rachelrose wrote:
A lot of photographers on MM are REALLY hung up about releases. Especially when most of them are hobbyists (this is not aimed at you, just a general vent) and will NEVER need a release- in fact the hobbyists seem to be the ones super hung up on the legalities of copyright, selling to stock, cropping the images and blah blah blah blah. (once again... general rant... not aimed at you).

I have NEVER signed a release for a test. Most of the time nobody does... I test with agency girls, and they are usually instructed to not sign releases.

Just don't be a jerk and try to sell the images to stock, after everybody else volunteered their time. Even though, if it is make-up focused... there probably won't be a whole lot marketable to stock.

So if you write a release, just say that everybody can use it for promotional use and that the images are never to be sold for any reason.

If the models are with an agency, you probably won't be able to get them to sign a release. And if you do, the agency probably won't send you models ever again.

I absolutely agree with this entire rant.

rachelrose wrote:
I think that you would be hard pressed to find a working MUA or Agency model who would sign a release for you to use their work commercially. Even if it is self promotion, an Agency would be PISSED if they were flipping through a magazine and saw a purchased ad for your photography with their models picture on it. Which is why they don't let their girls sign releases.

Everybody is so quick to talk about all these legal hassles that are so easily avoided. I don't think that all these releases do much more than serve the photographer's ego, yeah so you "own" a copyright and yu are totally going to sue the 15 year old webmodel who totally "screwed with your vision" because she decided to crop a picture. seriously, if you have a picture of a "web model", how are you actually going to use it? Seriously... who is going to bother with it? Except for people on MM or OMP.

Like I said, if a photographer threw a release at me. I would not work with him.

My goodness Rachel, a little peeved today?  There's nothing wrong with trying to make sure that the proper legalities are observed.  Maybe you won't use the picture of the "web model" but so what..who knows what the future may hold?

Isn't it also better to make sure you're following the right protocols at the getgo rather than having to learn later on?  Isn't it also better to have the proper forms and not need them than to need them and not have them?

Lighten up, we're all trying to navigate these waters and figure out the best standard practices for ourselves and in the industry.

rachelrose wrote:
I think that you would be hard pressed to find a working MUA or Agency model who would sign a release for you to use their work commercially. Even if it is self promotion, an Agency would be PISSED if they were flipping through a magazine and saw a purchased ad for your photography with their models picture on it. Which is why they don't let their girls sign releases.

Everybody is so quick to talk about all these legal hassles that are so easily avoided. I don't think that all these releases do much more than serve the photographer's ego, yeah so you "own" a copyright and yu are totally going to sue the 15 year old webmodel who totally "screwed with your vision" because she decided to crop a picture. seriously, if you have a picture of a "web model", how are you actually going to use it? Seriously... who is going to bother with it? Except for people on MM or OMP.

Like I said, if a photographer threw a release at me. I would not work with him.

On a test.......
I would never sign a release to use my work commercially and if the model did (on a test) I would walk immediately.   Of course an agency model would know better and so this scenerio wouldnt happen on a test I would be on. 

If a photographer wants to test with the option to sell the photos it is no longer a test, it is a spec shoot and for that I charge full day rate....


another good reason to shoot with good agency models and photographers that they recommend....

rachelrose wrote:
I have NEVER signed a release for a test.

Mary wrote:
On a test.......
I would never sign a release to use my work commercially

I agree with almost everything you've said and I think it's good to re-inforce for the web people what testing is.... But.... what exactly would you be signing a release for?

John

P.S. Maybe I'm just being tricked by you guys using editorial pronouns in your comment.

Mary wrote:
On a test.......
I would never sign a release to use my work commercially and if the model did (on a test) I would walk immediately.   Of course an agency model would know better and so this scenerio wouldnt happen on a test I would be on. 

If a photographer wants to test with the option to sell the photos it is no longer a test, it is a spec shoot and for that I charge full day rate....


another good reason to shoot with good agency models and photographers that they recommend....

Exactly, Mary. If there is a profit to be made on the images... say hello to my day rate. I just don't get why everybody on this site is sooo hung up on releases and legalities, and totally convinced that is totally normal for a model to sign her life away for a free test. I am not saying that it is bad to have your ducks all in a row, but I mean, come on.

