MelissaAnn  wrote:

LOL, yep.  Model asks fair question, and a few photographers with a chip on their shoulders go preaching about their rigid policies. 

You just keep doing what works for you.  It's obviously making you a very happy person. 

I LOL'd

MelissaAnn  wrote:

LOL, yep.  Model asks fair question, and a few photographers with a chip on their shoulders go preaching about their rigid policies. 

You just keep doing what works for you.  It's obviously making you a very happy person. 

No, doesn't make me a happy person.  Nor, do I have a chip on my shoulder.

It just didn't take long to figure it out.   "Screw me once, shame on you.  Screw me twice, shame on me."

If she didn't want the answers, she shouldn't have asked the question.

Have a nice night.   You do wonderful work.

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Its because I care about quality
Which you obviously don't judging by your work.
Darling I doubt you'd know the "industry" if it bit you in the ass.

Unsolicited critique. It's a briggable offense, Jupiter.

Danielle Reid wrote:
My list keeps getting longer and longer

Teehee. Mine too.

KungPaoChic wrote:

actually it is a form of a contract.

A model release is a form of contract

It is not an image license though I sometimes wrap my license and release together.

"In consideration of the engagement as a model of the minor named below, and for other good and valuable consideration that I acknowledge as having received,"


and then you sign model signs and date

yes it is a form of a contract

If no good and valuable consideration is received it can be argued that the release ( contract) is invalid which is why you normally give something of value for the release to be valid.

No....just no.

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Anywaysssss
Thank you for all the wonderful responses I've gotten
The only way I can become a better model, is by asking questions eh?
Even though I'm a "google baby" somethings are framed differently.
I'm relieved to see so many sensible people showing different viewpoints
In an adult manner, ya know adult? Which I'd have thought some people would achieve since they're throwing down their age like its a damn bingo card.
A lot of crybabies
'Tis life tho.

Photos by EWP-Savannah wrote:
Seems to me that you are trying to write your requirement of not signing in stone.

I suspect that you and I will never work together.

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Brb
Crying.
On a serious note, I'll just work with others who have a less rigid way of thinking
Its been working for me thus far

Photos by EWP-Savannah wrote:
That's excellent.  Keep working with them and don't work with those whose policies you don't agree with.  Coming here and complaining about it paints an indelible picture.

+1 only work with whom you like, instead of insulting everyone elses work or  for their opinion or lack of interest in you.

KungPaoChic wrote:
actually it is a form of a contract.

A model release is a form of contract

It is not an image license though I sometimes wrap my license and release together.

"In consideration of the engagement as a model of the minor named below, and for other good and valuable consideration that I acknowledge as having received,"


and then you sign model signs and date

yes it is a form of a contract

If no good and valuable consideration is received it can be argued that the release ( contract) is invalid which is why you normally give something of value for the release to be valid.

Cherrystone wrote:
No....just no.

Final answer?

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Something I'm beginning to notice when reading a photogs profile :
* A full model release is required, no exceptions, signed before the shoot starts.

The thought of that makes me nervous,
I understand you should never shoot with someone unless you feel comfortable, but its possible for miscommunication/the shoot to fall apart
So, you go to shoot
Everything seems fine at first,
An argument/whatever happens
The shoot takes a turn for the worst
We (model) storms out


...

If the above happens and a model storms out then I am scrapping all the photos. At this point I see no reason to process, use or muddle and fuss in someone else's toxic karma. If I mistakenly agree to shoot with a batshit crazy  person then I am not going to look at the shoot outcome.

Not for trade.

Jen

Photos by EWP-Savannah wrote:
Unlike you, I don't.  I learn from my own experiences.  And, at age 70, I've had, probably, a lot more experience than you.

Have a nice day.

I'm going to have to quit reading here, I'm laughing so hard my wife can't hear the TV.

You "pre-releasers" can carry on...

Have a nice day too.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Final answer?

Oh God.

Jupiter Red  wrote:

I understand the I.D part,
But release before geeting to the nudez causes me to feel some slight discomfort
Was just curious.
Wish more models would weigh in on this

Sure, as a model who shoots nudes, (https://www.modelmayhem.com/2196584 ) I've generally signed the releases after the shoot. I've had someone take a picture of my ID before the shoot and also others after the shoot, sometimes the release is signed after or if we forget, emailed, signed and a picture taken to email back.

