# So.. this is a rant about a model who didn't pay for a shoot and expects un-watermarked images.



## NedM

The way my business is structured is if a person pays me for a photo shoot I give that person their photos in full resolution and not watermarked and a print release along with their package. And if you don't pay for a shoot, I watermark the images with my logo.

The only reason I watermark my photos to those who did not pay for a shoot is to protect the photos from unauthorized use or printing. Even if they are used in such a way, my watermark assures me that I at least get advertisement.

Last week I had a shoot with a wonderful aspiring model. She didn't pay. It was a simple 'time for photos' shoot. Which meant, she would receive digital copies of the photos from the shoot as compensation. Of course she didn't pay so I watermarked the photos. She stated that she could not send the photos to her agency because they were deemed 'useless'. I then explained to her that I could license her the photos for use and the price of the license would depend on the what the photos would be used for and how long for.

She then said that other photogs she had TFP shoots with did not watermark their photos. I simply said, "I'm sorry, other photogs are different, it's just how I run my business." I mean, I don't get it. If I gave everyone who didn't pay for a shoot full resolution un-watermarked images then I would be losing out on potential revenue.

Afterwards, she went on to tell me that business with me will no longer be "beneficial" and so I told her that I was sorry that we could not come to a mutual agreement and wished her luck in her endeavors in life and stated again that this was simply not how I do business.

Shortly after she sent me this text. Talk about big ego. She even had the audacity to 'kindly' ask me to remove a photo of her I posted on IG. Too bad she signed a contract that allowed me keep all copyrights to the images. But because I am not a jerk and a professional, I will remove it.. Some time tomorrow.

P.S. Any advice on how I could have handled the situation better would be helpful.


----------



## Forkie

I'm erring on the side of the model here, if I'm honest.

The point of a TFP shoot is for it to be beneficial for both the photographer and the model.  That's the point of it.  It is not an excuse for you to get free shots for you to use and "who cares what the model wants?".

There needs to be an element of trust in TFP shoots.  Not everyone is out to steal your photos, particularly people who can benefit from staying on your good side.  She agreed to your shoot on the basis that she would get the same out of the shoot as you and if she cannot use your watermarked images, she has done a day's work for zero benefit to her and maximum benefit to you.  TFP shoots are a two-way thing.  Release your images un-watermarked to her.  That is her day's pay.  You can use your copies of the images anywhere else you want to promote yourself, watermarked up to the hilt.

Generally, when I do a TFP shoot it is agreed that I will release those images to my model for them to use as they see fit (except any editing by third parties or direct sales to any third parties) for self promotion, crediting me as the photographer where possible and where appropriate (accepting that sometimes, no one will know who took the shot) and I agree to do the same, i.e., if I put the photos on my site, I credit the model and even link to their website if they have one.  That way, we've both helped each other out and got some good portfolio images.

It makes good business sense to stay in touch and support each other.  They will always remember you for that and you will always be at the back of their mind when someone's looking for a photographer - she might even have introduced you to her agency.  All she will remember you for now is that you didn't give her any useable images after a TFP shoot.

If it were me, I would release the unwatermarked images to her, man up and apologise for any misunderstanding in what you agreed, accept that you've burned that bridge and put it down to experience.  You never know, you might claw back that important network relationship.


----------



## Mach0

Forkie said:


> I'm erring on the side of the model here, if I'm honest.
> 
> The point of a TFP shoot is for it to be beneficial for both the photographer and the model.  That's the point of it.  It is not an excuse for you to get free shots for you to use and "who cares what the model wants?".
> 
> There needs to be an element of trust in TFP shoots.  Not everyone is out to steal your photos, particularly people who can benefit from staying on your good side.  She agreed to your shoot on the basis that she would get the same out of the shoot as you and if she cannot use your watermarked images, she has done a day's work for zero benefit to her and maximum benefit to you.  TFP shoots are a two-way thing.  Release your images un-watermarked to her.  That is her day's pay.  You can use your copies of the images anywhere else you want to promote yourself, watermarked up to the hilt.
> 
> Generally, when I do a TFP shoot it is agreed that I will release those images to my model for them to use as they see fit (except any editing by third parties or direct sales to any third parties) for self promotion, crediting me as the photographer where possible and where appropriate (accepting that sometimes, no one will know who took the shot) and I agree to do the same, i.e., if I put the photos on my site, I credit the model and even link to their website if they have one.  That way, we've both helped each other out and got some good portfolio images.
> 
> It makes good business sense to stay in touch and support each other.  They will always remember you for that and you will always be at the back of their mind when someone's looking for a photographer - she might even have introduced you to her agency.  All she will remember you for now is that you didn't give her any useable images after a TFP shoot.
> 
> If it were me, I would release the unwatermarked images to her, man up and apologise for any misunderstanding in what you agreed, accept that you've burned that bridge and put it down to experience.  You never know, you might claw back that important network relationship.




I agree with this 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

NedM said:


> P.S. Any advice on how I could have handled the situation better would be helpful.



Next time use cats, they don't care if you screw them out of the their pictures they worked for.


----------



## gsgary

Braineack said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Any advice on how I could have handled the situation better would be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time use cats, they don't care if you screw them out of the their pictures they worked for.
Click to expand...

My dogs do, my dogs lawyer has it written into the contract that they get 3 walks a day and unlimited treats


----------



## Designer

NedM said:


> If I gave everyone who didn't pay for a shoot full resolution un-watermarked images then I would be losing out on potential revenue.



And if you had PAID the model, instead of trading TFP, you would be "losing out" on money.



NedM said:


> P.S. Any advice on how I could have handled the situation better would be helpful.



It might not be too late to fix this. 

Call the model, and tell her that you've had the scales lifted from your eyes, and you will promptly give her full-size, full resolution digital files AND up to 8 8x10 glossy prints (of her choosing) AND a gift certificate to a local restaurant as a way of trying to make up for your poor handling of your last conversation.


----------



## Forkie

NedM said:


> I mean, I don't get it. If I gave everyone who didn't pay for a shoot full resolution un-watermarked images then I would be losing out on potential revenue.



Models are in the same boat as you.  If they let every photographer keep all their images of them, they'd also be loosing out on potential revenue.

If a photographer hires a model, the photographer pays the model, either in money or photos.  If the model hires the photographer, the model pays the photographer.  In money or photos.  You don't get to write your name on their money.  Or their photos.  Have you credited the model wherever you displayed your image?  They're an artist looking for work just as much as you are.


----------



## Braineack

mutual exchange of services; only photographer benefits.


