Stephen Moskop wrote:
Hi all.  I'm new to this site and to this phenomenon of "internet modeling."  But I am not new to the real business of photography and agency models.  I have shot retail fashion and advertising since the early nineties, and assisted top shooters before that.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about usage, copyright, and testing on this site.  Some photographers and models here do understand, but most do not.

Here is how it works in the real world.  The photographer owns the copyright.  He sells usage rights to that work.  The model sell his or her time for some compensation.  The model, or no one else for that matter, has rights to use the image without the photographer's consent.

The photographer however cannot sell usage without the model's consent.  That's what a model release is for.  The model signs the release, the photographer pays the model- we all happily go our separate ways.  It gets confusing when we talk about "testing."

"Testing" is profolio work.  Sort of like "TFP."  But there is no such thing as TFP in the real world.  TFP is PAID work.  The payment is the prints.  The model signs the release, the photog delivers prints.  The photog can then sell usage based on what is agreed in the release.  This seems confusing to models on this site, and understandably so.  They believe they are doing work just for both the photographer's portfolio and their portfolio, only to find the images used in magazines or on pay sites.  And they have no rights to publish the images themselves.  Disappointing for all the effort they have put in.  But it is the law.  Photographers own the copyright.

In the real world there is no TFP.  Only "Testing."  Work done expressly for portfolio.  Top models will do this and so will top photographers.  NO release is signed.  NO money is exchanged- there is no TFP contract signed.  Both the photographer and model collaborate and agree to use the images only for both parties self-promotion.

The model has great shots for her book, but since neither can sell the image, she doesn't have to worry the image showing up on some pay site she doesn't want. And the photographer in turn has access the very best models, to get that great shot to attract the best clients.

This system has worked for top professionals for decades.  Leaving both with something valuable.

THANKS FOR THE CLARITY.

In the past I "tested" models from some of LA's best known agencies and never had a model release. Had no problem either. Only recently with this "TFP/CD phenomenon have I had releases signed and have had models tell me they won't sign until they receive their CD. Things have gotten rather complicated due, as you somewhat stated, to a lack of understanding. I have stopped asking for releases! I think it is the commercial, published and well known photographers that drum "GET THE RELEASE" into all noobie photographers heads and it is not clearly explained why.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
In the real world there is no TFP.  Only "Testing."  Work done expressly for portfolio.  Top models will do this and so will top photographers.  NO release is signed.  NO money is exchanged- there is no TFP contract signed.  Both the photographer and model collaborate and agree to use the images only for both parties self-promotion.

The model has great shots for her book, but since neither can sell the image, she doesn't have to worry the image showing up on some pay site she doesn't want. And the photographer in turn has access the very best models, to get that great shot to attract the best clients.

This system has worked for top professionals for decades.  Leaving both with something valuable.

I was following along until I get to this paragraph.  I think I am one of the photographers who is confused about what this means.  Define "self promotion".  I recently shot a model who had issues with me posting his images on a site other than MM.  It was TFP or Testing as you state.  I gave him a disc of the pix and did not pay him.  Well, I paid him $40 for a few full frontal nude shots but as he stated the other shots were TFP.  The release he signed said they would be used for my personal portfolio.  I took that to mean online as well as printed portfolio.  The site were the pics were posted was not a paid site.  I'm not gonna go into who was right or wrong but when you say "collaborate", I take that to mean a verbal agreement.  Am I wrong?  Can you just clarify that paragraph a little bit?  I told my model the photos would not be published but I have been told by photographers on MM that publish to the web is publishing.  10yrs ago no one ever thought publishing would include the web.  How can one ever know for sure what is right or wrong in the world of testing if definitions are constantly changing?

Stephen Moskop wrote:
I'm not trying to be elitist at all.  I just see a lot of posts from models disappointed that they don't  have image rights and that shots are being used for purposes not intended.

And I think some photographers take unfair advantage of "TFP."  They are looking for cheap models for stock work or pay sites.  They have models sign blanket releases, telling the model it will only be used for portfolio, when in fact they plan to market it.  Why else would you need a blanket release?  And models for their part take images and post them to their own pay sites without compensation for the shooter, etc.

All I wanted to say is that it doesn't have to be adversarial.

