What Fun Productions wrote:

Stacy wrote:

NC17 wrote:
FYI- models DO MORE than just show up for a shoot. Most models put alot of time, work, and money into the shoot on a constant basis. You may not see it because it's what they do BEFORE the shoot. Especially if they dont have agents and are doing this all on their own. For example Hair, MakeUp, EXERCISE, Clothes, Skin Products, Hair products. Beauty doesn't come easily and all these things add up on a day to day basis.

What a bunch of crap. Are you saying that models would not wear clothes, wash their face and hair, wear make-up if they where not models? Give me a break, we all know they do this anyway... How else would they find a husband?

Models were models before they were models...

Please be sure to correctly quote what someone has written. I believe Stacy is the one that wrote that, not me.

Her point is well taken, though. Prior to modeling, I did not care as much about certain things that I do routinely now.

Raven Photography wrote:

I do treat my models with absolute respect and professionalism. After her stating her fee per hour she then emailed me saying ' I EXPECT' half the cost of sales. This is her unprofessional attitude towards me. So who is the 'real' one being unprofessional ?

As another person pointed out: don't confuse being direct with professionalism. Why is it wrong for someone to inquire about further profits? If the model wasn't aware that it is rare for a photographer to split profits from images after a model has been paid, then how can she know the difference? It is unfair to trash her here for something that she didn't know.

Raven Photography wrote:
You are no judge on my professional attitude towards models by the way as you haven't worked with me before and probably havent even spoken to the models I have worked with.

Ahh, but your attitude is revealed here. How you behave here is the undercurrent for your behavior in dealing with models. It will, and does, show through. Your lack of respect for the model as a person, and for her own personal knoweldge level is quite obvious. True, you didn't start out not respecting her, that happened after she made a request that you felt was a deal breaker. Instead of simply letting it go, you chose to make a larger deal out of it here, and your attitude shows through that. I would be very reluctant to want to work with you after seeing how you've handled this situation.

Raven Photography wrote:
After the models final email. I politely explained that I don't give models what she 'expected' and wished her the best of luck in her modeling career. This is professionalism.

Also the fact that I didnt state the models name is 'my' high regard for the potential she has as a model and how I don't wish to tarnish her name or career as a model.

You did resepect her that far at least... but you still chose to come here and make a variety of remarks that frankly don't look so good. At this point its your own personal reputation that is being represented. Professionalism extends beyond dealing with individual models. So long as you are still in a situation that constitutes part of the industry (which these forums are) then your level of professionalism is on display. That is why, as I said before, I would NEVER let off steam in these forums. I never know who is going to read it that might want to hire me down the road.

NC17 wrote:

Ahh, but your attitude is revealed here. How you behave here is the undercurrent for your behavior in dealing with models. It will, and does, show through. Your lack of respect for the model as a person, and for her own personal knoweldge level is quite obvious. True, you didn't start out not respecting her, that happened after she made a request that you felt was a deal breaker. Instead of simply letting it go, you chose to make a larger deal out of it here, and your attitude shows through that. I would be very reluctant to want to work with you after seeing how you've handled this situation.

THANK YOU!!!

Raven Photography wrote:
I sent 6 messages out to models in which I would be paying them cash in hand for a bikini shoot to which I also told that I am hoping to license and sell some of the images in the future as with all my photo's and photo shoots I do.

And she said this "If you sell the images, I would be
expecting half of what it sold" !!!!!!!!!!!!

Including pay this model doesn't have a clue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She's Gone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmm.

How much are you paying them?

Where are you selling them?

I think you're getting a little too crazed over this, and not seeing the model's point of view. She probably has one.

-D

studio36uk wrote:

Kelly Kooper wrote:
Hmmm...was the model experienced or an amateur?

The model's response alone answers that question.


Doesn't matter now, does it? She just talked herself out of the job with her own big mouth.

Studio36

                                     

This does not constitute a diva.

Yeah- what a diva man- expecting to get a percentage of the shots that she's in.

I'm sure it would be fine with you if she could sell pictures that you took and you got nothing from it. Right?

Raven Photography wrote:

Thanks for the comment on my port

I didn't bother to look at it.

Daniela V wrote:
This does not constitute a diva.