----------



## astroNikon

I hate to say this but I agree with the above.
This harkens my thoughts back to those Sears photo studios. FREE Family photo shoot ... oh wait, you want to take some home then you have to pay, except for one 3x5.

If this is your business and how you make money then why do photo shoots for free?  
Do TPF (free) to build your portfolio then market your skills to the public where you make your money.


Harkening back to the Sears thing .. the last time I was there they had 12 "best" photos of my family selected.  Only ONE was marginally in focus .. marginally. And they were there trying to push packages.


----------



## Designer

NedM; please post a link to your water-marked images.  

I promise I will not copy, print, sell, publish online, or otherwise use your images without your express written permission.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.

Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.


----------



## SquarePeg

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.



If networking and getting referrals while building a portfolio is the goal then being right is irrelevant.


----------



## Mach0

SquarePeg said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If networking and getting referrals while building a portfolio is the goal then being right is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And a reputation spreads fast. Whether good or bad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.


Have you read the contract?  Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?


----------



## photoguy99

The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. 

There are 'agencies' that are just selling hope to girls who will never be models. 'OK, we think you've got the stuff, now it's just $120 to get some headshots...'

If people won't pay to shoot you right out of the gate perhaps it's time to consider another career.

No offense to you, NedM, I have no idea what your business is and for all I know there is a corner case where models legitimately pay.


----------



## tirediron

The only question I have is:  Does your TF* agreement specifically state that the images you provide will be water-marked?  If so, then unfortunately the model has only herself to blame (I think that's a pretty poor way to treat someone, but, if she agreed to it, then...).  On the other hand if there is nothing in the license/agreement about the images being water-marked, then I'm afraid you are being [sic] "_jerky_", and you should provide her with usuable images.  If you really want to "protect" yourself, then give her prints and stamp the back of them.


----------



## Forkie

photoguy99 said:


> The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me.
> 
> There are 'agencies' that are just selling hope to girls who will never be models. 'OK, we think you've got the stuff, now it's just $120 to get some headshots...'
> 
> If people won't pay to shoot you right out of the gate perhaps it's time to consider another career.
> 
> No offense to you, NedM, I have no idea what your business is and for all I know there is a corner case where models legitimately pay.



There is a time and a place for models to pay photographers.  If a model approaches a photographer off their own back looking to shoot a particular look, unless it's for TFP, then the model paying the photographer would be appropriate.



tirediron said:


> The only question I have is:  Does your TF* agreement specifically state that the images you provide will be water-marked?  If so, then unfortunately the model has only herself to blame (I think that's a pretty poor way to treat someone, but, if she agreed to it, then...).  On the other hand if there is nothing in the license/agreement about the images being water-marked, then I'm afraid you are being [sic] "_jerky_", and you should provide her with usuable images.  If you really want to "protect" yourself, then give her prints and stamp the back of them.



I would argue then, that if that's the case it was not a shoot on a TFP basis and the OP has mislead, nay, conned the model into working for free.  I obviously don't know the model, but I guarantee that if she was in any doubt as to whether she would be getting useable images for her time, she wouldn't have agreed to the shoot.


----------



## Designer

NedM; we couldn't help noticing that you did not watermark the photographs on your website, so that apparently means that *those models paid you*.

Do you then *pay the models* for the use of their visage on your website?  I think it is only fair that you should pay them, since you are using their faces to promote your business.

And since I referenced your website, it is only fair that I should link to it:

Portraits Photography By Ned


----------



## photoguy99

I don't really mean to argue morality here and I don't think it's appropriate to.

If the contract states a thing, then that's it. It's everyone's responsibility to read it and to know if it's industry standard or whatever. If you're not lying to the girls, you're OK by me.


----------



## Forkie

photoguy99 said:


> I don't really mean to argue morality here and I don't think it's appropriate to.
> 
> If the contract states a thing, then that's it. It's everyone's responsibility to read it and to know if it's industry standard or whatever. If you're not lying to the girls, you're OK by me.



That's true.  However, if the OP originally sold it as a TFP (the compensation of which is well known by anyone in the industry) and the contract stated otherwise (which could have lead the model into a false sense of trust and to then misread the contract), then the OP is in the wrong and should honour the expected compensation, if not purely as a gesture of good will. Otherwise, he's just a bad businessman and deserves any loss of earnings or respect that comes from it.

I'll be interested to hear what the OP has to say about his contract.  Hopefully, he'll come back and clarify.


----------



## tirediron

Forkie said:


> I would argue then, that if that's the case it was not a shoot on a TFP basis and the OP has mislead, nay, conned the model into working for free.  I obviously don't know the model, but I guarantee that if she was in any doubt as to whether she would be getting useable images for her time, she wouldn't have agreed to the shoot.


I don't dispute that at all - just meaning that if it was there, and she didn't read it, it's really a case of caveat emptor.


----------



## pixmedic

It's amazing just how many answers really hinge on "what did the contract say". 
I too am interested in the specifics of what the TFP  contract says.


----------



## KmH

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.


Did i miss it?
Where is it made apparent that the model signed a contract?


----------



## Designer

We're wishing we could read the contract.


----------



## photoguy99

I wish I could read.


----------



## KmH

NedM.
IMO, it is a serious breach of business ethics to post here on TPF an image of what is apparently a private message from the model to you.

If she had posted that message to online social media that others could see would make posting it here OK.

Shooting for free so often backfires I'm amazed so many do it.

I too agree the model has a valid complaint and you need to re-evaluate your expectations, practices, and policies vis-a-vis TFP shoots.


----------



## Trever1t

how many of you shoot models? I Watermark all my images on TFP shoots. I have thousands of dollars invested in gear and decades invested in education.

unless a model specifically comes to me and tells me her desires for unwatermarked images she is going to get the images that I give her!

Now maybe I missed something in the op's post,  but for her to demand unwatermarked images with no prior conversation on the matter is negligent on her part,  not the shooter's


----------



## Forkie

KmH said:


> NedM.
> IMO, it is a serious breach of business ethics to post here on TPF an image of what is apparently a private message from the model to you.
> 
> If she had posted that message to online social media that others could see would make posting it here OK.
> 
> Shooting for free so often backfires I'm amazed so many do it.
> 
> I too agree the model has a valid complaint and you need to re-evaluate your expectations, practices, and policies vis-a-vis TFP shoots.



I agree.  Although I would say that shooting for free is perfectly fine as long as both parties are absolutely clear about what they both get out of it.  I've been doing it for years and never come across a situation like this before.  