Well, the reason I have models sign a blanket release is I just don't know what the future holds. I haven't sold a single image to a stock agency yet, and I really don't expect to any time soon -- yet I don't want to completely rule that possibility out right now. Maybe someday somebody will want to publish a book of my work. . . who knows? What I do know is that if I have to track down a couple dozen models a year from now, 10 years from now -- the expense of just trying to find them will be incredible. And then trying to negotiate rights with somebody who smells a little money -- when really, all there may be is a VERY little money. . . it's just buying a lot of trouble, when you could eliminate the whole potential issue by simply getting a broad release.

So -- all else being equal, I don't see how it's exploitative to get a full release just in case you want to do something with the pictures at a later date.  I think it's reasonable business practice. On the other hand, I DO think it is immoral and exploitative to get a full release, knowing you have a specific client and sale in mind, but pretending to be just shooting a test for your portfolio. That's unethical.

Regards,
Paul

Stephen Moskop wrote:
Hi all.  I'm new to this site and to this phenomenon of "internet modeling."  But I am not new to the real business of photography and agency models.  I have shot retail fashion and advertising since the early nineties, and assisted top shooters before that.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about usage, copyright, and testing on this site.  Some photographers and models here do understand, but most do not.

Here is how it works in the real world.  The photographer owns the copyright.  He sells usage rights to that work.  The model sell his or her time for some compensation.  The model, or no one else for that matter, has rights to use the image without the photographer's consent.

The photographer however cannot sell usage without the model's consent.  That's what a model release is for.  The model signs the release, the photographer pays the model- we all happily go our separate ways.  It gets confusing when we talk about "testing."

"Testing" is profolio work.  Sort of like "TFP."  But there is no such thing as TFP in the real world.  TFP is PAID work.  The payment is the prints.  The model signs the release, the photog delivers prints.  The photog can then sell usage based on what is agreed in the release.  This seems confusing to models on this site, and understandably so.  They believe they are doing work just for both the photographer's portfolio and their portfolio, only to find the images used in magazines or on pay sites.  And they have no rights to publish the images themselves.  Disappointing for all the effort they have put in.  But it is the law.  Photographers own the copyright.

In the real world there is no TFP.  Only "Testing."  Work done expressly for portfolio.  Top models will do this and so will top photographers.  NO release is signed.  NO money is exchanged- there is no TFP contract signed.  Both the photographer and model collaborate and agree to use the images only for both parties self-promotion.

The model has great shots for her book, but since neither can sell the image, she doesn't have to worry the image showing up on some pay site she doesn't want. And the photographer in turn has access the very best models, to get that great shot to attract the best clients.

This system has worked for top professionals for decades.  Leaving both with something valuable.

I have assisted tons of photographers while living in NYC and LONDON and this is the same conclusion i have come to understand, and it makes perfect sense this whole tfpc/tfcd is so out of control. Tt should'nt be so complicated but like the othe photographer said with the advance in technology and the big digital rush you have models and GWC's= GUYS WITH CAMERA who are just creating a big mess cutting prices changing industry rates and at the same time making it difficult for people who have studie paid the price to learn starve, to buy the gear to make ourselves more consistent and efficient  and then comes the GWC thinking he can charge less and do a worse job. I've had a model and her mom come from nowhe to my studio and the mom talking about I shold be happy that i'm taking her daughters picture because she is going to make me alot of money. It's just crazy

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
I've always followed the testing model as laid out here.  It's worked for me, and I've had great models and great experiences.  However, I just had that blow up in my face in a pretty significant way, with a model out of the blue threatening legal action if she didn't get every single RAW shot.  (We agreed she'd get the best two to four edited images.) 

I realize that the legal threat is so much hot air, but the unpleasantness is so damn...unpleasant...that I'm seriously considering going to a strict TFP model, and simply not shooting without a signed model release that includes laying out exactly what the model has agreed to receive as compensation.  I profoundly don't want to be in this situation again, and I'm not sure how else to avoid it.

The model are crazy!

Stephen Moskop wrote:
I'm not trying to be elitist at all.  I just see a lot of posts from models disappointed that they don't  have image rights and that shots are being used for purposes not intended.

And I think some photographers take unfair advantage of "TFP."  They are looking for cheap models for stock work or pay sites.  They have models sign blanket releases, telling the model it will only be used for portfolio, when in fact they plan to market it.  Why else would you need a blanket release?  And models for their part take images and post them to their own pay sites without compensation for the shooter, etc.

