John Allan wrote:
TESTING:
- Doesn't work particularly well with non-agency models, who may be hard to locate at some future time to obtain the requisite release.

Agency models may be hard to locate also.  The average professional lifespan of a signed fashion model is measured in weeks.  But that doesn't matter, since there is no intent in a "test" to sell the pictures.

John Allan wrote:
TFP (Trade for release version):
- Obviously an attractive option for photographers
- Models are not fairly compensated if the images are sold in the future

I understand that perception.  However, there are alternative arguments to be made.

John Allan wrote:
The Solution:

- A model release 'escrow house', would contract with all parties involved.
- The model would sign a model release, and file in escrow with the house.
- If the images require a release for commercial use at a future date, the escrow house insures that everyone is compensated at an agreed rate before relinquishing the signed release.
- All parties have contracted giving the escrow house the right to control the release.

Typically, nobody gets paid until long after publication, and nothing gets published without the release.  The timeline doesn't work.

TXPhotog wrote:

John Allan wrote:
TESTING:
- Doesn't work particularly well with non-agency models, who may be hard to locate at some future time to obtain the requisite release.

Agency models may be hard to locate also.  The average professional lifespan of a signed fashion model is measured in weeks.  But that doesn't matter, since there is no intent in a "test" to sell the pictures.

That's the point it addresses - intent changes with opportunity.

John Allan wrote:
TFP (Trade for release version):
- Obviously an attractive option for photographers
- Models are not fairly compensated if the images are sold in the future

I understand that perception.  However, there are alternative arguments to be made.

Yes?


Typically, nobody gets paid until long after publication, and nothing gets published without the release.  The timeline doesn't work.

I don't agree, that's the specific problem solved here. The compensation would be received before the house released the release permitting publication.

John Allan wrote:
I don't agree, that's the specific problem solved here. The compensation would be received before the house released the release permitting publication.

So you want to change the way the industry does business?  The whole industry, including clients?  Good luck.

The sequence is:  you present your photo package, including releases.  The publication publishes.  You get paid.  Photographers have no control over that.  Models have no control over that.  Escrow companies have no control over that.  If the photographer or the escrow company can't do business the way business is done, the magazine or commercial client will simply get their pictures from someone who can.

TXPhotog wrote:
So you want to change the way the industry does business?  The whole industry, including clients?  Good luck.

Oh no - of course not - I was simply suggesting a solution for this web-world where models solicit photographers and photographers solicit models directly....
I like the way things are on the street level just fine...
+ I don't think there's a chance in hell that an agency is going to let a third party hold a release before getting compensated


John

John Allan wrote:
To solve the problem for MUAs and Stylists during a test where even agencies are involved, the "escrow house" could simply hold a "virtual release", which would basically be contractual rights to the release the photographer might obtain at a future date for the images. That would preclude the photographer from selling the images even with the model release (it would be an encumbered release ). Not sure that's the correct

I confess I have no idea what this means.

A photographer does not need a release from a makeup artist or stylist to publish photos, and a client would not require one.

An escrow house serves the purpose of holding on to something until a contingency has taken place, and then giving it to a specified party as stated in the escrow instructions.  In this case, what is the contingency which would require the escrow house releasing that "something", what is the "something", and what would be the effect of the escrow house giving it?  Whom would they give it?

Doug Lester wrote:
There's one major problem (among others). When a major publication or client makes a decision to purchase and print an image, they will have absolutely no interest in waiting for some sort of virtual clearing house to decide provide a release. In fact I can just about hear a magazine photo editor laughing now. Many years ago, a major magazine contacted me about using a set of photos I had submitted. When I told the editor I had to check with the model about the release, there was a sort of odd silence on the line. He left me his number and I was able to contact the model within about five minutes and called him back within thirty minutes. I couldn't reach him. After several calls, an assistant editor finally told me they were using different photos. They don't want problems, the chance of problems, or delays of any sort. Since then, I get a full release signed or there is no shoot. It would have been a very nice paycheck for both the model and myself.

