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.

Bob, you're right on.

(And as much as Krista raves about the both of you, I feel like I know you, too. )

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
Some photographers simply transfer the card to a CD and hand it to the model. Models then expect the same from me - and when I explain why not, model's think I'm crazy.

Can you please explain what your reasons would be not to do this

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...(snip)

Could not agree more with your posts.  Been in a commercial studio (assistant/staff photog/digital guy) for a while now and I know that the system works in the way you have described.  However, we don't do fashion and unfortunately I've only just discovered that it's fashion I really want to do.  I've worked with a few models from this site in a 'testing' mode - that is, they posed and I gave them images with no release being signed because it was understood that this was for our respective portfolios.   Nothing bad has happened so far - each girl has been perfectly reasonable and I think we got good stuff.

So, I don't think you'll have too much trouble - especially with the quality of your work - finding models here willing to 'test' in the classic sense.

And if you don't mind dishing out a little advice...
I've got a book together just now and I'm wondering how I should approach agencies about testing - first impressions and all that...    For instance, is there some position type I should ask for when calling?  Should I actually have some kind of specific direction or can I just say I want to test, make good pictures and get better? 

Thanks and welcome to MM.

Andrea Barnett wrote:
sooo basically.... anyone that works outside of the internet understands this crap... and the people that work on the internet like it the way things are. they wont change if they think what they are doing is right. so my theory? ill work in my world. they can work in theirs. because essentially thats what we're speaking of. different worlds. i come on the internet to socialize, network and have fun... but its rare there is a business venture.

i believe the OP wanted to inform rather than criticize... if you dont like it, then dont use it. if you wanna know how the PROS do it, then do it that way. Its done that way because it WORKS. think about it. no ones telling you to do it that way.

That is exactly right.  I meant no disrespect.

Dexter Fletcher wrote:

Can you please explain what your reasons would be not to do this

I'm very careful about the quality of my prints and which photos are used. After about 30 years of press checks and learning offset printing so I can control the quality of my printed ads and constantly tweaking my printer output, I'm not about to let anyone print out my photos on a $99 (or free) printer on who knows what kind of paper so the prints come out low contrast cyan.

I will give them web files of the prints to post, but my use agreement won't allow them to re-sample the files and allows me refusal rights on any reproduction if the quality is bad. I make myself be very reasonable about this, however. I want them to be able to use the prints I provide.

Most of my work is hand printed. The labs I use, when I use them, are also very carefully picked and they know which techs can print my files. Usually it goes to a lab because of size or special work (dye transfer prints). Realize that with advertising photography, the requirements for quality are different as are the type of clients I work with. It's just that I've refused to lower my standards - they've become habit. The wonkled clothes have the wonkles removed, the really stray hairs are gone (not the ones that make it look natural) and the stray bits of white paper on the lawn are gone - and no one can tell. It takes me a day or two for one print. One or two test prints for the easy ones, sometimes 5-10 test prints before a final for a tough print.

Testing and TFP doesn't take money way from other photographers - we are dealing with a different market, with models that are after a different type of work or won't have money to spend on prints anyways. The market will determine who gets the money or not. I don't shoot the models that just want CD's, cheap prints and don't respect my time and effort.

Iona and I have mentioned this many times. Why do we do it? Well, the models take prints around and art directors and agents see it and they see only my best work - I get free publicity. The value of my work is more than the model's time and expenses, but I don't gripe.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I agree with what was said by the OP, but I will not even get out of bed without putting things in writing.  Whether or not it's a standard release, a piece of paper clearly stating the agreement WILL be signed or I'm not even taking off a lens cap.  I've learned way too much about what will and will not stand up in court in the last few years than to do anything on a handshake or "good faith."

In the agency/advertising industry - we all understand the rules and know that there are consequences if we don't follow them. Agencies and working photographers can have very close relationships.

With the internet, I agree with you and as I said, I've made myself do it - in writing and signed agreements only. It's different here. People may not pay as much attention to details, since we don't know the people we're are dealing with at first. But I've also developed very good relationships with models on the internet.

Just today one of them called me. She had signed with an agent and had to take down photos on her site that the agent considered poor or were bad marketing. Now she has to call the photographers and try to get them taken down from their sites. She commented that the agent loved my photos and looked at my agreement and said it was fine. I said, welcome to my world!

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I agree with what was said by the OP, but I will not even get out of bed without putting things in writing.  Whether or not it's a standard release, a piece of paper clearly stating the agreement WILL be signed or I'm not even taking off a lens cap.  I've learned way too much about what will and will not stand up in court in the last few years than to do anything on a handshake or "good faith."

Good thought, Amanda. While model testing may have been done in the past as described in the original post (and may be done today by some poeple), the truth is that a professional photographer using an image done during a test for promotional purposes (as in their portfolio) without a release is at best a poor business practice, and always has been.

People did it, people do it. I did it years ago, I don't today.

Some people ride motorcyles without a helmet. We have a saying, there are old motorcycle riders, and there are bold motorcycle riders. But there are no old, bold motorcycle riders.


A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away!