It seems like the more high profile of cases I have heard of regarding releases and whatnot always included a release being signed. Remember that one with Cameron  Diaz or something a few years back. She signed a release... and still won the rights to the images, when the photographer tried to sell them years later.

I think a lot of people don't realize how much this "web" industry jargon, does not fly in the real world of modeling. I think that the term  "TFCD" is a foreign word to most agency types.

rachelrose wrote:
Exactly, Mary. If there is a profit to be made on the images... say hello to my day rate. I just don't get why everybody on this site is sooo hung up on releases and legalities, and totally convinced that is totally normal for a model to sign her life away for a free test. I am not saying that it is bad to have your ducks all in a row, but I mean, come on.

It seems like the more high profile of cases I have heard of regarding releases and whatnot always included a release being signed. Remember that one with Cameron  Diaz or something a few years back. She signed a release... and still won the rights to the images, when the photographer tried to sell them years later.

I think a lot of people don't realize how much this "web" industry jargon, does not fly in the real world of modeling. I think that the term  "TFCD" is a foreign word to most agency types.

to be clear..... The artist doesnt have to sign a release, only the model does....the model signs a release and the photographer can do as he pleases with the images and that includes selling them without giving you a dime.

If you do a test, just make sure you're doing it with good agency models....their agents won't let them sign photographers releases on a test....  I don't test PERIOD anymore, all this garbage is just not worth it.

Mary wrote:

to be clear..... The artist doesnt have to sign a release, only the model does....the model signs a release and the photographer can do as he pleases with the images and that includes selling them without giving you a dime.

If you do a test, just make sure you're doing it with good agency models....their agents won't let them sign photographers releases on a test....  I don't test PERIOD anymore, all this garbage is just not worth it.

Oh yeah, no I totally know that. I was just saying, if somebody handed me a release, as an artist, i wouldn't sign it. i don't test a lot, and when i do it's with agency girls and photographers who are smart enough to not ask for releases, who have enough integrity to not sell the photos or use them improperly.

TXPhotog wrote:
Mary and I agree on a lot of issues, but we aren't entirely in agreement on this one.  I see a whole lot of people in this thread projecting their own experiences and biases onto the rest of the community.  As is usually true of such cases, the projections just don't fit all situations.

Let's try a couple of thought experiments, shall we?

1.  Photographer hires a model to shoot some stock photos at a rate of $75 per hour.  They shoot for two hours, the model signs the stock release and is paid $150.  Immediately on getting the check, the model says, "Hey, we shot a lot of things that I really could use for my book and card.  Could I buy some prints from you?"  The photographer agrees that the model could, and after looking at the pictures, the model agrees to buy six of them, fully retouched, for $150.  He hands the check back to the photographer.

What is wrong with this deal?  Why does anyone object to it?

2.  Model needs some commercial/lifestyle pictures for her card.  She is referred by her agency to a "test photographer" who quotes her a price of $600 for the shoot to produce those pictures.  The makeup artist is paid separately by the model.  At the conclusion of the shoot, the photographer says, "You know, I really like your look, and the shots we did may have value as stock photography.  If you will agree to sign a stock release, I'll waive my $600 fee.  The model, who isn't flush with cash, agrees.

(For this purpose let us dispense with the argument about whether or not stock is a good idea for models - that's a separate issue.)

Now, what is wrong with that deal?  Should the makeup artist become offended and "walk"? 

Suppose the deal is agreed to before the shoot (in either case).  Does that somehow make it more offensive than if it was agreed after?

How is this different from a "test" or "TFCD" in which a model receives no pay, but the photographer does get a release?

Now I will hasten to add that there are lots of cases when the pictures resulting from a TFCD are of little or no real value to the model.  In such cases, the model should, it seems to me, be chastized for choosing the wrong photographer and the wrong kinds of pictures - not for signing a release.

Roger, In both of your cases 1 and 2 the artist was paid right?  I have no objection when I'm paid....The photographer can make $100,000 off the shoot and its none of my business.   

