Webspinner wrote:
Agency models are told not to sign releases unless there is compensation. If you are doing nudes however, you should have a copy of the drivers license.

The model mentioned nothing at all about being an agency model.  On the phone, in her message or in her bio. Her bio mentions mostly artistic and nude collaborations. "Collaboration" to me indicates an artistic endeavor that is mutually beneficial with no monetary compansation, and in our initial conversation we agreed to TFCD. My point is that it would have been nice to know her odd request up front, before setting aside studio time.

Vegas Alien wrote:

The model mentioned nothing at all about being an agency model.  On the phone, in her message or in her bio. Her bio mentions mostly artistic and nude collaborations. "Collaboration" to me indicates an artistic endeavor that is mutually beneficial with no monetary compansation, and in our initial conversation we agreed to TFCD. My point is that it would have been nice to know her odd request up front, before setting aside studio time.

i agree.. but there is no since in letting it eat at you.. live and learn and move on.. there is always one to take her place..

chris

Webspinner wrote:
Agency models are told not to sign releases unless there is compensation. If you are doing nudes however, you should have a copy of the drivers license.

Are we making mince meat here? Getting free photos could easily constitute compensation. Especially when under normal circumstances it might have cost her a couple hundred dollars at least.

Vegas. Your model was a cun.... a bitc.. ahh nevermind.

markcomp wrote:
In a TFP shoot, you the photographer, own the copyright and may use the material for self promotion.  If that was your only intent from the beginning, you should have shot with her.

Agreed, but what about someone changing her mind down the road? I prefer an agreement in writing. This is someone I have not met before so I don't know what she may claim in the future. I will always require a release for TFCD. Now it's just another thing I have to clarify before each shoot that before I thought was a given.

markcomp wrote:
In a TFP shoot, you the photographer, own the copyright and may use the material for self promotion.  If that was your only intent from the beginning, you should have shot with her.

Care to quote the law or code that says you can use someone's image for self-promotion without their permission? I've looked at several state laws concerning rights to control your own image's use for publicity, and I have NEVER seen an exemption for self-promotion, with the exception of New York, which at one time, and maybe still does, have an exemption for self-promotion when the images are posted within the premises of the studio.

Using the model's image for promoting your studio without her permission runs afoul of her right to control the use of her own likeness for publicity -- and this has nothing to do with copyright.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice. It's just one photographer's understanding of the law as it relates to his work. . .

Regards,
Paul

jeskavardinski wrote:
the release seems like it was correct
I would sign the release

I WOULD NOT sign a release if the photographer was selling the images or using them on a website ect.
UNLESS ITwas a paid shoot

Jeska. I understand what you're saying. And to a point, I agree that a model should be compensated monetarily if the photographer is going to sell the images.

But stop and think for a minute. Why would you not allow a photographer to profit from his TFP session with you? Do you realize that if not for TFP's most models here would either have no portfolio or they would have to spend thousands of dollars to build one?

So, the photographer schedules time out of his schedule to provide you with FREE photos. An $XXX value. When he could have tried to book a paying client instead.

Meanwhile, you're profiting from your TFP sessions. You're getting paid jobs as a result of them. Why would you want to keep a photographer from making a few bucks from them as well?

Think of your average everyday person. Walks into a photography studio. Is quoted $400 for a sitting. Photographer says, "Hey, I really like your look. I have a project you would do well for. Tell you what. I'll waive my fee if you'll do this commercial project for me."

Most people would jump on that! Save $400. But not internet models. No no no. They're the only people allowed to make money here.

Too many of you ladies think we're going to make thousands of dollars off of your photos. With some exceptions, that does not happen. Most of the photos sit in a stock library for years and never get sold. And then when they finally do get sold we're making next to squat.

And to top it all off, so many of you girls have these insane rates that, for the average entreprenurial (sp?) photographer on here would far surpass any profit we could hope to make.