I'm always so glad to have someone sit for me for free, that I would consider it simply bad manners and arrogant not to give them the useable images they want/need to say thank you for their time.


----------



## DavidVote

Umm this isn't what TFP means. 

It only seems like YOU are benefitting from the shoot. If you paid the model then I could totally see the justification in  you keeping the photos yourself. After all, you paid the model.

But this was a TFP. In other words, a COLLABORATION. You still own the rights to the pictures because your the guy who clicked the shutter, but it just sounds like you pulled a dick move on her.


----------



## Forkie

Trever1t said:


> how many of you shoot models? I Watermark all my images on TFP shoots. I have thousands of dollars invested in gear and decades invested in education.
> 
> unless a model specifically comes to me and tells me her desires for unwatermarked images she is going to get the images that I give her!



Fine, if you both agree that is what you are giving them beforehand.  If the model has no use for images with a whopping great watermark on them, then they would simply decline your offer for a TFP shoot.  No problems.

But it is simply bad practice and dickheadedness if you have no intention of giving the model a useable image, if that is what they were expecting to get out of it.


----------



## DavidVote

Trever1t said:


> how many of you shoot models? I Watermark all my images on TFP shoots. I have thousands of dollars invested in gear and decades invested in education.
> 
> unless a model specifically comes to me and tells me her desires for unwatermarked images she is going to get the images that I give her!
> 
> Now maybe I missed something in the op's post,  but for her to demand unwatermarked images with no prior conversation on the matter is negligent on her part,  not the shooter's



Me occasionally. TFP basically = Collaboration man.


----------



## Trever1t

Expectation. Why did she expect unwatermarked images?  With me,  I don't post client, unwatermarked images in my portfolio,  all my images are watermarked. So any model working with me should fully expect to receive a watermarked image.


----------



## Trever1t

I'm on my phone and perhaps didn't read the OP's post in the same light that you all did. From what I've read and comprehended it sounds to me the model is acting arrogant and demanding something that should not be expected without prior conversation.


----------



## Braineack

Trever1t said:


> I'm on my phone and perhaps didn't read the OP's post in the same light that you all did. From what I've read and comprehended it sounds to me the model is acting arrogant and demanding something that should not be expected without prior conversation.



exactly, maybe next time she'll learn to to go TFP shoots with her email address written in sharpie across her forehead.


----------



## Trever1t

I'd  shoot that lolz


----------



## DavidVote

Trever1t said:


> Expectation. Why did she expect unwatermarked images?  With me,  I don't post client, unwatermarked images in my portfolio,  all my images are watermarked. So any model working with me should fully expect to receive a watermarked image.



If you call them models, then they must be doing it for a living right? Then what is the point of them putting in the time and effort in posing for you just to receive no benefits? Again, TFP = collaboration = beneficial to both sides.


----------



## Forkie

Trever1t said:


> I'm on my phone and perhaps didn't read the OP's post in the same light that you all did. From what I've read and comprehended it sounds to me the model is acting arrogant and demanding something that should not be expected without prior conversation.



The prior conversation, that we can gather from the OP is that they agreed to a TFP shoot.  Which, by all meanings of the phrase means to the mutual benefit of both parties.  If watermarked images are not to the benefit of the model, then you have not honoured the widely accepted definition of the term "Time for (useable) Photos".  If watermarked images are fine for the model, then good for you.

A model's time is as valuable as yours.  You are providing _each other_ with a service.  Treating it as an exercise in getting as much benefit as possible out of someone whilst giving them as little benefit as possible is simply arrogant and deceptive.


----------



## Trever1t

Totally disagree.

you want things your way you pay me otherwise it's my way or the highway. To be fair I make that clear from the beginning.


----------



## DavidVote

Trever1t said:


> Totally disagree.
> 
> you want things your way you pay me otherwise it's my way or the highway. To be fair I make that clear from the beginning.



If you want things your way then you pay them.


----------



## Forkie

Trever1t said:


> Totally disagree



With what?  That taking advantage of someone to your own benefit is arrogant and deceptive?

EDIT:



Trever1t said:


> you want things your way you pay me otherwise it's my way or the highway. To be fair I make that clear from the beginning.



What a joy to work with you must be. Asking a model to sit for you for free, then telling them to pay for a useable image.  Smooth.


----------



## Trever1t

I don't have to. Models come to me because they like my work and they want the experience of working with me.


----------



## DavidVote

Trever1t said:


> I don't have to. Models come to me because they like my work and they want the experience of working with me.



Sorry, I'm also on my phone and I also might be reading it in the wrong light. But that sounded so egotistical.

There's no point in arguing with you.


----------



## Trever1t

I don't think I've ever had an unhappy model, I must be doing something wrong. Many,  most of my models work with me multiple times. I shoot 7 to 12 models a month...when I'm able


----------



## tirediron

DavidVote said:


> ...If you call them models, then they must be doing it for a living right? Then what is the point of them putting in the time and effort in posing for you just to receive no benefits? Again, TFP = collaboration = beneficial to both sides.


 There are even less people who make a living modelling than who do photographing, so it's unlikely that any but a very few make even pocket change modelling, BUT... as you sadi a collaborative effort.  When I have an idea for lighting, a concept I want to try, etc, I will reach out to the local agency, Model Mayhem or similar for a TF*.  Why wouldn't I give the model usable images?  Her time is something I need, and at the end of the day, what do the really cost me?  Not much.  Likewise, if a model contacts me and pitches an idea that I think is useful, or that I'd like to work on. 

OTOH, if he/she has an idea in which I see no portfolio benefit, or they just want a 'Z' sheet...  full rates apply.


----------



## Forkie

tirediron said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you call them models, then they must be doing it for a living right? Then what is the point of them putting in the time and effort in posing for you just to receive no benefits? Again, TFP = collaboration = beneficial to both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> There are even less people who make a living modelling than who do photographing, so it's unlikely that any but a very few make even pocket change modelling, BUT... as you sadi a collaborative effort.  When I have an idea for lighting, a concept I want to try, etc, I will reach out to the local agency, Model Mayhem or similar for a TF*.  Why wouldn't I give the model usable images?  Her time is something I need, and at the end of the day, what do the really cost me?  Not much.  Likewise, if a model contacts me and pitches an idea that I think is useful, or that I'd like to work on.
> 
> OTOH, if he/she has an idea in which I see no portfolio benefit, or they just want a 'Z' sheet...  full rates apply.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  If the model approaches you with something that you don't think you can benefit from, then fair enough.  Either turn down the offer of a TFP, or charge them.  But no one should be entering into a TFP with the intention of charging the model for images or not supplying them with images in a useable condition.


