "club" that puts you in strong negotiating position when looking to settle with or just bill an infringer. In most cases, without a timely registration there is little risk to the average infringer, he knows you're not likely to get more than he should have paid for the usage in the first place and that there is little chance of being sued due to the costs of filing a federal copyright suit along with the attorney fees. It would be a losing proposition unless it was a slam dunk case with very major usage where the original fee would have been substantial and the profits were substantial. But if it's a good case and the images were properly registered then an attorney might be willing to take it on contingency. You may want to leave replying to the original query to those of us who actually work in the industry. Weekend photographers providing information on message boards serves no one. I'm sure you were just trying to help. Jul 09 05 10:27 am Link I think what ALL the photographers are indirectly telling the models on this site is DO NOT SIGN MODEL RELEASES. Models make sure the compensation is reasonable to what the expected value of the photo's use. Don't sign an unrestricted release for a couple bucks or a few test shots that most likely the agents aren't going to like anyway. In my last statement, I pointed out 2 things. 1. There is a multi million dollar judgement for a model who signed a release but got cut out of BIG advertising money. 2. Be honest and fair. Photographers, this is unfortunate. We are at the forefront of setting rates and selling and producing work, etc. As industry professionals, we ought to be ethical and fair and not hide behind model ignorance and legal documents to CHEAT them out of advertising usuage fees. I firmly believe that leading a model to believe the photos are for limited use and then getting them to sign an unrestrictive release form we call "standard" is a horrible practice. This is what I am reading in many statements above. Whenever possible get the model the rate they deserve. Period. then you build excellent working relationships and further business contacts. If the model rate is only a couple hundred dollars, but it truly fair then GREAT no problem. But making thousands out of model ignorance is not cool, even if you can argue it is legal. If you unexpectedly sell the photo for lots of money, then make some unexpected payouts. I did this recently and it felt great and I made lots of money. And Aaron remember that just because someone is willing to agree to something doesn't make it fair or ethical. Thanks Michael Creagh http://michaelcreagh.com Jul 09 05 06:01 pm Link Can someone please look at my model release and tell me they it covers all the bases? MODEL RELEASE (Release A â Adult Model) In consideration of compensation as indicated below, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I _________________________________ (hereafter âModelâ?), do hereby irrevocably authorize David Holloway (hereafter âPhotographerâ?), Photographerâs legal representatives, assigns, and those acting under Photographerâs permission and on Photographerâs authority, to copyright, publish, and use in all forms and media and manners for advertising, trade, promotion, exhibition, or any other lawful purpose whatsoever, any depictions of Model made by Photographer or Photographerâs representative, in which Model may be included in whole or in part, alone or in conjunction with other persons, or composite or distorted in character, or form, or based on or involving any stunt poses, in conjunction with Modelâs own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, or in derivative works made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere (collectively hereafter the âDepictionsâ?). Model does hereby waive any rights to inspect or approve the finished product or advertising or other copy that may be used in connection therewith or the use to which they may be applied. Model hereby release and agree to hold harmless Photographer, his legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acting under his permission or authority, from any liability by virtue of blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of the pictures, or in any processing tending toward the completion of the finished product, unless it can be clearly shown that the publication thereof were maliciously caused, and produced, and published solely for the purpose of subjecting Model to conspicuous ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn, and indignity. Model hereby affirms that all poses, positions and situations enacted in the Depictions covered in this release were entered into without force, coercion, or threat whatsoever, and were posed freely by Model with Modelâs full consent in return for compensation and for Modelâs own amusement. Model further agrees to hold blameless and free of all accusation of such force or coercion Photographer, his legal representatives, assigns, and those acting under his permission and on his authority. I hereby warrant that I am of full legal age and have the right to contract in my own name and that my date of birth is _________________ Model hereby affirms that Modelâs execution of this instrument does not cause a breach of any prior agreement or applicable law, including but not limited to a prior agreement with a modeling agency, talent agency, or other photographer. Modelâs compensation in connection with this instrument is: ______a) TFCD. The Photographer will provide copies of images within a