As of yet, I haven't had anyone I shoot sign a release but, I will start.

Jen

joeyk wrote:

I'm going to have to quit reading here, I'm laughing so hard my wife can't hear the TV.

You "pre-releasers" can carry on...

Have a nice day too.

I'll say something about the 20k plus shoots you've done over the years. There is someone here on MM that has done God only knows how many, I'm sure it tops your figure, and has been one of the most successful  & recognized photographers of the 20th century.

I don't think he even takes off his lens cap without paperwork being taken care of first.

Be careful not to fall off that high horse you're on.

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Antoher complicated problem with the release thingie,
Before every shoot I go over every detail, set boundaries, ect
Awesome eh?
Meet up, photog seems fine, sign release, start shooting nudes.
We had agreed not to do pink showing
Photog is a sneaky bastard,
Gets pink shots
May even act cocky/flippant with what he's doing
Then...what?
Nothing, I signed a legally-binding contract before we started
Go home
Cry

Ugh, sounds like you ran into a particular idiot and not your everyday photographer.

So sorry. I've stepped into slime when I first came on here too, took me a while to metaphorically wipe it off of my shoe. The guy shot with me and in his release gave me zero usage to anything, (for a tf shoot.)

edit to add:

Photos by EWP-Savannah wrote:
If you shoot with me, you'll not only execute a models release, but will execute a usage license agreement.  No modifications will be allowed.

Don't want to sign either or both.....   Hit the door.

In a recent shoot, (my first publication in Uncovered issue #3, March 2014 btw, a nude shoot /personal side bar for relevance,) The photographer was the first one to tell me about a usage agreement! NICE to know!!
Jen

Gennaver Jen B wrote:

Ugh, sounds like you ran into a particular idiot and not your everyday photographer.

So sorry. I've stepped into slime when I first came on here too, took me a while to metaphorically wipe it off of my shoe. The guy shot with me and in his release gave me zero usage to anything, (for a tf shoot.)

Wait, you couldn't even use it for your portfolio?
That blows,
Some people suck,
Most don't,
Which is what keeps me coming

Cherrystone wrote:

I'll say something about the 20k plus shoots you've done over the years. There is someone here on MM that has done God only knows how many, I'm sure it tops your figure, and has been one of the most successful  & recognized photographers of the 20th century.

I don't think he even takes off his lens cap without paperwork being taken care of first.

Be careful not to fall off that high horse you're on.

+1

Cherrystone wrote:
No....just no.

I could make up an agreement and if we both sign it on a cocktail napkin and there are terms it is a form of a contract.

I never said it was an image license but it is a form of contract depending on the verbiage.

As referenced to me by the legal dept at the media company I worked at and I developed stock for as well as the legal dept of the stock agencies that have the work on file.

But it's really no biggie

It really isn't relevant to MM ( IMO)
I would just discuss terms beforehand with ( model /photographer) to make sure everyone is on the same page and I don't know what to say about the hinky stuff.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
Models typically have model release forms which are signed at the end of the job.
It stipulates rate, usage and details.

Good luck on getting many (maybe any) photographers here to sign a model release brought by the model.

Jupiter Red  wrote:

Wait, you couldn't even use it for your portfolio?
That blows,
Some people suck,
Most don't,
Which is what keeps me coming

I agree and I've had some great connections come through MM. Although that particular photographer...was a lesson! slime is right.
Jen

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Good luck on getting many (maybe any) photographers here to sign a model release brought by the model.

on MM yes
but he is talking about agency work.

The agency handles the paperwork for the model and takes payment for model too.

Gennaver Jen B wrote:

I agree and I've had some great connections come through MM. Although that particular photographer...was a lesson! slime is right.
Jen

I don't even understand that.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
I think the error in this thread is that no one mentions the scope of the release.  I am assuming given what I have read, that folks want all rights for ever.  That would be a hard sell with top tier talent without serious money and could make folks think twice, perhaps the scope of the release is the problem.