All I wanted to say is that it doesn't have to be adversarial.

One last point -- I think often it's adversarial because people don't know how to handle a mismatch in need or value -- they are failing to add that into the equation.

Suppose you're a new model who needs some basic portfolio work done. As an experienced photographer, what possible motivation do you have for shooting that kind of work on a "straight" TFP basis? In so many cases, the model "needs" basic images for her new portfolio while the photographer doesn't really need that kind of image any more. So there is an imbalance in value -- the model needs the pictures more than the photographer does, so he asks for something more -- either payment in cash, or for the model to sign a broad or full release.

So in the end, I think there are a few photographers who are just taking advantage of new models who don't know what they're doing. But more often, I think it's just a case of photographers finding a way to do the work that makes business sense to them.

The world is full of choices. Models can shoot TFP all day long with very inexperienced photographers and not worry about releases at all. Or they can simply pay a very experienced photographer and again, not worry about releases. But sometimes, if they want to work with a really good photographer with an established track record, but they don't want to pay -- there's a third option -- sign a broad release. Works for some people, not for others.

The confusion comes in when people start saying there is only really ONE way to do things -- which almost always is the way that happens to work best for themselves. . .OK -- I'm cynical!

Regards,
Paul

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
I've always followed the testing model as laid out here.  It's worked for me, and I've had great models and great experiences.  However, I just had that blow up in my face in a pretty significant way, with a model out of the blue threatening legal action if she didn't get every single RAW shot.  (We agreed she'd get the best two to four edited images.) 

I realize that the legal threat is so much hot air, but the unpleasantness is so damn...unpleasant...that I'm seriously considering going to a strict TFP model, and simply not shooting without a signed model release that includes laying out exactly what the model has agreed to receive as compensation.  I profoundly don't want to be in this situation again, and I'm not sure how else to avoid it.

Why does it have to be a strict TFP model? The important thing, both for your protection, and the protection of the model, is to have a clear prior agreement about what the pictures can and can't be used for. As long as you get that agreement with the model, it really doesn't matter whether they are paid in prints, CD, or $$$.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
My advice to models is to not pose for a shot that you don't want to be seen.  And let the experts do the editing.

While I agree with you, and choose not to pose for photos I would not be proud to show, I have found myself in situations where the image I receive from the photographer is very different from what I thought I was doing. In cases like this, I do not think it inappropriate for a model to request that these images not be shown.

I like to see the images directly from the camera, pre-editing, so that I know what I am doing right and wrong in terms of posing, makeup, etc. Sometimes when I shoot with a photographer with whom I have previously discussed my interest in graphic design, they will choose to give me some high resolution files to retouch and submit to them for review. However, I never demand every image from a shoot, and if a photographer does not want to show me every image, that is his/her right.

bang bang photo wrote:

Why does it have to be a strict TFP model? The important thing, both for your protection, and the protection of the model, is to have a clear prior agreement about what the pictures can and can't be used for. As long as you get that agreement with the model, it really doesn't matter whether they are paid in prints, CD, or $$$.

Well, because as I've just learned, sometimes having a verbal agreement to shoot solely for portfolio use ("test" as defined above) can involve the model subsequently changing her mind and attempting to blackmail me into releasing all the images.  I'm thinking having everything on paper - what she can use them for, what I can use them for, and what she's receiving in compensation - might stave off a repeat of this situation.  Don't you think?  I'm certainly open to better suggestions!  I just want to not have this happen again.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
I've always followed the testing model as laid out here.  It's worked for me, and I've had great models and great experiences.  However, I just had that blow up in my face in a pretty significant way, with a model out of the blue threatening legal action if she didn't get every single RAW shot.  (We agreed she'd get the best two to four edited images.) 

I realize that the legal threat is so much hot air, but the unpleasantness is so damn...unpleasant...that I'm seriously considering going to a strict TFP model, and simply not shooting without a signed model release that includes laying out exactly what the model has agreed to receive as compensation.  I profoundly don't want to be in this situation again, and I'm not sure how else to avoid it.

Sita,  I go with a strict TFP model.  I go over it with the model before shooting.