BTW, there are some basic reason 'tests' work so well with agency model. First off, a 'test' is not intended to put to commercial use and that is the understanding with the model agency. SEcond, agency models do not use "releases" as they are known on the net, they use a voucher system in which specific uses are spelled out. If additional uses arise, then additional negotiations with the agency are required.  Additionally, there is no need to contact the agency model, the usually agency has power of attorney to sign for her.

I don't believe you read all the thread.... You're arguing against applying it in circumstances I never intended it to be applied.

"Additionally, there is no need to contact the agency model, the usually agency has power of attorney to sign for her."

Yeh, that's how it's supposed to work, that's why we test with agency models, but I got to tell you I'm struggling as we speak to get an image released with Elite that was taken mid-90s within a test and the model skipped town on them subsequently.

The problems start occuring when you start trying to extrapolate the beautiful simplicity of the test agreement with independents - particularly web ones.....

John

TXPhotog wrote:
I confess I have no idea what this means.

A photographer does not need a release from a makeup artist or stylist to publish photos, and a client would not require one.

Yes obviously. To the constirnation of MUAs and stylists everywhere (particularly on the web).

TXPhotog wrote:
An escrow house serves the purpose of holding on to something until a contingency has taken place, and then giving it to a specified party as stated in the escrow instructions.  In this case, what is the contingency which would require the escrow house releasing that "something"

compensation to everyone involved

TXPhotog wrote:
, what is the "something",

The signed release

TXPhotog wrote:
and what would be the effect of the escrow house giving it?  Whom would they give it?

The person submitting the images for publication - To the photographer ostensibly.

John

John Allan wrote:
The Solution:

- A model release 'escrow house', would contract with all parties involved.
- The model would sign a model release, and file in escrow with the house.
- If the images require a release for commercial use at a future date, the escrow house insures that everyone is compensated at an agreed rate before relinquishing the signed release.
- All parties have contracted giving the escrow house the right to control the release.

It sounds like the sort of thing Ken Lay would have loved running.  It seems he died one day too soon.

John Allan wrote:
I was simply suggesting a solution for this web-world where models solicit photographers and photographers solicit models directly....
I like the way things are on the street level just fine...

The solution to this problem is already in place -- don't do TFP with paranoid newbies who haven't a clue as to how things work...Leave all the dumb wannabes with agencies that have the time [and interest] to spoon-feed them.

John Allan wrote:
The person submitting the images for publication - To the photographer ostensibly.

John

I still don't understand this.  The escrow house will not receive compensation until after publication.  The magazine will not publish until they have the release.  First the release has to be sent to the magazine, then the publication and payment take place.  Your procedure does not allow for that, consequently magazines will not publish such pictures, nor will clients.  It just means nobody ever gets paid.

Michael McGowan wrote:
To the OP...

You keep saying the solution you're speaking doesn't involve publication, then every time you talk about using it, you involve publication.

Sorry. It's simply too cumbersome.

I'm in the process of uploading new stock images, and one thing that has to be attached is a signed release, wherever there's a recognizable person. Anytime a photo requiring a signed release is submitted for publication, the release has to be right there.

The whole escrow idea is cute, but it doesn't work on any practical level.

"You keep saying the solution you're speaking doesn't involve publication,"

Where do I say that? The whole purpose is to facilitate unforseen (at the time of the shoot), publication....

"Anytime a photo requiring a signed release is submitted for publication, the release has to be right there."

Yes, and that's what it addresses.

John

TXPhotog wrote:

I still don't understand this.  The escrow house will not receive compensation until after publication.  The magazine will not publish until they have the release.  First the release has to be sent to the magazine, then the publication and payment take place.  Your procedure does not allow for that, consequently magazines will not publish such pictures, nor will clients.  It just means nobody ever gets paid.

No, the escrow house does not middle money. Only the release.

It needs to be fine-tuned. Would love some ideas. The release is available and I don't believe the publishing house actually needs a copy on file until they are committed to print? They just need to know the images are releasable(released). They are.

John

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

It sounds like the sort of thing Ken Lay would have loved running.  It seems he died one day too soon.

Ken Lay is dead?