Sorry. I went on a tangent. But I just want you to stop and think for a moment. That you act as if TFP was a waste of your time. When that same TFP session might have cost YOU hundreds of dollars.

As Ringo says, "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!"

Webspinner wrote:
This is assuming the model wanted or needed to build her portfolio. Maybe changing her mind from tfcd to paid was unusual, but in the commercial world, when people are 'testing' or shooting for 'fun' in a non monetary basis, they do not ask for model releases unless or until money exchanges hands.

absotively posilutely.

i would venture to guess that 99% of tfp work never gets sold anyway so what difference does it make?

i'm just glad i don't participate in the practice.  it makes photographers look like pricks for saying their service is more valuable than the "look" of a model and it obviously (as in this thread) makes models look like crap when not signing something that is probably useless anyway.

as for worries about self promotion, someone, anyone, please cite a case anywhere that a photographer has been litigated against for this practice.

tfp is a picture taking exercise for dog sakes.  if it were actually modeling and modeling photography then the parties would be hired by clients.  this is nothing more than people fooling themself or scamming to hire models/photographers based on an unfair barter.

--face reality

Vegas Alien wrote:
I booked a model last week for a shoot tomorrow night. We spoke and discussed ideas, terms and details. I called her just now to confirm.  She asks if I have a release to sign and I said, "yes."

Sounds like the "ideas, terms and details" didn't include discussion of the release as part of the "terms".  If so, your bad.

We can argue forever (and it looks like we will) about whether or not you need a release for self promotion, and on whether or not someone "should" sign a release for a TFP.  That misses the point.  The real issue is that there wasn't a clear understanding up front about the "terms", and that people can disagree about what they expect.  That's why you discuss ALL of the terms at the beginning.

There's an echo in here tonight.

bang bang photo wrote:

Care to quote the law or code that says you can use someone's image for self-promotion without their permission? I've looked at several state laws concerning rights to control your own image's use for publicity, and I have NEVER seen an exemption for self-promotion, with the exception of New York, which at one time, and maybe still does, have an exemption for self-promotion when the images are posted within the premises of the studio.

Using the model's image for promoting your studio without her permission runs afoul of her right to control the use of her own likeness for publicity -- and this has nothing to do with copyright.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice. It's just one photographer's understanding of the law as it relates to his work. . .

Regards,
Paul

Don't have a quote but without a release you can use images in portfolios (print or online), editorial and as art (as in print showings) and other non-commerical ventures. In some cases you can publish (and profit). You can search for the case of the Hassidic man in Manhattan who was an unwitting subject of a "street photographer" who was capturing people walking down the street. He published the book, the man who was in one image sued and LOST.

bang bang photo wrote:

Care to quote the law or code that says you can use someone's image for self-promotion without their permission? I've looked at several state laws concerning rights to control your own image's use for publicity, and I have NEVER seen an exemption for self-promotion, with the exception of New York, which at one time, and maybe still does, have an exemption for self-promotion when the images are posted within the premises of the studio.

Using the model's image for promoting your studio without her permission runs afoul of her right to control the use of her own likeness for publicity -- and this has nothing to do with copyright.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice. It's just one photographer's understanding of the law as it relates to his work. . .

Regards,
Paul

In all honesty, no I dont recall it.  I believe it is in the USC Title 17 or 18 as I recall.  I believe it was posted by TXPhoto on more than one occasion.

Webspinner wrote:
Agency models are told not to sign releases unless there is compensation. If you are doing nudes however, you should have a copy of the drivers license.

If I were a model asked to provide a copy of my driver's license, I'd be highly unlikely to shoot.  You don't need it.

Nudes do not require a copy of anything.  No records are required (unless you are shooting something hardcore.)

As for this particular case, the model sounds a bit misinformed/flakey/time-waster (you pick.)