For me, I have no idea what ultimate use might be because though I'm looking at a lot of new work as material for a possible book/show, the truth is maybe some could be applied somewhere else and I'd hate to have to have every model's email address updated just so I can keep trying to get permission.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
Hi all.  I'm new to this site and to this phenomenon of "internet modeling."  But I am not new to the real business of photography and agency models.  I have shot retail fashion and advertising since the early nineties, and assisted top shooters before that.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about usage, copyright, and testing on this site.  Some photographers and models here do understand, but most do not.

Here is how it works in the real world.  The photographer owns the copyright.  He sells usage rights to that work.  The model sell his or her time for some compensation.  The model, or no one else for that matter, has rights to use the image without the photographer's consent.

The photographer however cannot sell usage without the model's consent.  That's what a model release is for.  The model signs the release, the photographer pays the model- we all happily go our separate ways.  It gets confusing when we talk about "testing."

"Testing" is profolio work.  Sort of like "TFP."  But there is no such thing as TFP in the real world.  TFP is PAID work.  The payment is the prints.  The model signs the release, the photog delivers prints.  The photog can then sell usage based on what is agreed in the release.  This seems confusing to models on this site, and understandably so.  They believe they are doing work just for both the photographer's portfolio and their portfolio, only to find the images used in magazines or on pay sites.  And they have no rights to publish the images themselves.  Disappointing for all the effort they have put in.  But it is the law.  Photographers own the copyright.

In the real world there is no TFP.  Only "Testing."  Work done expressly for portfolio.  Top models will do this and so will top photographers.  NO release is signed.  NO money is exchanged- there is no TFP contract signed.  Both the photographer and model collaborate and agree to use the images only for both parties self-promotion.

The model has great shots for her book, but since neither can sell the image, she doesn't have to worry the image showing up on some pay site she doesn't want. And the photographer in turn has access the very best models, to get that great shot to attract the best clients.

This system has worked for top professionals for decades.  Leaving both with something valuable.

Yep - that's how it works.
...and it works so well because all participants are within the industry and understand the definition of "test". It's a concept with great beauty in its simplicity.
The fact that the model has an agency "wrapper" also helps.
I've used it with independents however where I explained the concept.

That said; on the Internet where it's non-industry working with non-industry and the 18 year old newbie models and the photographers who just bought their digital feel this is the perfect opportunity to re-construct the whole industry, it doesn't work so well.... I think that's probably why TFP became popular with them; just easier to get a release - then it spun out of control from there.

Anyway, I test in the industry sense and just don't work with models who want to redesign things to suit them.

John

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
I've always followed the testing model as laid out here.  It's worked for me, and I've had great models and great experiences.  However, I just had that blow up in my face in a pretty significant way, with a model out of the blue threatening legal action if she didn't get every single RAW shot.  (We agreed she'd get the best two to four edited images.) 

I realize that the legal threat is so much hot air, but the unpleasantness is so damn...unpleasant...that I'm seriously considering going to a strict TFP model, and simply not shooting without a signed model release that includes laying out exactly what the model has agreed to receive as compensation.  I profoundly don't want to be in this situation again, and I'm not sure how else to avoid it.

I really sympathize with your situation.  In fact it makes my rethink whether I belong on this site.  I really don't like this TFP thing exactly because it so favors the photographer.  I did not become a photographer to profit from others hard work and talent.  I love the collaborative process and want all to share in the rewards.  And in the professional world I live in that is exactly what happens.  But models like this one are threatening to cause me to rethink this.  I can stick with agency models, but surely can't be the best for the talented models here.  So we should try to think of the consequences of our actions.

Lysandra wrote:

While I agree with you, and choose not to pose for photos I would not be proud to show, I have found myself in situations where the image I receive from the photographer is very different from what I thought I was doing. In cases like this, I do not think it inappropriate for a model to request that these images not be shown.

I like to see the images directly from the camera, pre-editing, so that I know what I am doing right and wrong in terms of posing, makeup, etc. Sometimes when I shoot with a photographer with whom I have previously discussed my interest in graphic design, they will choose to give me some high resolution files to retouch and submit to them for review. However, I never demand every image from a shoot, and if a photographer does not want to show me every image, that is his/her right.

This all seems perfectly reasonable.  In fact, I often have a monitor near the set so the model can see what is working and what is not working.