Not even for top tier... No commercial release I've ever been asked to sign that was pre-negotiated through my agency looked like some of the forms I've seen thrown around this site.  Releases are signed after negotiation and an agreement has been reached, not before.

For stock work, I've always signed at end of shoot.  For TV and most commercial work, they try to get the releases signed and out of the way first so no-one forgets.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Haha - the drama!

In the UK, we don't need a release at all, even for commercial use.

That means every shot I take is mine and mine alone, no questions asked, nothing to sign - I just own it all!

I'm amazed anybody ever works with me





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Wow really, didnt know that, so much easier!

KungPaoChic wrote:
actually it is a form of a contract.

A model release is a form of contract

It is not an image license though I sometimes wrap my license and release together.

"In consideration of the engagement as a model of the minor named below, and for other good and valuable consideration that I acknowledge as having received,"


and then you sign model signs and date

yes it is a form of a contract

If no good and valuable consideration is received it can be argued that the release ( contract) is invalid which is why you normally give something of value for the release to be valid.

Cherrystone wrote:
No....just no.

I was going to reply to the original with a long thing explaining piece by piece why s/he was wrong, but your response was perfect.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
Models typically have model release forms which are signed at the end of the job.
It stipulates rate, usage and details.
Other usage releases are always pre-approved by the model agency or agent. (Many advertising agencies now want complex releases signed)

For non agency models, payment is also conditioned on signing a release.
If no payment is expected then whatever agreement was discussed would be in order.

As far as when one signs, TV folks make talent sign up front.  Print guys typically after the shoot.

I think the error in this thread is that no one mentions the scope of the release.  I am assuming given what I have read, that folks want all rights for ever.  That would be a hard sell with top tier talent without serious money and could make folks think twice, perhaps the scope of the release is the problem.

I was going to bring up some of this, but, alas, on MM, photographers mostly think that any additions or conditions of the release would only be to make things more in their favor and cover things like model use rights and where they can or can't post the pics. I'm not sure most understand how things work outside of here.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

KungPaoChic wrote:

I don't even understand that.

I have had lots of good experiences come from MM yet I shared an experience with Jupiter just a few posts up about a bad one where the guy was slimy and she expressed that she thought he was when I told her about him.

Did that help?

Jen

joeyk wrote:
Have you ever gotten to the end of a shoot and had a refusal?

In 26 years, that's over 20,000 shoots, yes, really, I've had one refusal,

Just did the math on your experience claim.

26 years of shooting, assuming a 6 day work week =  8112 days

20,000 (dismissing the "over 20,000) shoots divided by the assumed working days would = 2.5 shoots per day.

Having looked at your portfolio, you do almost all location work.  Assuming travel time, preparation and actual shooting time, I would estimate that you have four hours invested in each shoot.  And, and unknown amount of time to do processing, be it digital or film.

So, based on my assumptions of 2.5 shoot per day.  That's 10 hours shooting. each day.

If you're worth your salt processing, and it appears that you are,  you're going to invest, at least 1.5 hours processing each shoot.  or  3 hours.  (That's a really conservative estimate of time)

So, that gives you 13 hours per day, 6 days per week either shooting or processing.   If you add time for eating, shopping, and any social activities you're probably looking at another 2 - 3 hours there.  That takes care of 16 hours per day 6 days a week.

I think that I want to call Bullshit here.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Haha - the drama!

In the UK, we don't need a release at all, even for commercial use.

Ok - but question...
I would think most UK entities would still in practice be requiring a release, as a best practice anticipating commercial usage outside the confines of the UK.
No? Yes?

Revenge Photography wrote:
lmao.

This is just like an escort thread. Argument for the sake of it.

Nobody is going to convince anyone in the other camp to change their policy, why even bother?

I hear this viewpoint from time to time in the forums here. It is so naive. Forum debates (nor most any debate for that matter), is not for the benefit of (or for the purpose of convincing) the opposing side in the debate. It is for the benefit of the audience, most of which are not participants and which are either undecided on the issue or hold a stance that isn't well thought out.

It shows such a lack of sophistication and worldly experience to believe that debates are for the purpose of swaying the opposing participants.