----------



## Vtec44

I do collaborating work with models, HMUA's, wardrobe, etc.  I have almost never give out watermarked photos for trade work.  It's clear and up front before everything is done so we all know what we're getting before the shoot, regardless of who approached who.  I make a living with photography and that's just how I work.  People do things differently and I don't speak for anyone else other than myself..  

Edit, come to think of it I rarely watermark my photos.


----------



## DavidVote

Vtec44 said:


> I do collaborating work with models, HMUA's, wardrobe, etc.  I have almost never give out watermarked photos for trade work.  It's clear and up front before everything is done so we all know what we're getting before the shoot, regardless of who approached who.  I make a living with photography and that's just how I work.  Other people do things differently.
> 
> Edit, come to think of it I rarely watermark my photos.



What is water marking?

All the professional photographers that I admire and who's work stands out from the rest is never watermarked.

Edit: all the photographers, professional or amateur, that I've seen whose work stands out from the rest is never water marked.


----------



## Forkie

Vtec44 said:


> I do collaborating work with models, HMUA's, wardrobe, etc.  I have almost never give out watermarked photos for trade work.  It's clear and up front before everything is done so we all know what we're getting before the shoot, regardless of who approached who.  I make a living with photography and that's just how I work.  Other people do things differently.
> 
> Edit, come to think of it I rarely watermark my photos.



I don't watermark mine, either.  I've never quite understood it.


----------



## Trever1t

My watermark is pretty and never a distraction to the image in that is placement and opacity is minimal.


----------



## tirediron

Forkie said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do collaborating work with models, HMUA's, wardrobe, etc.  I have almost never give out watermarked photos for trade work.  It's clear and up front before everything is done so we all know what we're getting before the shoot, regardless of who approached who.  I make a living with photography and that's just how I work.  Other people do things differently.
> 
> Edit, come to think of it I rarely watermark my photos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watermark mine, either.  I've never quite understood it.
Click to expand...

 I tried it, but my computer died when it got wet...


----------



## Didereaux

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.




Although I agree with those against the photographer (from a personal ethics point of view),  I have to admit that you are 100% correct in what you say.   That signed contract is the crux of the matter.  Not reading a contract thoroughly and then arguing about the details is akin to arguing that you didn't see all those speed limit signs.


----------



## Vtec44

Trever1t said:


> My watermark is pretty and never a distraction to the image in that is placement and opacity is minimal.



If you watermark yours, that's just the way you do your business. To me it's more a personal choice.  I don't judge....


----------



## NedM

This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.

Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.

The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
Afterall, it's the contract.

But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.


Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)


----------



## photoguy99

What is the "consideration"? It is precisely what the "consideration" the model received that appears to be under question. Was it "photos" or "photos with watermarks"?

Also "indicted" means something quite different from "indicated"


----------



## pixmedic

Vtec44 said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> My watermark is pretty and never a distraction to the image in that is placement and opacity is minimal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you watermark yours, that's just the way you do your business. To me it's more a personal choice.  I don't judge....
Click to expand...

I watermark my photos because I hate to miss a chance to put a mustache on something.


----------



## DavidVote

NedM said:


> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)



Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?

Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.

I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.


----------



## tirediron

Hasten thee to an IP lawyer and get that release un****ed immediately.  I have to ask, in all seriousness, do you fully understand what you are asking a model to agree to in that release?  That looks like a release I'd expect from KGB Photography Inc.  It is the mostly unfair and one-sided release I've ever seen (and I've looked at quite a few). 
WHAT is the model's incentive to work with you?  According to that document, she isn't even entitled to images.


----------



## Braineack

Russia had a lot of money until it ran out.


----------



## NedM

DavidVote said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?
> 
> Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.
> 
> I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.
Click to expand...



I'm still new to the whole asking a model to shoot with you kind of thing.
I always thought TFP meant time for photos.
Meaning that in exchange for the models time I can give her the photos however I please.

I see now that it is a mutual collaboration and that by watermaking my images I am cheating out the model and being the only one to benefit from the shoot.
I see now that when asking a model TFP that the model's payment is time and mine out of courtesy is the photos.

I've read through all the message and agree with many and disagree with few. I will take all this new information and in spite of my action hopefully build a better business model and ethic.

Unfortunately, I am not able to apologize to the model, as that bridge was definitely burned.
I will send her the un-watermarked photos nonetheless along with an explanation of my error and misunderstanding of how a TFP works.


----------



## NedM

tirediron said:


> Hasten thee to an IP lawyer and get that release un****ed immediately.  I have to ask, in all seriousness, do you fully understand what you are asking a model to agree to in that release?  That looks like a release I'd expect from KGB Photography Inc.  It is the mostly unfair and one-sided release I've ever seen (and I've looked at quite a few).
> WHAT is the model's incentive to work with you?  According to that document, she isn't even entitled to images.




I understand that release to an extent. 
Honestly, a lot of that is parts of different releases I have been shown and thrown together.

Although, it would very helpful if you can explain to  me what I have been having all my models sign.

How do you mean models incentive to work with me?


----------



## DavidVote

NedM said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?
> 
> Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.
> 
> I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still new to the whole asking a model to shoot with you kind of thing.
> I always thought TFP meant time for photos.
> Meaning that in exchange for the models time I can give her the photos however I please.
> 
> I see now that it is a mutual collaboration and that by watermaking my images I am cheating out the model and being the only one to benefit from the shoot.
> I see now that when asking a model TFP that the model's payment is time and mine out of courtesy is the photos.
> 
> I've read through all the message and agree with many and disagree with few. I will take all this new information and in spite of my action hopefully build a better business model and ethic.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am not able to apologize to the model, as that bridge was definitely burned.
> I will send her the un-watermarked photos nonetheless along with an explanation of my error and misunderstanding of how a TFP works.
Click to expand...


I apologize for not asking before when I should have. To what extent are you water marking your photos?

Is it just a little water mark to a corner or is it to the point to where the image is unusable?


----------



## JacaRanda

I can see why things would be confusing if you have done several of these shoots and this is the first model to have an issue.