Fish
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 423
Miami Beach, Florida  33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:

Good thought, Amanda. While model testing may have been done in the past as described in the original post (and may be done today by some poeple), the truth is that a professional photographer using an image done during a test for promotional purposes (as in their portfolio) without a release is at best a poor business practice, and always has been.

People did it, people do it. I did it years ago, I don't today.

Some people ride motorcyles without a helmet. We have a saying, there are old motorcycle riders, and there are bold motorcycle riders. But there are no old, bold motorcycle riders.


A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away!

Fish
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 423
Miami Beach, Florida  33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

This is not correct and comes from a misunderstanding about rights.  It is specifically BECAUSE there is nothing signed, we retain our individual rights.  I own copyright, but I cannot sell the image without the models release.  We are both protected.

John Allan wrote:

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 --the theory of testing makes me weep with joy.  Who doesn't like coming together for art and a greater purpose?

The problem is if you are not a pro, and by that I mean in a small close knit circle, then walking away with photos with no releases and renegotiation as some later date isn't feasible.  Where is the model 10 years from now, do you have to everyone's email updated? 

What I'm saying to you is this professional commerical model of testing works for you guys because of the size and familiarity of members in your community AND because the way the system works becausse you are higher up on the status food chain.   

Fine art photographers don't get the same perks unless they've crossed the line from silent output to celeb status.  I'm just telling you how it works down under.

So all the commercial shooters in the world can talk about the "real world" and trust me I've heard it and seen it before, but for those who don't live in your "real world" a different set of realities come into play.

With increasing legal age proof requirements, people who don't have a firm grasp on agreements, grifters even,  it just seems stupid to me to invest the time and effort into a work of art, and not have the understanding between the parties ironed out ahead of time.

Stephen Moskop wrote:

This is not correct and comes from a misunderstanding about rights.  It is specifically BECAUSE there is nothing signed, we retain our individual rights.  I own copyright, but I cannot sell the image without the models release.  We are both protected.

Exactly.
...and BTW, people that feel they have to enforce promotional usage with all kinds of pseudo legalese filled paperwork. Lawyers love to get ahold of this stuff, in court and put the author in a worse legal quagmire than without the contract. Again, the beauty of the test agreement is its simplicity.

John

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
I just shot a tfp with a model the other day in fact it's the model on my avatar and we had verbal agreement that we would be using it for our bookwhich was cool but when i saw her space on mm/myspace/modelplace the image was copyright by her but it also had no credit to me whatsoever which i thought was grimey.

But it's the Internet... legal meanings & industry terms can be redefined at a whim - LOL

Education.

John

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
I just shot a tfp with a model the other day in fact it's the model on my avatar and we had verbal agreement that we would be using it for our bookwhich was cool but when i saw her space on mm/myspace/modelplace the image was copyright by her but it also had no credit to me whatsoever which i thought was grimey.

There's a saying in law school, verbal agreements are worth the paper they're written on.

KM von Seidl wrote:
John --the theory of testing makes me weep with joy.  Who doesn't like coming together for art and a greater purpose?

The problem is if you are not a pro, and by that I mean in a small close knit circle, then walking away with photos with no releases and renegotiation as some later date isn't feasible.  Where is the model 10 years from now, do you have to everyone's email updated? 

What I'm saying to you is this professional commerical model of testing works for you guys because of the size and familiarity of members in your community AND because the way the system works becausse you are higher up on the status food chain.   

Fine art photographers don't get the same perks unless they've crossed the line from silent output to celeb status.  I'm just telling you how it works down under.

So all the commercial shooters in the world can talk about the "real world" and trust me I've heard it and seen it before, but for those who don't live in your "real world" a different set of realities come into play.

With increasing legal age proof requirements, people who don't have a firm grasp on agreements, grifters even,  it just seems stupid to me to invest the time and effort into a work of art, and not have the understanding between the parties ironed out ahead of time.

Well, you definately brought up the down-side of testing with independents....
I actually posted an idea a few days ago regarding "release escrow" to potentially address this and make it possible to "test" with the escrow house taking the place somewhat of the agency wrapper.
Model Release Escrow house

John

Stephen Moskop wrote:
This is not correct and comes from a misunderstanding about rights.  It is specifically BECAUSE there is nothing signed, we retain our individual rights.  I own copyright, but I cannot sell the image without the models release.  We are both protected.

Oh, I see. As a professional photographer I can use a model's image to advertise my business (commercial use) without her permission (written release) because I took the picture?

Fantastic! Who knew? I feel so special! (And protected!)

Fish
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 423
Miami Beach, Florida  33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com
http://www.johnfisher.com

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
Most of my work is hand printed. The labs I use, when I use them, are also very carefully picked and they know which techs can print my files. Usually it goes to a lab because of size or special work (dye transfer prints).

Where in the world is there a lab doing dye transfer prints. Tell me, because I know a few photographers in their late 80's that would love to have this resource.

John Fisher wrote:
Oh, I see. As a professional photographer I can use a model's image to advertise my business (commercial use) without her permission (written release) because I took the picture?

Fantastic! Who knew? I feel so special! (And protected!)

Hey Stephan, this is the guy I warned you about.

Lapis wrote:
Ah, my evil plan is working.....

Evil is the operative word here....who do you think you are?  Mhana?