You seem like the kind of model I'd like to shoot with, except that I have liquor clients and often shoot nudes.  Oh well, c'est la vie.

Stephen Moskop wrote:

I really sympathize with your situation.  In fact it makes my rethink whether I belong on this site.

Why would her story affect your decision to be on a site?

Stephen Moskop wrote:
I really don't like this TFP thing exactly because it so favors the photographer.

I don't understand how it so favors the photographer.  Please explain.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
I did not become a photographer to profit from others hard work and talent.

That makes two of us.
Do you really think commercial photographers aren't capable of screwing and screwing over models?

Stephen Moskop wrote:
I love the collaborative process and want all to share in the rewards.

You can do that because you are obviously high up on the food chain.  The rarified air of those who only test and look down upon everyone else comes from the fact that a model or MUA is thinking their test is going to somewhere end up in profit.   How is this different from a TFP other than the fact that the assumption that everyone who participates in TFP is some dumbfuck GWC with a digicam and longtele.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
And in the professional world I live in that is exactly what happens.

Maybe in your pro world that happens, but not to sound like a broken records but I grew up in LA.  Amongst a lot of talent on both ends of the camera.  It's not like JUST because you're in the pro world everyone operates on the up and up.  I mean really....

Stephen Moskop wrote:
But models like this one are threatening to cause me to rethink this.  I can stick with agency models, but surely can't be the best for the talented models here.  So we should try to think of the consequences of our actions.

Consequences of what actions?  What is this relating to?


I liked your description of test vs tfp, minus the "real word" editorial, but now you're veering off into areas I'm not understanding.

KM von Seidl wrote:
I don't understand how it so favors the photographer.  Please explain.

Because the photographer gets it both ways basically - he/she has released images that can be sold, but the model et all, is compensated at the same level as a test (with portfolio images), which is unbalanced if images are sold.

KM wrote:
The rarified air of those who only test and look down upon everyone else comes from the fact that a model or MUA is thinking their test is going to somewhere end up in profit.

If the expectation is, that it is going to end up in profit, they don't understand what 'test' means. Which is, that the expectation is not for profit. But includes the opportunity later on for compensation should the images be sold (and require releasing).

John

John Allan wrote:

KM von Seidl wrote:
I don't understand how it so favors the photographer.  Please explain.

Because the photographer gets it both ways basically - he/she has released images that can be sold, but the model et all, is compensated in the same way as a test (with portfolio images).

Why should a commercial photographer care what a TFP photographer is doing.  The basic assumption is that a TFP photographer is lucky to take off the lens cap you really think that all these TFP images are being sold for big bucks for ad campaigns?

I don't even think the loads of glamour shots are going anyplace, the only area I see models possibly being taken advantage of are porn shoots and I don't know too many models stupid enough to pose for porn TFP. 

Come on guys, I'm not buying the I'm against TFP because it hurts the model routine.

John Allan wrote:

If they are expectation is that it is going to end up in profit, they don't understand what 'test' means. Which is, that the expectation is not for profit. But includes the opportunity later on for compensation should the images be sold (and require releasing).

John

No, profit not in a direct effect that the photos will be sold.  But profit in the notion that this new work is going to all involved get clients/paid work.  Profit.  Which is why you guys are in it commerically.  If you didn't care about making money from photography you would do it just as a hobby.  Hence, profit.

And ANYONE who isn't on a commercial/photography for profit track knows this because we rarely can get any pros or aspiring pros to work with us because we're not higher up on the commercial/profit food chain.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Why should a commercial photographer care what a TFP photographer is doing.  The basic assumption is that a TFP photographer is lucky to take off the lens cap you really think that all these TFP images are being sold for big bucks for ad campaigns?

There is no intrinsic value in complexity
I don't think anyone cares what contracts/paradigms are being practiced in the secret corners of photography, however, it colors what young models perceive as "best practice", and that injures all parties that want to work with her in the future.

KM wrote:
Come on guys, I'm not buying the I'm against TFP because it hurts the model routine.

I don't think that's the primary concern or objection. The testing paradigm didn't just pop into someone's head yesterday. It is a beautifully simplistic paradigm, that works very well at the industry level. Everyone is certainly free to reject standards, but the reality of doing that is difficulty working with people that consider those standards valuable. Which happens to be virtually the entire street level industry. Which BTW is obviously painfully under-represented on MM.