----------



## NedM

DavidVote said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?
> 
> Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.
> 
> I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still new to the whole asking a model to shoot with you kind of thing.
> I always thought TFP meant time for photos.
> Meaning that in exchange for the models time I can give her the photos however I please.
> 
> I see now that it is a mutual collaboration and that by watermaking my images I am cheating out the model and being the only one to benefit from the shoot.
> I see now that when asking a model TFP that the model's payment is time and mine out of courtesy is the photos.
> 
> I've read through all the message and agree with many and disagree with few. I will take all this new information and in spite of my action hopefully build a better business model and ethic.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am not able to apologize to the model, as that bridge was definitely burned.
> I will send her the un-watermarked photos nonetheless along with an explanation of my error and misunderstanding of how a TFP works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for not asking before when I should have. To what extent are you water marking your photos?
> 
> Is it just a little water mark to a corner or is it to the point to where the image is unusable?
Click to expand...


It's a watermark in the corner, and to be quite honest, it does make the photo unusable in print.
I will no longer be watermarking my photos.
I've decided that it is not the best action for my business.

Sure people may steal or print my photos without my permission but at least I can avoid a situation like this again.

Or... is there another way to go about this?


----------



## pixmedic

Watermark the photos you post online. Don't watermark the photos given to clients.


----------



## NedM

JacaRanda said:


> I can see why things would be confusing if you have done several of these shoots and this is the first model to have an issue.



Yeah, I was just a bit caught off guard.
Better to experience this now than later and miss an opportunity.


----------



## NedM

pixmedic said:


> Watermark the photos you post online. Don't watermark the photos given to clients.



Okay! In giving my clients the photos, how do you mean? Should I give them all the photos in resolution or did you mean prints?


----------



## tirediron

NedM said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hasten thee to an IP lawyer and get that release un****ed immediately.  I have to ask, in all seriousness, do you fully understand what you are asking a model to agree to in that release?  That looks like a release I'd expect from KGB Photography Inc.  It is the mostly unfair and one-sided release I've ever seen (and I've looked at quite a few).
> WHAT is the model's incentive to work with you?  According to that document, she isn't even entitled to images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that release to an extent.
> Honestly, a lot of that is parts of different releases I have been shown and thrown together.
> 
> Although, it would very helpful if you can explain to  me what I have been having all my models sign.
> 
> How do you mean models incentive to work with me?
Click to expand...

 Okay, another serious question:  if you don't understand the ramifications of the document yourself, why are you having people sign it?  How do you know it even does what you want?  Now, I'm not not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Exprss last night, but... 

In plain English, what I interpret that document to mean is that someone who models for you gets nothing, "the model has no rights to the images".  That means he/she can't even use them in a portfolio, so they come to you , spend 1, 2, or more hours modelling and get nothing they can legally use?  That's unfair in my book.  Why haven't you had complaints before now?  Who knows, but if I had to guess, it would be because the models were afraid to admit they didn't understand what they signed.  Where does it tell the model what they get?  Do you know what the term "assigns" means in this context?


----------



## NedM

tirediron said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hasten thee to an IP lawyer and get that release un****ed immediately.  I have to ask, in all seriousness, do you fully understand what you are asking a model to agree to in that release?  That looks like a release I'd expect from KGB Photography Inc.  It is the mostly unfair and one-sided release I've ever seen (and I've looked at quite a few).
> WHAT is the model's incentive to work with you?  According to that document, she isn't even entitled to images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that release to an extent.
> Honestly, a lot of that is parts of different releases I have been shown and thrown together.
> 
> Although, it would very helpful if you can explain to  me what I have been having all my models sign.
> 
> How do you mean models incentive to work with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, another serious question:  if you don't understand the ramifications of the document yourself, why are you having people sign it?  How do you know it even does what you want?  Now, I'm not not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Exprss last night, but...
> 
> In plain English, what I interpret that document to mean is that someone who models for you gets nothing, "the model has no rights to the images".  That means he/she can't even use them in a portfolio, so they come to you , spend 1, 2, or more hours modelling and get nothing they can legally use?  That's unfair in my book.  Why haven't you had complaints before now?  Who knows, but if I had to guess, it would be because the models were afraid to admit they didn't understand what they signed.  Where does it tell the model what they get?  Do you know what the term "assigns" means in this context?
Click to expand...


I mean, I understand the contract somewhat but I was always told that I should always have a signed contract for each shoot.
If you can message me and help me at least get a basic release going that would be very helpful!


----------



## JacaRanda

NedM said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why things would be confusing if you have done several of these shoots and this is the first model to have an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was just a bit caught off guard.
> Better to experience this now than later and miss an opportunity.
Click to expand...

 
Looks like you are well on your way in this photography business (based on your website).  As mentioned, you should reach out and get some professional help in creating photography bus. contracts.  I'm wondering how your wedding, potrait, and engagement contracts read.


----------



## DavidVote

NedM said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?
> 
> Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.
> 
> I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still new to the whole asking a model to shoot with you kind of thing.
> I always thought TFP meant time for photos.
> Meaning that in exchange for the models time I can give her the photos however I please.
> 
> I see now that it is a mutual collaboration and that by watermaking my images I am cheating out the model and being the only one to benefit from the shoot.
> I see now that when asking a model TFP that the model's payment is time and mine out of courtesy is the photos.
> 
> I've read through all the message and agree with many and disagree with few. I will take all this new information and in spite of my action hopefully build a better business model and ethic.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am not able to apologize to the model, as that bridge was definitely burned.
> I will send her the un-watermarked photos nonetheless along with an explanation of my error and misunderstanding of how a TFP works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for not asking before when I should have. To what extent are you water marking your photos?
> 
> Is it just a little water mark to a corner or is it to the point to where the image is unusable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a watermark in the corner, and to be quite honest, it does make the photo unusable in print.
> I will no longer be watermarking my photos.
> I've decided that it is not the best action for my business.
> 
> Sure people may steal or print my photos without my permission but at least I can avoid a situation like this again.
> 
> Or... is there another way to go about this?
Click to expand...




NedM said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you use the term "TFP" with the model then?
> 
> Anyways, I'm glad that you are going to consider (and hopefully) changing your business.
> 
> I also hope the model gets the full sized in water marked images that comes with a TFP shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still new to the whole asking a model to shoot with you kind of thing.
> I always thought TFP meant time for photos.
> Meaning that in exchange for the models time I can give her the photos however I please.
> 
> I see now that it is a mutual collaboration and that by watermaking my images I am cheating out the model and being the only one to benefit from the shoot.
> I see now that when asking a model TFP that the model's payment is time and mine out of courtesy is the photos.
> 
> I've read through all the message and agree with many and disagree with few. I will take all this new information and in spite of my action hopefully build a better business model and ethic.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am not able to apologize to the model, as that bridge was definitely burned.
> I will send her the un-watermarked photos nonetheless along with an explanation of my error and misunderstanding of how a TFP works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for not asking before when I should have. To what extent are you water marking your photos?
> 
> Is it just a little water mark to a corner or is it to the point to where the image is unusable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a watermark in the corner, and to be quite honest, it does make the photo unusable in print.
> I will no longer be watermarking my photos.
> I've decided that it is not the best action for my business.
> 
> Sure people may steal or print my photos without my permission but at least I can avoid a situation like this again.
> 
> Or... is there another way to go about this?
Click to expand...