Yeah- what a diva man- expecting to get a percentage of the shots that she's in.

Lets examine that from a different viewpoint. If the model, instead of posing for Mr. Local Photographer, gets a gig to be the "Face of Ivory Snow" - does she think that she will get, or somehow be entitled to, a percentage of Procter & Gamble's corporate earnings?

                                    IN HER F**KING DREAMS!!!

Daniela V wrote:
I'm sure it would be fine with you if she could sell pictures that you took and you got nothing from it. Right?

And how, exactly, is she to get the right to do that?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Lets examine that from a different viewpoint. If the model, instead of posing for Mr. Local Photographer, gets a gig to be the "Face of Ivory Snow" - does she think that she will get a percentage of Procter & Gamble's corporate earnings?

                                    IN HER F**KING DREAMS!!!
Studio36

Um- and I"m sure the OP can guarantee her exposure like the hypothetical situation you have offered...please...apples and oranges my friend.

studio36uk wrote:
And how, exactly, is she to get the right to do that?

Studio36

It's not exactly a new concept that models can gain the rights to sell her pictures. Have you taken a look at some websites lately? Plenty of models do it...it's not a foreign concept.

-D

Daniela V wrote:
It's not exactly a new concept that models can gain the rights to sell her pictures. Have you taken a look at some websites lately? Plenty of models do it...it's not a foreign concept.

-D

The only rights they have are the rights they were given or bought. Up to that point they had none. Zero. Zip.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

The only rights they have are the rights they were given or bought. Up to that point they had none. Zero. Zip.

Studio36

Calm down there buddy.

Right...they have the rights that they were given.

I guess that answers your question, doesn't it?

Chill pal

Daniela V wrote:
I'm sure it would be fine with you if she could sell pictures that you took and you got nothing from it. Right?

I think this is way off track... it is the photographers vision, project, and image.  The model is hired to be a part of the photographers image.  What the model gets paid to be in the PHOTOGRAPHERS image is negotiable... tfp, tfcd, cash, etc... but NONE of that makes any part of the image the models.  The model is just being paid for the job.

If a model tried to sell the photographers image they should end up in a lawsuit.

If the model wants more for being in the image than the photographer wants to pay... no big deal, move on to another model!  Last time I checked there are over 250,000 models just between OMP and MM... But don't come in here whining about the model who didn't work out for your shoot!  And if you really want to eliminate all the drama, yes... use an agency instead of MM, OMP, etc.

Daniela V wrote:

Um- and I"m sure the OP can guarantee her exposure like the hypothetical situation you have offered...please...apples and oranges my friend.

Not really... it's apples and apples, all right, except perhaps for one apple being bigger than the other. If she is not getting it from one then she shouldn't be expecting it from the other as if it is her birthright. In BOTH cases notice that we are NOT talking about TFwhatever but fully paid work.

Studio36

Legend Images wrote:

I think this is way off track... it is the photographers vision, project, and image.  The model is hired to be a part of the photographers image.  What the model gets paid to be in the PHOTOGRAPHERS image is negotiable... tfp, tfcd, cash, etc... but NONE of that makes any part of the image the models.  The model is just being paid for the job.

If a model tried to sell the photographers image they should end up in a lawsuit.

it's not off track. It happens all the time. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that photographers won't give up the rights to the model so that he or she can sell them.

It happens. You don't like it, that's fine- but it still happens.

Daniela V wrote:
It's not exactly a new concept that models can gain the rights to sell her pictures. Have you taken a look at some websites lately? Plenty of models do it...it's not a foreign concept.

-D

True... but it usually works like this... model hires photographer (yes, that may require spending some money) to do the photography for HER image including HER getting full copyright to HER finished image... Photographer quotes a price and gets paid for his time and talent.  If model doesn't like his price for the shoot and giving her the copyright she moves on to one of the many other photographers available... but may not ever get such an arrangement from a big name photographer no matter what she offered in pay.

Daniela V wrote:
Calm down there buddy.

Right...they have the rights that they were given.

I guess that answers your question, doesn't it?