John

John Allan wrote:

There is no intrinsic value in complexity
I don't think anyone cares what contracts/paradigms are being practiced in the secret corners of photography, however, it colors what young models perceive as "best practice", and that injures all parties that want to work with her in the future.

First off, how many TFP models are you going to or Stephen going to touch?  Really. 
You guys have agency girls don't you?  That's what the "pros" keep telling us every chance you get.  WE HAVE AGENCY girls.  WE TEST.  We're so ABOVE you peons.

So why sully yourselves on the internet with GWCs anyway?   

KM wrote:
Come on guys, I'm not buying the I'm against TFP because it hurts the model routine.

John Allan wrote:
I don't think that's the primary concern or objection. The testing paradigm didn't just pop into someone's head yesterday. It is a beautifully simplistic paradigm, that works very well at the industry level. Everyone is certainly free to reject standards, but the reality of doing that is difficulty working with people that consider those standards valuable. Which happens to be virtually the entire street level industry. Which BTW is obviously painfully under-represented on MM.

John

The trade for services paradigm didn't pop into the world with the advent of the internet either.  In other art spheres, as in sculpture, painting, etc,  trades with models have gone on for centuries.  This isn't a new concept.  TFP as specifically defined IS.  But in practice, it seems to be as varied as the needs of the participants. 

As far as street level industry being under represented, I'd agree it's under-represented here.  I suspect in part because most industry insiders are working, not hanging out. And quite frankly what needs of industry folks would be served by being here?  Not unless you got rid of all the crap non-industry folks you guys seem to find disgust with. 

This isn't the first time I've asked this question, why isn't there an industry only secret decoder ring site for you guys?  I actually have lots of respect for the skills set most commercial shooters possess but it seems most commercial shooters only feel contempt for non-pros.  Why not save yourselves the bile and just create a special person only site?

KM von Seidl wrote:
First off, how many TFP models are you going to or Stephen going to touch?  Really. 
You guys have agency girls don't you?  That's what the "pros" keep telling us every chance you get.  WE HAVE AGENCY girls.  WE TEST.  We're so ABOVE you peons.

So why sully yourselves on the internet with GWCs anyway?

I do wish you wouldn't characterize my attitude toward non-industry people as "contempt". I don't feel that way.

KM wrote:
And quite frankly what needs of industry folks would be served by being here?  Not unless you got rid of all the crap non-industry folks you guys seem to find disgust with. 

This isn't the first time I've asked this question, why isn't there an industry only secret decoder ring site for you guys?  I actually have lots of respect for the skills set most commercial shooters possess but it seems most commercial shooters only feel contempt for non-pros.  Why not save yourselves the bile and just create a special person only site?

Again, with the contempt thing. You seem bitter. But I think alot of the industry people are here for the community and the occasional model or photographer or stylist or MUA as the case might be....

John

John Allan wrote:

I do wish you wouldn't characterize my attitude toward non-industry people as "contempt". I don't feel that way.

I'm sorry I must have misunderstood your comment about Internet photographers.  You are the same John Allan who wrote this:

That said; on the Internet where it's non-industry working with non-industry and the 18 year old newbie models and the photographers who just bought their digital feel this is the perfect opportunity to re-construct the whole industry, it doesn't work so well

Is that your view of all non-commercial photographers?  All internet photographers?  A bunch of JO's who just bouht their digital?  Clarify for me your words.

KM wrote:
And quite frankly what needs of industry folks would be served by being here?  Not unless you got rid of all the crap non-industry folks you guys seem to find disgust with. 

This isn't the first time I've asked this question, why isn't there an industry only secret decoder ring site for you guys?  I actually have lots of respect for the skills set most commercial shooters possess but it seems most commercial shooters only feel contempt for non-pros.  Why not save yourselves the bile and just create a special person only site?

John Allan wrote:
Again, with the contempt thing. You seem bitter. But I think alot of the industry people are here for the community and the occasional model or photographer or stylist or MUA as the case might be....

John

I am irritated when someone starts of a thread talking about "in the real world" and then you chime in "well, hehe, on the internet, you know, filled with a bunch of buffoons who, hehe, just bought their digital..."  Yeah, it sounds a bit condescending to me.

You don't see that or hear that?