As much as I dislike watermarking, I also don't dissupport it. Just have to be careful not to overdo it.


----------



## NedM

JacaRanda said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why things would be confusing if you have done several of these shoots and this is the first model to have an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was just a bit caught off guard.
> Better to experience this now than later and miss an opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you are well on your way in this photography business (based on your website).  As mentioned, you should reach out and get some professional help in creating photography bus. contracts.  I'm wondering how your wedding, potrait, and engagement contracts read.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I have taken several business classes in photography in college, so I have some help with my business.
I am not even sure where I would be able to get help with my bus. contracts.

A lot of my photographers in my area are very secretive and dont like sharing. ):

My wedding contract is whole lot different than my model releases. 
It's too long to be posted here. I had some help with my wedding contract but now I fear it may be faulty.


----------



## pixmedic

NedM said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watermark the photos you post online. Don't watermark the photos given to clients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay! In giving my clients the photos, how do you mean? Should I give them all the photos in resolution or did you mean prints?
Click to expand...



Well, for instance. ...
In a TFP type deal,  the model wants photos for THEIR portfolio, and you want pictures for YOURS.  You both need photos to either print for display or for online viewing. 
A watermark on your photos Is fine because you want your branding on it, but a watermark obscuring the picture makes it useless to the model, and therefor gets the model nothing out of the trade arrangement. 
You might have something In the contract saying she gets a watermarked image for her to post on social media, or that she credit you for them, but the model will need unaltered photos for themselves for their own portfolio to send to agencies


----------



## JacaRanda

How about asking the professor at your college for help or recommendations?  Or maybe ask a business law proffesor at your college.


----------



## NedM

Adult s model release American Society of Media Photographers


I just posted a link that takes you to an example model release template by ASMP.
Would this template, of course after changing the placeholders, be a good place to start?


----------



## tirediron

I only have a copy of my minor release handy
and __________________________________ a minor, and _____________________________ a parent or guardian legally able to enter in to this agreement on behalf of the aforementioned minor; (Jointly, “The Client”), in which The Photographer and The client agree to a non-monetary exchange of time for services in the following manner:
In exchange for acting as a model for a period of up to two hours (or a greater or less period if mutually agreed on), The Client will receive up *to three digital files*, in .jpg format suitable for printing at up to 8x10 inches. *As agreed beforehand by both The Client and The Photographer, the images will be head and shoulder images (“headshots”) of the type commonly used in modelling portfolios.*

The Photographer grants The Client the right to make an unlimited number of prints of the aforementioned images, and the right to use the images in electronic or printed format for any non-commercial purpose, including but not limited social media use, and portfolios and self-promotion, but no other rights. The Client may not edit or alter the files in any way.
The Photographer retains copyright to all images as well as the right to use the image for any non- commercial purpose including but not limited personal promotion, accreditation and portfolio.

The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices. The Photographer will retain the right to make the final decision as to which image(s) are selected for processing and delivery to The Client.

=======================================================================================

This is posted as a guide only and is designed for use in Canada.  The bits in itallics are changed as appropriate for each event.


----------



## Designer

NedM said:


> I understand that release to an extent.
> Honestly, a lot of that is parts of different releases I have been shown and thrown together.
> 
> Although, it would very helpful if you can explain to  me what I have been having all my models sign.
> 
> How do you mean models incentive to work with me?


*OMG!*

You actually admit that you "threw together" this model release yourself!  Mister, you had better hope that the model doesn't sue you.

I think just about any attorney would take her case just for the hell of it.  

This POS is so full of holes that any first year law student could take it apart.  

Have fun making payments to the model if she hires an expensive lawyer.


----------



## Designer

NedM said:


> A lot of my photographers in my area are very secretive and dont like sharing. ):


No, that's not it.  It's just that *THEY PAID* for something that you want to pirate for FREE.


----------



## NedM

Designer said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that release to an extent.
> Honestly, a lot of that is parts of different releases I have been shown and thrown together.
> 
> Although, it would very helpful if you can explain to  me what I have been having all my models sign.
> 
> How do you mean models incentive to work with me?
> 
> 
> 
> *OMG!*
> 
> You actually admit that you "threw together" this model release yourself!  Mister, you had better hope that the model doesn't sue you.
> 
> I think just about any attorney would take her case just for the hell of it.
> 
> This POS is so full of holes that any first year law student could take it apart.
> 
> Have fun making payments to the model if she hires an expensive lawyer.
Click to expand...



I am sorry, Designer, but are you not being very friendly or helpful at all.
I think it's best if you were to please remove yourself from this conversation.

Yes, I know my situation was not the best and every action I took was faulty.
I have already admitted to this and decided to change the way I do business.

Thank you for your insight.


----------



## photoguy99

Good model releases are not typically something a photographer keeps secret. For one thing, every model they work with has a copy.

Don't worry about getting sued. Contrary to Designer's snark, it's not like lawyers are lining up to take cases where there is almost literally no money in play.

Do invest in a quick consult with a local lawyer who does this sort of thing to get some nice simple contracts and model releases drawn up, and some advice about how you can and cannot customize them to suit the situation. This will cost you less than a good lens, I suspect (it's been.. um.. a while since I hired a lawyer with my own money though).


----------



## Scatterbrained

NedM said:


> I am sorry, Designer, but are you not being very friendly or helpful at all.
> I think it's best if you were to please remove yourself from this conversation.
> 
> Yes, I know my situation was not the best and every action I took was faulty.
> I have already admitted to this and decided to change the way I do business.
> 
> Thank you for your insight.


A model release and a license agreement are two separate things.  Having them sign a model release:

A) clarifies that you are the sole rights holder to the image
B) clarifies that you can use their images_ commercially_
C) shows that you had their express permission to take the photos

You can get a solid model release off of the Getty contributor website.
The model release is for _you_, to cover _your_ butt.  

A_ license _agreement is the other half of the deal that you are missing.   It spells out what kind of images the client will receive and what they can do with them.  What you don't seem to have yet, and desperately need, is a license agreement.  With this you spell out what images, who will receive them, in what form, where they can be used, and for how long.  

