FabioTovar wrote:
(yes.. it was in the release that business use of the pics was not allowed)

SO... tag the pics or not?

Could I have a copy of the release, as I have a lot of TFCD comming up?

Thanks, Charlie.

PS. As a matter of course, I usually put my logo on pics going out for business use, whether a freebie or not.

dissolvegirl wrote:
I don't muck around with watermarks or copyright notices. If a model is using the images to promote herself, for her portfolio, I'm not going to ruin the look of the images she worked for by putting some large copyright notice or unsightly watermark on them.

Of course, I have class act models who put my copyright notice up on their MySpace ....

Great minds think alike, this is excatly what I do.

When it comes to using the images on MySpace or anywhere else like that all I ask is that they add a "comment" on "photography by .... etc etc" . I've not been let down yet.

Jim March wrote:
I put it on all my TFCD work.  It shouldn't effect the image at all if it's being used in a portfolio.  Anyone viewing the models portfolio is looking at the model and could give a rats ass less about the watermark.

You're not serious? lol

No professional portfolio has watermarks on the images...
I put my tagstrip on the bottom of my images that appear on modeling sites like MM, because, well... It's MM....

But in my book, I wouldn't dream of it.... and I've modified the portfolio on my website www.JohnAllanStudio.com to use flash so I can display purer images and not use the strip.

John

rachelrose wrote:
i dont like it when its on images that i need to print out for my book. i think that's just rude. becuase when somebody is looking at my book, they are looking to hire a make-up artist...not a photographer. it is just tacky for the most part. something small and not noticeable if you are giving out web prints, but the model/stylist/etc shouldnt have to go around with your watermark in their book.

The way around that is to just pay for the image.

A photographer who GIVES someone an image will usually have their logo affixed to it. If you want one that's not, then just buy it. Sometimes a photographer will not put the logo on for you, but it depends.

Jim March wrote:
Ummmm, flash doesn't stop people from pressing Print Screen.

yeah, thats the problem. it doesnt matter what method of copywright protection you use. if you post an image on the internet, it can be taken. and you dont have to be computer savvy to do it.

Mitsukai wrote:
To answer your question Fabio, within limits.
This is okay
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/060529/03/ … e009a5.jpg

This...
https://img4.modelmayhem.com/060404/01/ … b9f93c.jpg
Is so very not.

I'm actually OK with both of them.  The 2nd is a little bigger, but being in a corner, not overly distracting.  The ones I hate are the big banner ads through the middle, or even going across the whole bottom of the image.

Andy Meng wrote:

I'm actually OK with both of them.  The 2nd is a little bigger, but being in a corner, not overly distracting.  The ones I hate are the big banner ads through the middle, or even going across the whole bottom of the image.

Unfortunately the second link is not a good example however there are photos from that set that are unuseable because the logo detracts so much.

I have never seen anyone put big banner ads through the middle. That is simply amazing. I probably haven't seen it because all the models refuse to use those photos.

Andy Meng wrote:

I'm actually OK with both of them.  The 2nd is a little bigger, but being in a corner, not overly distracting.  The ones I hate are the big banner ads through the middle, or even going across the whole bottom of the image.

Exactly.

My thing is that with people being able to grab images from anywhere, I at least want to have my logo on it.

VRG Photography wrote:

The way around that is to just pay for the image.

A photographer who GIVES someone an image will usually have their logo affixed to it. If you want one that's not, then just buy it. Sometimes a photographer will not put the logo on for you, but it depends.

if its a trade shoot, i have volunteered my services, as well as everybody else on set. i am not going to buy a picture from the photographer. just as he is not going buy me make-up, etc. especially since i am going to be paying to have the image printed at a lab. like i said, i am not opposed to watermarking a web image. but in all actuality, my physical book shouldn't have watermarks on it.

everybody contributed to the shoot, so should i watermark my name on the image too, so that when the photographer puts it in his book, everybody will know that I did the make-up? no because, its not about ONE person in particular. it takes a team to create a great image, and i think a lot of people lose sight of this.

i dont really work with photographers who insist on having their names on EVERYTHING or photographers who are stingy with images. I also make sure to credit the photographer when I use their work on my website.

i work with photographers that value my opinion and my needs as a make-up artist as much as I value their needs as a photographer/model/etc...

i hardly consider giving somebody an image to print for their portfolio after a team volunteered their time and effort, merits a charitble act on the photographers part.

VRG Photography wrote:
Rachel,

My point is that if you want a photo WITHOUT the logo, no matter what part you played in it, you should be prepared to pay for it if the photographer doesn't give away images without his/her logo on it.

As was already said, images get out there, and people want to know who took the picture. I understand the part that you and other MUA's play in making the picture what it is, but from a photographer's perspective, I want to make sure that people know WHO took the picture, should it start making an electronic trip around the world.

I don't mind letting everyone know who did the model's makeup, but I don't make it a habit of letting images go without my logo, unless it's paid for.

Lastly, don't underestimate the cost of creating an image for someone. While people think that all you have to do is push a few buttons and the picture comes out, the fact of the matter is that THAT image costs, too.

don't worry i get the "costs" of photography. everything has costs associated with it. but that always seems to come up. people should know WHO took the picture, and they can ask, and i will gladly tell them... i am not working with a thousand photographers so that i cant remember who took the picture. i never once said that photography is "pushing buttons". i wont get into my costs, because it's not about who has the most career expenses, its about watermarks. and everybody always seems to resort to costs to determine who is the most important person on the team.

i am talking about a print for an actual book, not an internet print. so unless a client were to take the image out of my book, scan it and post it on the internet. i dont see how that would merit a problem. considering my clients aren't model mayhem photographers, models or anybody who would actually take the time to do that. i could just see the JCpenney people saying... this image in this make-up artists book is killer, lets scan it and pass it off as our own! please, that is NEVER going to happen.

but like i said, i don't really run into this problem because i dont work with photographers who do that. i also make my expectations clear beforehand, so if the photographer has a problem with it, he can choose not to work with me. trust me, i am not hurting because i don't test a lot. i prefer quality to quantity.

now if david lachapelle wants to shoot with me, he can put his watermark on whatever he wants. but his style is difinitve enough to not need a watermark. maybe thats what people should be focusing on? having a style that is unique enough, that nobody else could pass it off as their own.