Chill pal

Pay attention now....... I also added "or bought" - that is, they paid the photographer for the right to reproduce and sell the image. Even the TFP guys here will get shirty if they give models only self-promotional rights and catch then "selling" the images.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Not really... it's apples and apples, all right, except perhaps for one apple being bigger than the other. If she is not getting it from one then she shouldn't be expecting it from the other as if it is her birthright. In BOTH cases notice that we are NOT talking about TFwhatever but fully paid work.

Studio36

Some exposure is priceless. The OP's is not. Difference.

studio36uk wrote:

Pay attention now....... I also added "or bought" - that is, they paid the photographer for the right to reproduce and sell the image. Even the TFP guys here will get shirty if they give models only self-promotional rights and catch then "selling" the images.

Studio36

I'm paying attention. I ignored it on purpose.

Those that got the rights that I'm thinking of (And it's quite a long list) were GIVEN the rights.

Legend Images wrote:

True... but it usually works like this... model hires photographer (yes, that may require spending some money) to do the photography for HER image including HER getting full copyright to HER finished image... Photographer quotes a price and gets paid for his time and talent.  If model doesn't like his price for the shoot and giving her the copyright she moves on to one of the many other photographers available... but may not ever get such an arrangement from a big name photographer no matter what she offered in pay.

it does not usually work that way. It sometimes works that way.

Daniela V wrote:
Some exposure is priceless. The OP's is not. Difference.

Exposure itself is some kind of red herring here. It is to do with rights not some chimera of the value of "exposure." P&G is not going to even consider it and the OP doesn't HAVE TO either. That is the bottom line. If the model wants those rights she can do like the rest do and BUY THEM. Cash, check or money order will do.

Studio36

Legend Images wrote:
Not trying to create a fight... I just can't imagine a serious photographer showing up, doing the shoot, not getting paid, AND surrendering the copyright to the model.  I won't argue with you if you say it happens... how good are the images?  Did he donate his studio time and pay the MUA/Hair folks out of goodwill too?  Tough business model.

There's guys here that do that... some of them even brag about doing it...  none of them earn a living from photography. So for them it's not a "business model" at all.

Studio36

Legend Images wrote:
Not trying to create a fight... I just can't imagine a serious photographer showing up, doing the shoot, not getting paid, AND surrendering the copyright to the model.  I won't argue with you if you say it happens... how good are the images?  Did he donate his studio time and pay the MUA/Hair folks out of goodwill too?  Tough business model.

Not fighting with you at all.

Really good images. Trust me. I'm not going to throw out names, but trust me, really good images.

studio36uk wrote:

Exposure itself is some kind of red herring here. It is to do with rights not some chimera of the value of "exposure." P&G is not going to even consider it and the OP doesn't HAVE TO either. That is the bottom line. If the model wants those rights she can do like the rest do and BUY THEM. Cash, check or money order will do.

Studio36

I have to read what you write but you won't consider what I write?

Do like the rest and BUY THEM? or...she can just get them from those willing to give it up.

Interesting world you live in-

studio36uk wrote:
There's guys here that do that... some of them even brag about doing it...  none of them earn a living from photography. So for them it's not a "business model" at all.

Studio36

You are so ignorant.

Plenty of them are professional photographers. Plenty. And it's all they do.

But whatever you say-

Daniela V wrote:
Not fighting with you at all.

Really good images. Trust me. I'm not going to throw out names, but trust me, really good images.

Fair enough... I would just be careful as the model... If it isn't about money or business for these photographers, it must be personal.  I am sure there are lots of guys who enjoy being with the models enough to do it for free.

Legend Images wrote:
and not to split hairs... but being "professional" implies more than being courteous... being a professional photographer in this sense means it is how you make a living... ie... you get paid. 

You can be a great photographer and never get paid, but you can't really say you are a "professional" photographer.  It is easy to get people to take free photo work, but if you have never succeeded in getting people to like your work enough to pay you it is still a hobby.  (even if your images are amazing)

Don't forget that there are two definitions for professional. Directly, yes, it is a person that makes their living (i.e. makes money) doing a certain thing - here photography (or modeling).

However, being a professional also deals with attitude. I know plenty of people that make their living at photography that I would consider to be about as unprofessional as it comes. Behaving like a professional and being a professional are two entirely different things.