That is what you need to get sorted out.


----------



## Designer

NedM said:


> I am sorry, Designer, but are you not being very friendly or helpful at all.


If you go back to read my first post in this thread (post #6) you will see that I have made a very good suggestion about how to salvage your reputation.  

That is very friendly and helpful.

And I don't even know you.

You're welcome.


----------



## Designer

Not only that, but in post #76 I gave you a broad hint that you need to fix this, and not wait until someone else fixes it for you.

That also is extremely helpful.

You're welcome.


----------



## Overread

PEOPLE NO FIGHTING

If you dislike someone you can click their name and in the little window that appears you can select to ignore them. If you can't stand reading their comments do that. If they are being outright abusive then report their posts and let the mods deal with it.


----------



## NedM

Scatterbrained said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, Designer, but are you not being very friendly or helpful at all.
> I think it's best if you were to please remove yourself from this conversation.
> 
> Yes, I know my situation was not the best and every action I took was faulty.
> I have already admitted to this and decided to change the way I do business.
> 
> Thank you for your insight.
> 
> 
> 
> A model release and a license agreement are two separate things.  Having them sign a model release:
> 
> A) clarifies that you are the sole rights holder to the image
> B) clarifies that you can use their images_ commercially_
> C) shows that you had their express permission to take the photos
> 
> You can get a solid model release off of the Getty contributor website.
> The model release is for _you_, to cover _your_ butt.
> 
> A_ license _agreement is the other half of the deal that you are missing.   It spells out what kind of images the client will receive and what they can do with them.  What you don't seem to have yet, and desperately need, is a license agreement.  With this you spell out what images, who will receive them, in what form, where they can be used, and for how long.
> 
> That is what you need to get sorted out.
Click to expand...


Okay, I think I can create a pretty solid model release with a bit of research. 

But how can I go about creating a license agreement along with the model release?
Do you have any examples I can start drafting off of?


----------



## JacaRanda

Why are you insistent on doing this yourself and ignoring some of the advice you have been given?
It seems you are looking for a shortcut which may be the reason you have found yourself in the current situation.

Don't you want things associated with your photography business to be solid rather than pretty solid?


----------



## joeymas

"The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "

So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs. 

I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.


----------



## photoguy99

This is off topic, but in general I'd expect to see a third party paying both the model and the photographer.

I'm sure it's not all like this, but I see a lot of ick in the world of GWCs charging "models" (mildly pretty girls who are never, ever, going to be successful models, but who have mighty dreams and a few dollars in their pocket from someplace or other) to "build their portfolios".


----------



## NedM

JacaRanda said:


> Why are you insistent on doing this yourself and ignoring some of the advice you have been given?
> It seems you are looking for a shortcut which may be the reason you have found yourself in the current situation.
> 
> Don't you want things associated with your photography business to be solid rather than pretty solid?



Partly because I am only 21 years old and atm can not afford an IP lawyer.
So the best I can do is build my own model release/licenses and get feedback and improvements from other professionals.


----------



## photoguy99

If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.

No reason not to do research and pull together some documents in advance, though.


----------



## JacaRanda

NedM said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you insistent on doing this yourself and ignoring some of the advice you have been given?
> It seems you are looking for a shortcut which may be the reason you have found yourself in the current situation.
> 
> Don't you want things associated with your photography business to be solid rather than pretty solid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partly because I am only 21 years old and atm can not afford an IP lawyer.
> So the best I can do is build my own model release/licenses and get feedback and improvements from other professionals.
Click to expand...

 
Which is why I suggested going back to your college professor if that is possible (or maybe e-mail them).  I would think they could give you help directly, or lead you in the right direction to the research material.


----------



## NedM

photoguy99 said:


> If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.
> 
> No reason not to do research and pull together some documents in advance, though.



I only own 1 crop sensored camera which I bought for $250 about 3-4 years ago. I recently replaced the shutter and baby the **** out of it.
I do own 2 lenses. 1 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 which I bought new off craigslist for $300.

So yes, I can not afford a lawyer simply because I have a 'nice' camera.
I do have a job but I do have bills like everyone else.

My photography business isnt my full time job. It's just a side/extra income for me.


----------



## tirediron

Perhaps you should consider holding off on the business aspect of photography until you can afford it.  I understand the "everyone has to start somewhere" aspect, but maybe spend the next few months working on the business, that is:  Learning about the financial & legal aspects, continuing to build your portfolio, etc, etc.  It's a sad reality that being a professional photographer (of the paid variety) is very little about photography and very much about business and paperwork.  Do you have insurance?  What would you do if your lightstand collapsed and poked your model's eye out?


----------



## NedM

tirediron said:


> Perhaps you should consider holding off on the business aspect of photography until you can afford it.  I understand the "everyone has to start somewhere" aspect, but maybe spend the next few months working on the business, that is:  Learning about the financial & legal aspects, continuing to build your portfolio, etc, etc.  It's a sad reality that being a professional photographer (of the paid variety) is very little about photography and very much about business and paperwork.  Do you have insurance?  What would you do if your lightstand collapsed and poked your model's eye out?



This is true and very good advice.
I will hold off on booking bigger events such as weddings and stick to smaller ones like couples, portrait, etc..
I don't have insurance but dont own a light stand either.


----------



## Forkie

Hey @NedM , you have my respect for posting your contract and admitting your error.

In theory, there is actually no reason why you shouldn't supply images with your watermark on them, but the nature of a TFP shoot is that you should provide your model with useable images.  If they can use your images with your watermark on them, then that is fine - there is no problem, but if they ask you to remove it for display purposes, you should honour that request in the interest of the agreement of providing useable images for the use of their time.  You can, by all means, ask that they credit you where possible, but understand that it isn't always possible.

She wants the images to promote herself, not you, and you want the images to promote yourself, not her.  That's the trade off.  *BUT*, if you both help promote each other regardless, you will have a new contact in the industry, potential willing future practice guinea pig and probably, a friend as well.

I mostly photograph actors and have done a LOT for free to build my portfolio, but every actor I have photographed is now a friend of mine on Facebook.  I join any Facebook pages of plays, films or other shows they are in and I even make a conscious effort to attend their shows if I possibly can (and I do).  That way, I can meet them after the show, they'll introduce me to their actor friends as the guy who did their headshots, and bingo!  I have ten new potential clients who all shake my hand, know my name and take my business cards.

