Forums >
General Industry >
Model who doesn't sign releases for TFP
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." She says she does not sign releases for TFP/CD, only for paid work, and can I offer her any compensation. I asked how either of us would be able to use the images without a signed release, and she says, "for self-promotion by both of us." I told her that that is precisely what my release states, self-promotional and non-commercial usage by both parties. It is the same usage she describes but is signed and also has a place for her date of birth, which we will need for nudes in addition to proof of ID. She says, "Sorry, I'll have to pass." I told her it would have been nice for her to bring up this "policy" when we first spoke, so I could have booked my studio in place of she and I shooting. Her: "OK, thanks." Am I the unusual one here? I prefer something more than a verbal agreement for usage of images. Oct 12 06 07:59 pm Link 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. Oct 12 06 08:01 pm Link 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 Oct 12 06 08:02 pm Link Webspinner 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. Oct 12 06 08:09 pm Link Vegas Alien wrote: 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.. Oct 12 06 08:10 pm Link Webspinner wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 08:15 pm Link Any Model I photograph must sign a photo release period. There my be limitations to what the photos maybe used for because if I can't use the images for something what good are they for me Even model who pay me still must sign one. They models I shoot are like advertising for my studio or my art work. Oct 12 06 08:23 pm Link Nah, not really eating at me. I wuz just checking to see if this was unusual to others. The model actually seemed very sweet. I was just confused that she wouldn't appreciate a collaboration with me. As John said, the images themselves are compensation and would get my full attention and focus. I have learned and will move on, as I have some phenomenal models dying to collaborate with me. Oct 12 06 08:24 pm Link 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. Oct 12 06 08:29 pm Link markcomp wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 08:35 pm Link a model who doesn`t sign a model release for any reasons is one that I won`t be working with..........period Oct 12 06 08:41 pm Link markcomp 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. Oct 12 06 08:41 pm Link jeskavardinski wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 08:43 pm Link So what's the "T" in "TFP" for if it's not a trade of a signed release for photos? The model pays the photographer, either with cash or a signed release, or both. Duh. Oct 12 06 08:45 pm Link Your skills have a value, your equipment has as value, your time has a value, is she an etablished model who is sought after? It does not sound like it the barter law is still very much in effect, your normal rates for this type of shoot have a value because you spent your time and used your knowledge and equipment and studio for the shoot (or would have). What would she have done if you mailed her a 1099 for tax purposes ? Totally legal and viable, she would have to pay taxes on the barter services you would have provided. Funny what flakey models will do or won't do because someone who does not know what they are talking about plants a bug in their ear. Oct 12 06 08:48 pm Link Amen koolgirliestuff a friggin men ! Oct 12 06 08:49 pm Link You go John Jebbia !! Oct 12 06 08:51 pm Link 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. Oct 12 06 08:57 pm Link Webspinner wrote: absotively posilutely. Oct 12 06 09:05 pm Link Okay, speaking as a model now, I will say that in general the 'bigger' photographers I have worked with on a non monetary compensation have not made me sign a release. We agree it is for personal promotion, and if either one of us is to profit from it i.e I decide to start a paid site or the photographer is going to sell my images to a gallery, then the release is negotiated. However, I have signed releases if it gives us shared usage rights, i.e. either one of us can put the images in a book or online and sell them and do not have to pay the other party. I have pretty stringent guidelines I follow with non monetary compensation, i.e. I get a gallery quality print not of me and at least small .jpgs of all files so I can make selects. Usually, because of my editing skills, I have gotten all files, with few exceptions. These I send to the photographer for approval unless s/he says to do whatever I want. I have provided edits for paid photographers, and even had them pay me for edits of other models, because I have more editing skills. It really depends on the model, her calibre, and experience what is to be expected and negotiated. There have been a few (very few and pretty well known) photographers that only give me selects, but they have also given me a gallery quality print not of me and one of me, so maybe I am spoiled. However, look at my port. In exchange for getting nude, I have never had to pay a photographer. Oct 12 06 09:07 pm Link Vegas, It sucks man. I guess the only consolation that I can say is that at least you found this out prior to shooting her instead of after any potential shooting. Oct 12 06 09:08 pm Link Vegas Alien wrote: Sounds like the "ideas, terms and details" didn't include discussion of the release as part of the "terms". If so, your bad. Oct 12 06 09:09 pm Link bang bang photo wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 09:09 pm Link She just doesnt understand releases it sounds like to me. Someone probably misimformed her. Oct 12 06 09:09 pm Link bang bang photo 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. Oct 12 06 09:11 pm Link Webspinner 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. Oct 12 06 09:17 pm Link markcomp 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. Oct 12 06 09:17 pm Link Luminos 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. Oct 12 06 09:18 pm Link Vegas- your desire is not unusual- but you dont need a release if you really ONLY want to use the images for portfolio/ self promotion. So- i think the model is very smart for, as a policy, NOT signing a release unless there is compensation involved. The very act of tfp has an implied consent that both you consent to her using the images on her portfolio and the same for you. Its the very definition of tfp. Of course implied consent can be limited by scope (e.g. when shooting implieds, one would not as a tfp custom expect that a nude opps shot would be posted- so of course that is different). But in general- you do NOT need a release to use images from a tfp for self promo. Oct 12 06 09:21 pm Link Luminos wrote: How many errors? Oct 12 06 09:23 pm Link Lapis wrote: Huh? Oct 12 06 09:24 pm Link It seems a feasible venture for me to go to law school so I can be available to provide the correct legal information. So many (including myself), seems so exposed to a variety of information, yet unsure as to what is really true and correct. Oct 12 06 09:25 pm Link Vito 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. Oct 12 06 09:28 pm Link Lapis wrote: And he didn't need a release for gallery rights...go figure Oct 12 06 09:30 pm Link hi, i have pretty much seen it all. i understand where you are coming from. to get around that, if it is a tfp or what ever you guys call it. the prints i give the model has my logo on it. that prevents it from being used, yet the model can use it for her portofolio etc. if they don't agree to the logo, then i don't shoot unless i am getting paid. Oct 12 06 09:30 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 09:32 pm Link Vito wrote: 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. Oct 12 06 09:32 pm Link IMHO : 1. Wise and informed photographers will not do TFP without signed release. 2. Experienced/inexperienced yet careless photographers may very well do a TFP shoot without model signing a release. 3. Wise and experienced models will/might read and question conditions of a release, before signing in a TFP and/OR paid shoot. 4. Uninformed or misinformed models will refuse to sign a release under a TFP agreement. Furthermore, might very well sign without reading as long as money is compensation recieved right away. Oct 12 06 09:34 pm Link This thread is an example of why I don't try to get work from this site. Oct 12 06 09:35 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: That is why I preferrence it by "I don't recall". lol Oct 12 06 09:36 pm Link |