You can judge a photographer's work by the quality of their work or you can just characterize a whole group of people because they don't do what you do.  And granted there ARE a bunch of buffoons on the internet, and people who have no interest in the craft of photography.  And there are those who have no bloody interest in turning this into a career choice.

For some of us, we aren't motivated in making images for clients.  Our clients are ourselves.  Our dreams, our demons. 

We can't go into an agency and say, lay models down on us.  We can't snap our little fingers and have stylists run to us.   I'm sure you don't know this and probably don't care, but it's kinda ugly if you're trying to pursue photography as an artform and you actually want to use people rather than shooting mountains.

And for some of you commercial guys, the ones who seem to think there's only one right way to shoot, or test, or get models or whatever, it gets old to hear you go on and on and on about how bullshit everyone who isn't in "the industry" is.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
And I think some photographers take unfair advantage of "TFP."  , ......Why else would you need a blanket release?

Let's see. I make art. Have shows and sell a print or two every 10 years or so and have been in most of the Art oriented photography mags ALSO unpaid and they all require a model release. No taking advantge of here. But definately I get an all inclusive release with every shoot, TFCD or not. Because i never know where my images may end up. But it is never a very profitable endeavor becasue I make art not for money but for passion, for a shot at immortality and for the love of doing it. Models who feel the same shoot with me for..sometimes for years! Ones that don't..well they don't.
Welcome to MM. Take the "I'm a big knowledgable pro who knows the REAL world" down a notch and you'll do just fine here. We have MANY big names on board.
Mike

KM von Seidl wrote:

John Allan wrote:
There is no intrinsic value in complexity
I don't think anyone cares what contracts/paradigms are being practiced in the secret corners of photography, however, it colors what young models perceive as "best practice", and that injures all parties that want to work with her in the future.

First off, how many TFP models are you going to or Stephen going to touch?  Really. 
You guys have agency girls don't you?  That's what the "pros" keep telling us every chance you get.  WE HAVE AGENCY girls.  WE TEST.  We're so ABOVE you peons.

So why sully yourselves on the internet with GWCs anyway?   

KM wrote:
Come on guys, I'm not buying the I'm against TFP because it hurts the model routine.

The trade for services paradigm didn't pop into the world with the advent of the internet either.  In other art spheres, as in sculpture, painting, etc,  trades with models have gone on for centuries.  This isn't a new concept.  TFP as specifically defined IS.  But in practice, it seems to be as varied as the needs of the participants. 

As far as street level industry being under represented, I'd agree it's under-represented here.  I suspect in part because most industry insiders are working, not hanging out. And quite frankly what needs of industry folks would be served by being here?  Not unless you got rid of all the crap non-industry folks you guys seem to find disgust with. 

This isn't the first time I've asked this question, why isn't there an industry only secret decoder ring site for you guys?  I actually have lots of respect for the skills set most commercial shooters possess but it seems most commercial shooters only feel contempt for non-pros.  Why not save yourselves the bile and just create a special person only site?

The answer why I am here is simple.  I was on a lark.  Late one night I found OMP on a model search and I posted.  Krista, one of the moderators here, found my post.  Did a shoot with me just for fun, and talked me into posting here.  I thought maybe there are some gems hidden in the chaff.  Maybe I could shoot something cool, and give a talented new comer some great shots for her book.  But if everybody's worried about contracts and getting sued and/or screwed- what fun is that?

I love photography, and am glad to share what I know.

Mike Walker wrote:
Let's see. I make art. Have shows and sell a print or two every 10 years or so and have been in most of the Art oriented photography mags ALSO unpaid and they all require a model release. No taking advantge of here. But definately I get an all inclusive release with every shoot, TFCD or not. Because i never know where my images may end up. But it is never a very profitable endeavor becasue I make art not for money but for passion, for a shot at immortality and for the love of doing it. Models who feel the same shoot with me for..sometimes for years! Ones that don't..well they don't.
Welcome to MM. Take the "I'm a big knowledgable pro who knows the REAL world" down a notch and you'll do just fine here. We have MANY big names on board.
Mike

There is nothing that I have said that is incompatible with what you have said.  You don't do testing.  You shoot work for the fine art market and your release should cover that.  It seems you've done well and your models understand your business paradigm.