John

studio36uk wrote:
John don't try and re-invent the wheel. Collective Societies have existed for a long long time including at least one I know well dealing with photography related materials.

Design and Artists Copyright Society
http://www.dacs.org.uk/

There are big drawbacks and some significant advantages.

Among the drawbacks are that registration of work within the DACS system also precludes the creator from either marketing it them self - OR - setting individual usage rates [with only a few exceptions for certain specific kinds of uses].

You must agree to let them do the licensing at their set rates and they publish the rates they set annually.

You must give them exclusive rights to act on your behalf, as your agent, in negotiations with end users.

They issue the license not you... you give them what amounts to a master license only... and they really don't concern themselves with underlying subject or property types of releases so their actions are ONLY between photographer/copyright owner and end-user client and ONLY based on the copyright ownership.

They are NOT representing, and do not represent, the interests of the model/mua/or anyone else.

Studio36

Sounds complicated - what I was suggesting, was much simpler. It's not a guarantee of publishability, but at least it elevates the possibility within the silly TFP culture to something closer to the options within agency testing...

John

John Allan wrote:
Sounds complicated - what I was suggesting, was much simpler. It's not a guarantee of publishability, but at least it elevates the possibility within the silly TFP culture to something closer to the options within agency testing...

John

It [DACS] has some complexities but the management is of your portfolio of images, for which you appint them and they act as your agent; and as your agent license uses within a framework of standardised fees which they collect on your behalf and eventually give to you on periodic settlement days.

It [DACS] is IDENTICAL to similar collection societies in music, film and written authorship. These kinds of collective societies have been around for more than 150 years in thieir modern form. The world's first rights society for works of music in present-day terms was the French SACEM (Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique), which was founded in Paris on 28th February 1851. The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers [as an international umbrella  group - but not incorporating every society] was formed in 1926 though a significant number of individual one-nation societies existed before that.

Here is a list of just the UK ones today - each a specialist society working with particular media or rights holders:

United Kingdom

    * Authors' Licensing & Collecting Society (ALCS)
    * Broadcasting Data Services (BDS)
    * British Equity Collecting Society (BECS)
    * Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA)
    * Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) < specialises in photography >
    * Directors' and Producers' Rights Society (DPRS)
    * Educational Recording Agency (ERA)
    * Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS)
    * Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC)
    * Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA)
    * Open University Worldwide (OUW)
    * Performing Artists' Media Rights Association (PAMRA)
    * Performing Right Society (PRS)
    * Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)
    * Publishers' Licensing Society (PLS)
    * Video Performance Limited (VPL)

Studio36

Bill Olive wrote:
A few words on topic (like 18)

Then a 1500 word diatribe on; I think - "why I hate tfp..."

Thanks for staying on topic and contributing Bill....

John

Seattle Photo wrote:
there are really no decent agencies that would have their models do stock photo for less then a like 5K per day and that normally would make it too $$ to produce.

i have produced a few shoots for Corbis and Getty where i did hire agency models, because we wanted those specific people, but we also hired 100 other models for that week of shooting and they were not with an agency. ....we spent a week doing casting calls and selecting people from street casting. hard work, but worthwhile. those models were paid $300-500/day and signed a full release.

in my own work, i have a specific release for stock. it grants the model a 10% royalty rate on all revenue from the image. there is no way i would be able to have some 3rd party handle my releases. that would make it impossible to sell any images in a reasonable time.

I think you possibly missed the point - the whole point is that you don't expect to sell the images, otherwise you'd release them right away. The intent is to do book building, but the escrow service holds the release so everyone can comfortably do things free knowing that 3 years down the line if the images have an opportunity for sale (by some happenstance), that they are releaseable through simply compensating those involved after which, the escrow service relinquishes the release.

Obviously, there would be some legal provision for "best effort" to compensate, but particularly for stylists/MUAs/locations whatever, that would typically lose out later on because all that would really be needed is tracking down the model to release (well ok locations, but), this would permit them to be comfortable...

In some respects it's like providing the 'agency wrapper' that makes testing work with agency models as well as it does.

John