I object when the photographer does a test and everyone works free including the artist and the photographer believes as the copyright owner that he can then take the shots and sell them.  Thats not the case unless he has a model release that gives him permission to sell them and my point is.....agency models don't sign these kinds of releases because their agencies usually ok what they sign in advance.  Thats why it's a good idea if you are testing (FREE) that you test with agency models and good reputable photographers....that way you are not doing a spec shoot as a test

Mary wrote:
Roger, In both of your cases 1 and 2 the artist was paid right?  I have no objection when I'm paid....The photographer can make $100,000 off the shoot and its none of my business.

Of course the artist was paid   And as I read a lot of the TFP discussions here on the forums I find many references to models wanting the photographer to pay for the MUA, or photographers wanting the MUA to be paid by the model . . . .

However, since we are in "thought experiment" mode, let's try another one:

Suzy, a recovering MAC "artist" who really needs to upgrade her skills and get a decent portfolio, contacts Ralph the photographer to see if he would work with her.  "I'll work for free, if you can get a good model that would help my book," Suzy assures Ralph.

About the same time, Charlene the model calls Ralph asking to pay him for a shoot for her book.  When Ralph takes a look at Charlene he decides he likes her look and thinks he may be able to sell some of her pictures for stock.  So he shows her Suzy's current portfolio, explains the situation, and tells her if she would agree to give Suzy a chance, he'll waive his fee as long as she signs a stock release.  He also promises Charlene a free reshoot if the pictures with Suzy don't work.  Suzy has learned a thing or two since leaving MAC, and Charlene agrees. 

Now here we have a "TFP" situation, with the MUA not being paid.

Why is this bad?

TXPhotog wrote:
Of course the artist was paid   And as I read a lot of the TFP discussions here on the forums I find many references to models wanting the photographer to pay for the MUA, or photographers wanting the MUA to be paid by the model . . . .

However, since we are in "thought experiment" mode, let's try another one:

Suzy, a recovering MAC "artist" who really needs to upgrade her skills and get a decent portfolio, contacts Ralph the photographer to see if he would work with her.  "I'll work for free, if you can get a good model that would help my book," Suzy assures Ralph.

About the same time, Charlene the model calls Ralph asking to pay him for a shoot for her book.  When Ralph takes a look at Charlene he decides he likes her look and thinks he may be able to sell some of her pictures for stock.  So he shows her Suzy's current portfolio, explains the situation, and tells her if she would agree to give Suzy a chance, he'll waive his fee as long as she signs a stock release.  He also promises Charlene a free reshoot if the pictures with Suzy don't work.  Suzy has learned a thing or two since leaving MAC, and Charlene agrees. 

Now here we have a "TFP" situation, with the MUA not being paid.

Why is this bad?

Its not bad at all because the photographer "explains the situation"  I assume that means he says "I'm going to try to sell these shots, sign here"  at that point the artist can say, fine, I know I'll get good stuff, I hope they make you rich      or hell no, I'm not shooting free in this case.   

The thing that artists object to is the photographer that asks you to test and than goes behind your back and uses the shots for stock or some other venture.   If thats your plan it should be said "lets do a spec shoot, I would like to make some money on this, I do not intend to share with you financially but I hope you'll do it for the great photos I'm going to give you"  now thats fair....   

Another example.....    I did an editorial (free) because it was fashion and I liked everyone on the team.......  The art director showed up and insisted on putting diamonds on everyone (the diamond company was an advertiser)   Nobody was happy because this now  is an advidorial and not an editorial and I get paid for advitorials just as if it were a commercial shoot.   I didn't walk, I did the shoot but it angered everyone on the shoot....the stylist did walk on that shoot for a number of reasons but I do have loyalty to the photographer, its a rare instance that I would walk off a shoot unless he did first and it is something he thought about....I decided to do whatever he did.

Mary wrote:
Its not bad at all because the photographer "explains the situation"  I assume that means he says "I'm going to try to sell these shots, sign here"  at that point the artist can say, fine, I know I'll get good stuff, I hope they make you rich      or hell no, I'm not shooting free in this case.   

The thing that artists object to is the photographer that asks you to test and than goes behind your back and uses the shots for stock or some other venture.   If thats your plan it should be said "lets do a spec shoot, I would like to make some money on this, I do not intend to share with you financially but I hope you'll do it for the great photos I'm going to give you"  now thats fair....

Now we are getting somewhere!  I agree with you.