KungPaoChic wrote:

Those aren't normal releases though Laura and those aren't normal photographers.

But maybe that is MM -- IDK what you all have to deal with.

Don't you vibe on those guys before the shoot and by looking at their content?

"Normal" is subjective, but I'd say yes, that's certainly mm. I was given paperwork like that quite often, and it didn't even necessarily seem to have anything to do with what we were going to shoot (I'd expect the whole "I was a consenting willing participant and didnt get hurt yadda yadda" on fetish/bondage shoots, and I'd often get it at those shoots, but I also was given that kind of paperwork on art nude shoots). Their content often had nothing to do with ridiculous shit their paperwork said, I often didnt have any problems, their paperwork was just ridiculous. And if anyone were to have a problem with them, it would become even more ridiculous.

The truly fucking horrible shots that I wasn't under the impression we were shooting came almost all from group shoots, where I had absolutely no chance to screen any of the participants and just had to hope they wouldn't do disgusting things like shoot up my vag when I was between poses or something. Hope only gets you so far apparently.

Laura UnBound wrote:
The truly fucking horrible shots that I wasn't under the impression we were shooting came almost all from group shoots, where I had absolutely no chance to screen any of the participants and just had to hope they wouldn't do disgusting things like shoot up my vag when I was between poses or something. Hope only gets you so far apparently.

I thought that's what group shoots were for

Cherrystone wrote:

Laura UnBound wrote:
What I find absolutely fucking absurd is photographers who wrote their own totally shoddy releases that require me to sign stating that I was not harmed during the shoot in any way, or that I was not coerced or forced into any poses/themes, and that I'm 100% aware and consenting to each photo and it's contents. How the fuck anyone reasonably expects me to sign that BEFORE the shoot happens is beyond me. I can't swear I wasn't coerced into a pose or that I knew someone had zoomed in on my vag when I thought I was doing full body art nudes if I only just walked in the door and haven't stepped foot in front of the camera yet. People are idiots

You've seen a release like that???

I've seen paperwork of all sorts
Not my job to tell someone their shit won't hold up in court if they ever truly need it to.

Jupiter Red  wrote:

Thank you!
My lord.
And that sounds hella creepy,
Like what are the photogs planning on shooting, if they need all that?
And those things, (heavens forbid) happen to a model
Then the photog can go skipping away, holding his model release

I think for the most part, 'in this day and age' of people all being sue-happy, most people are just trying to cover their asses for ANY possible scenario. The thing is that they wind up taking it to extremes, doing it incorrectly so it won't legally protect them from anything, and looking foolish in the process.

When I was new I'd ask to be sent the release before the shoot so I could look it over. If they'd ever had anything weird like that in it I'd probably decline to shoot or ask for the release to be revised. Nowadays I have no problem signing them because I know I'm walking the fuck out before any force/coercion/trickery or harm is going to happen to me. And truthfully the only times people have snuck in photos I didn't realize we're happening, they didnt (to my knowledge) get photos of anything I don't have other purposeful photos of, the disgusting part is that they tried to sneak them instead of just saying "hey can we shoot some vag now?"

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I would think most UK entities would still in practice be requiring a release, as a best practice anticipating commercial usage outside the confines of the UK.
No? Yes?

Anybody can ask for anything; it doesn't mean they need it.

Entities based outside of the UK may ask for one through force of habit but the need for a model release arises only if a model has any rights to "release". In the UK this is simply not the case so a model "release" per-se is entirely nugatory.

Some UK photographers who shoot for stock like to get a release signed anyway to avoid not having one if asked, but technically they are not required and can actually compromise the photographer's inherent legal rights if badly written.




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I thought that's what group shoots were for

Mostly. I only did them when I absolutely had to.

Jupiter Red  wrote:

Worked in reverse?
And burned how?
And the storming out was in regards to if the photog turned out to be a douche.
Its like, you can be a douche
And use the photos willy nilly?

At the beginning of the shoot of course. If you decide the photographer is a douche do return the money they paid you?

Methinks not.

I pay up front!  Should I wait to pay you till after you sign the release?
Why not sign at the end of the shoot?