reasonable time following the shoot to the Model in the form of a CD. Images will be of web quality for use of online promotion. The Photographer does hereby grant the Model rights on all copyrighted images for their own self-promotion, including publishing and distributing (email and/or via Internet) said images unmodified as supplied and as long as the Photographerâs copyright © notice remains intact, or is otherwise attached or stated with the image. Prints may be purchased from Photographer at a discount from published rates. Any fees collected from licensing of images from a tfcd shoot, the Model shall be entitled to __________ %. ______b) Payment in the amount of $___________ ______c) Other: Photographerâs Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ___________________________ We have read the above authorization and release prior to its execution and are fully familiar with and agree to the contents thereof. For photos made on (date) ___________________, at (location) ___________________________________________________________ Modelâs Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________ Email: _______________________________________________________________________ Witness Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________ Jul 09 05 06:18 pm Link In 1999 I had two models balk at siging a model release, after a nude shoot. (Over a 100 have signed) I decided to reformat my releases so they would be look more like a job application form. (Young models are use to filling out job application forms) At the top I have a place for their name, age, SS number, address, stage name, plus email and phone numbers. I then put in the legal stuff, covering everything, but keeping it edited and short. I then have a place for them to sign at the botton, along with a place for the witness. I also wrote a models information form, that is also filled out. It has places for the models name, address, and etc, plus a place for her to list all of her stats. weight, height, dress size, and other measurements. At the bottom is a check off list of all of the types of modeling from fashion to adult nude. The model then checks off the type of modeling she/he is WANTING to do. Then they sign this form. I then make copies of their Photo ID's, to attache to the forms. Both forms, used togather, shows a model asking for modeling work, the kind of work, doing the work, getting paid, the amount paid, and fully releasing any rights to all images, to me, the photographer. If you have to go to court you may need to prove the intent of all parties involved, and both forms togather will prove that the model knew what she was doing, and what her intent was. One of my former lawyer models checked the forms over and gave me an OK, plus said that she thought the two forms were much better than just the single release. (She is an attorney working for the state) The two forms have been offered on eBay for over a year, under Model Releases. So far the feedbacks have been good, with no problems reported. But everyone should have their attorney double check all legal documents. Jul 09 05 07:29 pm Link David H... you need a local lawyer to counsel with you to tell you if your model release covers all the bases. Michael Creagh... i agree with you, if there is a ton of money made, then it's only fair to compensate the model with a fair share of your earnings. understand though... this is a very tricky business, and like most entertainment industries... they are worst then the illicit drug trade. more shady sheisty sh*t going on then you would like to believe. models should watch out, because although i agree with Michael, there are alot of wolves out there that would shoot you for tfp then turn around and try and squeeze big bucks out of the images and not tell you anything else about it, and they won't lose any sleep about it. i have a question for MMers... say a model shoots 400 pics in an afternoon of studio time (4 hours). the model asks $100 per hour. the studio time costs the photographer $100 for 4 hours. the photog spends an additional 2 hours editing the pics and on and off between the next two weeks calling contacts, forwarding samples etc. all together let's say the photog has $550 cash and 8 hours labor tied up in this shoot, and the model enjoyed the rate she asked for. how much money, "ethically", should the photog make before he should start considering kicking the model out some of his profits? Jul 09 05 07:37 pm Link Profit? What is that? All this talk of model releases in every other thread is freaking me out. I've always been loose with it and just used a simple release that I felt was nice to the model. Now it sounds like I need a lawyer and several different releases drafted for different situations. How does a photographer who has never been paid a dime for his work, and likely never will, decide what his usage is to be in a release? How is it that everyone who has ever touched or been touched by a camera has a lawyer. I'm literally homeless. I am not about to throw money at one of those but I can't exactly stop shooting. I keep looking over my shoulder now waiting for some girl I shot a year ago to show up and sue me for my equipment since I don't have any money. Jul 09 05 07:44 pm Link I do not think the photographer owes the model any more money. (Unless there is a formal agreement with the model) There will be a lot of other shoots not producing any money, and the sale of images from one shoot may have to cover expenses from others. Jul 09 05 07:46 pm Link |