Brian Diaz wrote:
There are a lot of gems, and there are a lot of people not worried about getting screwed.

It's just that a lot of people who are the most worried about getting screwed are the most vocal.

Got it.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
I don't think you need worry about bad practices poisoning the pool of talent for you. What I've found in the online talent community is the talent that will work with you also appreciates your time and abilities. If you are clear with them up front you will have no worries on the back end. The people that are the most vocal about the so called problems are for the most part inventing them as they go.

Beautifully put.  I have had overwhelmingly positive experiences here.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
Hey Stephan, I probably shouldn't do this on a forum, but we know each other by proxy and are close neiighbors, so what the hell. How are you and welcome to the madness of this place.

I don't think you need worry about bad practices poisoning the pool of talent for you. What I've found in the online talent community is the talent that will work with you also appreciates your time and abilities. If you are clear with them up front you will have no worries on the back end. The people that are the most vocal about the so called problems are for the most part inventing them as they go.

Now watch the flames fly.

Thanks for heads up!  And nice to meet you, even if by proxy.  I love your work.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
I've always followed the testing model as laid out here.  It's worked for me, and I've had great models and great experiences.  However, I just had that blow up in my face in a pretty significant way, with a model out of the blue threatening legal action if she didn't get every single RAW shot.  (We agreed she'd get the best two to four edited images.) 

I realize that the legal threat is so much hot air, but the unpleasantness is so damn...unpleasant...that I'm seriously considering going to a strict TFP model, and simply not shooting without a signed model release that includes laying out exactly what the model has agreed to receive as compensation.  I profoundly don't want to be in this situation again, and I'm not sure how else to avoid it.

Ditto!  I just had something blow up in my face too with the model signing a limited release and me explaining that I wanted to use the pics for my portfolio.  I posted his pics on MM and on another gay oriented photographer/model site and he got highly upset b/c he is not gay and wanted the pics immediately removed, which I did but then he also wanted payment of $500 b/c he claimed it ruined his name and exclusive contract he has with randyblue.com.  I am in the process of paying him the money and have paid $200 so far on a payment plan.  However, when I requested that he send me a note stating that he would not make any further demands or take legal action as he threaten, he didn't reply.  The release he signed specifically stated his photos would not be sold but he said he never told those photos for the world to see and he would have charged me more money than the $40 I paid him for 15mins worth of frontal nudes.  The rest of the shoot was TFP or TEST.   I may have made a mistake and I am paying dearly for it but that experience has made me want to shoot less.    I've since revamped my model release but still every model is different and you never know what could happen next even with the best of screening processes.  I've had 4 other bad experiences.  Each different in it's own way.I would love to see a thread on what kind of drama photographers have been through with models, if it hasn't already been done.

KM von Seidl wrote:
You are the same John Allan who wrote this:

That said; on the Internet where it's non-industry working with non-industry and the 18 year old newbie models and the photographers who just bought their digital feel this is the perfect opportunity to re-construct the whole industry, it doesn't work so well

Is that your view of all non-commercial photographers?  All internet photographers?  A bunch of JO's who just bouht their digital?  Clarify for me your words.

Oh come on.... Anyone (including myself), certainly knows the Internet has a lot of talent. They also know there is a huge representation by the group I just described.
I also know commercial photography is not the only legitimate form of imaging....

Maybe there is no value to you to have a simple elegant and established and understood solution to producing images for book building with the option of everyone getting compensated if they are sold at a later date. For those that would find this beneficial, I think testing (as defined within the industry), is the way to go, rather than re-inventing an overly complex wheel.

John

John Allan wrote:

Yep - that's how it works.
...and it works so well because all participants are within the industry and understand the definition of "test". It's a concept with great beauty in its simplicity.
The fact that the model has an agency "wrapper" also helps.
I've used it with independents however where I explained the concept.

That said; on the Internet where it's non-industry working with non-industry and the 18 year old newbie models and the photographers who just bought their digital feel this is the perfect opportunity to re-construct the whole industry, it doesn't work so well.... I think that's probably why TFP became popular with them; just easier to get a release - then it spun out of control from there.

Anyway, I test in the industry sense and just don't work with models who want to redesign things to suit them.

John

You are absolutely right the whole thing is out of control because and they think the internet thing is what the real industry is and so when they meet the real deal they think the photographer is trying to get over on them.