TFP requires a release.

markcomp wrote:
In all honesty, no I dont recall it.  I believe it is in the USC Title 17 or 18 as I recall.  I believe it was posted by TXPhoto on more than one occasion.

It would be a matter of state law, not federal, and whatever you think you know about one state bears little resemblance to what the case is in another.

However, for the record, Title 17 is the copyright law, which doesn't apply, and Title 18 is the criminal code, which also doesn't apply.

Luminos wrote:
TFP requires a release.

Really? Should I tell that to all the photographers I never signed one with? the photographer automatically owns copyright, and if the model does not profit from it, nothing can be done.

Luminos wrote:

If I were a model asked to provide a copy of my driver's license, I'd be highly unlikely to shoot.  You don't need it.

Nudes do not require a copy of anything.  No records are required (unless you are shooting something hardcore.)

As for this particular case, the model sounds a bit misinformed/flakey/time-waster (you pick.)

TFP requires a release.

How many errors?

First, if you're shooting nudes you should have a photo(copy) of the models' drivers license (preferably her/he holding it next to their face). It is not illegal, but it will be less of a headache if you can prove that hot young-looking model in the pigtails and checkered skirt with no top on and no panties on is 18 or over. It would be stupid not to have a copy of ID.

TFP does not REQUIRE a release. You can (and should) have a release but it is not required unless you plan on selling the images (to a third party for publication).

Lapis wrote:

Really? Should I tell that to all the photographers I never signed one with? the photographer automatically owns copyright, and if the model does not profit from it, nothing can be done.

Huh?

Vito wrote:

Huh?

I have worked with over 90 photographers in the last two years, many of them several times. I have signed releases whenever I was paid, or when we had shared usage rights.

Both photographers I work with in this city who bill 6000 a day plus 10000 or more for image rights have never asked me to sign a release for non monetary compensation....the only time I signed one, was when I was paid to give gallery rights to the photographer as he was making a series.

Lapis wrote:

I have worked with over 90 photographers in the last two years, many of them several times. I have signed releases whenever I was paid, or when we had shared usage rights.

Both photographers I work with in this city who bill 6000 a day plus 10000 or more for image rights have never asked me to sign a release for non monetary compensation....the only time I signed one, was when I was paid to give gallery rights to the photographer as he was making a series.

And he didn't need a release for gallery rights...go figure

John Jebbia wrote:
Too many of you ladies think we're going to make thousands of dollars off of your photos. With some exceptions, that does not happen. Most of the photos sit in a stock library for years and never get sold. And then when they finally do get sold we're making next to squat.

And to top it all off, so many of you girls have these insane rates that, for the average entreprenurial (sp?) photographer on here would far surpass any profit we could hope to make.

This is something that's more true everyday.  The problem is that it's something photographers are bringing on themselves with all the constant bragging we all seem to do both online and in "real life" about how much money we make for this, the high-paying clients we worked with on that, the big contract we're getting for this other thing and the high-end, state-of-the-art gear we buy for our million-square-foot, fully staffed studio complex that we finance with the piles of money people throw at us because we're so brilliant.  Seriously, talking to photographers starts to feel like watching rap videos after awhile.  You can't blame models [especially newbies who don't know sh*t yet] from wanting a piece of your pie...Even if it's an imaginary one.

Vito wrote:

And he didn't need a release for gallery rights...go figure

no, he needed a release for gallery rights, that is the only time I signed one, when I was paid to give up rights to percentage of prints sold with my image.

TXPhotog wrote:

It would be a matter of state law, not federal, and whatever you think you know about one state bears little resemblance to what the case is in another.

However, for the record, Title 17 is the copyright law, which doesn't apply, and Title 18 is the criminal code, which also doesn't apply.

That is why I preferrence it by "I don't recall". lol

I would agree with the differences in the state laws except where the Federal laws override (and I use that loosely in light of the tenth amendment).  So, let's get to the meat of it, does your interpretation of copyright allow for the self promotion of a non release TFP?