My point is to suggest that all these "never" statements are over-broad.  There can be perfectly valid reasons for people to make the choices they do, and nothing wrong with them.  As Mary points out, it's incumbent on everyone to be honest about it, but as long as that is true, it seems to me that agreements among informed, consenting adults that they are all happy with are just fine - even if a release gets signed.

Richard Tallent wrote:
...But the OP was asking about TFCD, not testing. The stated goal was that the MUA wants to build her portfolio, the photographer is wanting the same, and the models want the same.

So, this isn't a test shoot, it's a spec shoot specifically for portfolio use. This being the case, there are three legal questions that need to be addressed:

That's exactly what a test shoot is.  It's an unpaid test, certainly, but it's still a test in industry/agency terms.

There's a lot of bouncing around and questions about what makes the difference between TFP/CD and "Testing" and it's mostly just the industry you surround yourself with.  People who work with the agencies generally use the word test, and people who work mostly off the internet use the terms most common here (TFCD/TFP).

While there's little definable difference, in my mind when I hear test I generally assume it's an agency model with an established, working photographer.  If I hear TFCD I generally assume it's a hobbiest or maybe, just maybe a stock shooter.  It's a shaky distinction though because every hobbiest in the world will start using the word test if they think it makes them sound more professional.

Just my opinion.

Andy

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:

That's exactly what a test shoot is.  It's an unpaid test, certainly, but it's still a test in industry/agency terms.

There's a lot of bouncing around and questions about what makes the difference between TFP/CD and "Testing" and it's mostly just the industry you surround yourself with.  People who work with the agencies generally use the word test, and people who work mostly off the internet use the terms most common here (TFCD/TFP).

While there's little definable difference, in my mind when I hear test I generally assume it's an agency model with an established, working photographer.  If I hear TFCD I generally assume it's a hobbiest or maybe, just maybe a stock shooter.  It's a shaky distinction though because every hobbiest in the world will start using the word test if they think it makes them sound more professional.

Just my opinion.

Andy

I agree Andy, 100%  and the whole post above yours is a good reason artists need to stay away from testing unless they do it through a reputable agency who understands the photographers they work with.

Mary wrote:
I agree Andy, 100%  and the whole post above yours is a good reason artists need to stay away from testing unless they do it through a reputable agency who understands the photographers they work with.

That only leaves the question now as to where the people who aren't yet ready for agency level testing (or who are too far removed from it for that to be an option) go to get better.

Certainly it's become obvious that there aren't enough professionals out there to hire all of the hopefuls as assistants.  So...I see a place for sites like this, but I've yet to find one that accomplishes that goal.  So many of the people here believe they will make money in the industry if they continue along the path of Internet model/photographer and "portfolio development."

Yet so many photographers and models get better and better only to continue shooting the same crap that while technically proficient, falls short of any sort of norm or standard that's useful to basically any commercial project.  It's sad really, because it's such a great tool, it just doesn't come with an instruction manual.

Andy

Mary wrote:
I agree Andy, 100%  and the whole post above yours is a good reason artists need to stay away from testing unless they do it through a reputable agency who understands the photographers they work with.

A little harsh there.

I program computers for a living, and you can bet I don't trade jack for my professional "day rate" like I might have a decade ago to work with some great company or on some great new technology.

So, if you want to insulate yourself within the walls of agency work and have the contacts, location, and experience to do so, that's your call.

But if you want to insist on redefining "Internet TFCD" to identical to "Agency Test," you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't on the same page with those of us who don't speak the same language as those who work regularly with land-based agencies.

We don't speak the same language because we don't work on the same economic principles as agency-centric people. Some of us sell stock images. Others charge models and MUAs. Others charge models and beg MUAs. Some have private collectors, run erotic pay sites, or are just hoping to someday get gallery showings or achieve coffee-table-book status. The underlying economics of agency work are all driven by commercial clients and through the agency, making the interactions between participants much simpler, cleaner, and standardized. And I'm not going to knock that system, it's a good one that puts food on a lot of tables.

All I'm pointing out is that the photographer, model, and MUA should all come to a clear understanding about each others' use of the photos, and the best way to do so is a negotiated, written agreement, whether the shoot is paid, discounted, or TFwhatever. No trickery, no attempts to exploit someone else's work, just an honest understanding of what each person wants to get out of the shoot.