Your contract did not mention watermarks at all and didn't really mention that the shoot was a TFP arrangement and in that respect was unfair towards the model. 

You will have a much more pleasant experience with your models if you are open right from the beginning and tell them if you will be supplying images with a watermark.  If they don't want that, either supply them without, or decline the shoot.  A TFP is supposed to be a friendly mutually helpful exercise not just to get images but also in networking, which will always be your best marketing tool.

If I were you, I wouldn't panic about it.  Everyone will make this kind of mistake somewhere along the line.  Treat it as a bad day, send her the images and move on. 

I mentioned in another thread somewhere today, that when I do a TFP shoot I don't have a "contract", I use a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement".   Before the day of the shoot, I send the model an email explaining what I expect to happen during the shoot, how long I expect it to last and what they can and cannot do with the images afterwards - I also ask them to specify what format the images should be in to be most useful to them. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I tell what _I _will and will_ not_ do with the images and make sure I stick to that agreement.

You will appear more friendly this way and will build a much better reputation for yourself.  If someone wants to commision you for a paid shoot, by all means bring out the contract (make sure you understand it first!), but if it's for free for both of you, give them what they need and they'll give you what you need.

Good luck with it


----------



## Forkie

As a matter of interest for you @NedM , this is the Gentlemen's Agreement I made with the last TFP I did 3 weeks ago.  I actually sent this in the email along with his images, not before, but the same had been spoken verbally beforehand and I told him I would put it in writing:

_"Hey (Actor's name),

Attached are your first couple of images in both colour and black and white.  

You can also take this email as written permission to use your images (including the subsequent images you are yet to receive) as you wish and wherever you wish for self promotion. The only stipulation is that you cannot sell this image directly to any third party for profit or allow anyone else to further edit or alter the photos without further written permission from me.  I also reserve the right to display these images on my own website and/or other mediums including online/printed advertisements to promote my own work and I also will not attempt to sell the images directly to any third party for profit without seeking written permission from you.

I also politely request that where you display these images for self promotion (including, but not limited to: Spotlight, Casting Call Pro, theatre production printed programmes, etc) that you credit me wherever possible/appropriate and when the medium allows.

I'm a big believer in promoting the people that have used my services, so if you have a website, Facebook page, Spotlight account, or any other promotional space that you would like me to link to along with your headshots wherever I display them, please let me know.  

Finally, I want to continue improving my headshot technique and style, so if you happen to get any feedback from any appropriate industry parties such as other actors, agents, casting directors etc, good or bad, it would be a great help to me if you could pass that feedback on to me.

Other than that, I hope you enjoy the photos and they help bring more work in for you!

I'll send the others on tomorrow.  Have a great weekend!"
_
This kind of thing is perfectly acceptable for TFP and is enforceable if either they or you break the agreement.  Feel free to copy and alter it for your TFP shoots if you wish.


----------



## DavidVote

photoguy99 said:


> If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.
> 
> No reason not to do research and pull together some documents in advance, though.



Depends on what camera. You think the 800 or 900 bucks I've invested in equipment over the course of about 3/4 of a year will pay for a lawyer?


----------



## DavidVote

Forkie said:


> Hey @NedM , you have my respect for posting your contract and admitting your error.
> 
> In theory, there is actually no reason why you shouldn't supply images with your watermark on them, but the nature of a TFP shoot is that you should provide your model with useable images.  If they can use your images with your watermark on them, then that is fine - there is no problem, but if they ask you to remove it for display purposes, you should honour that request in the interest of the agreement of providing useable images for the use of their time.  You can, by all means, ask that they credit you where possible, but understand that it isn't always possible.
> 
> She wants the images to promote herself, not you, and you want the images to promote yourself, not her.  That's the trade off.  *BUT*, if you both help promote each other regardless, you will have a new contact in the industry, potential willing future practice guinea pig and probably, a friend as well.
> 
> I mostly photograph actors and have done a LOT for free to build my portfolio, but every actor I have photographed is now a friend of mine on Facebook.  I join any Facebook pages of plays, films or other shows they are in and I even make a conscious effort to attend their shows if I possibly can (and I do).  That way, I can meet them after the show, they'll introduce me to their actor friends as the guy who did their headshots, and bingo!  I have ten new potential clients who all shake my hand, know my name and take my business cards.
> 
> Your contract did not mention watermarks at all and didn't really mention that the shoot was a TFP arrangement and in that respect was unfair towards the model.
> 
> You will have a much more pleasant experience with your models if you are open right from the beginning and tell them if you will be supplying images with a watermark.  If they don't want that, either supply them without, or decline the shoot.  A TFP is supposed to be a friendly mutually helpful exercise not just to get images but also in networking, which will always be your best marketing tool.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't panic about it.  Everyone will make this kind of mistake somewhere along the line.  Treat it as a bad day, send her the images and move on.
> 
> I mentioned in another thread somewhere today, that when I do a TFP shoot I don't have a "contract", I use a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement".   Before the day of the shoot, I send the model an email explaining what I expect to happen during the shoot, how long I expect it to last and what they can and cannot do with the images afterwards - I also ask them to specify what format the images should be in to be most useful to them. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I tell what _I _will and will_ not_ do with the images and make sure I stick to that agreement.
> 
> You will appear more friendly this way and will build a much better reputation for yourself.  If someone wants to commision you for a paid shoot, by all means bring out the contract (make sure you understand it first!), but if it's for free for both of you, give them what they need and they'll give you what you need.
> 
> Good luck with it



"you have my respect for posting your contract and admitting your error."

Same here. Respect.


----------



## DavidVote

joeymas said:


> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge? ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.



You must not like me then. You basically just told me that my entire attitude towards photography is wrong.


----------



## Forkie

joeymas said:


> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.




Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.


----------



## Vtec44

joeymas said:


> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid.



I do TFP all the time for creative collaboration or just testing equipment.  I'm a professional photographer and I have no problem getting paid.


----------



## joeymas

Forkie said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
Click to expand...



Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.


----------



## joeymas

joeymas said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
Click to expand...


Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.


----------



## photoguy99

So these models that are picked, dressed, and on set, are they paying you? Or are they getting paid to be there, same as you?


----------



## DavidVote

joeymas said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
Click to expand...


Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs. 

If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.


----------



## JacaRanda

So how often does a beginner have a studio or access to a set?
Do beginners practice on dolls until they are good enough to charge every model?

Hmmm....photogaphy is tough.


----------



## photoguy99

Wise beginners pay to have actual good models.


----------



## manny212

I'm sorry I just don't understand this whole thing . I've been a model going on 30 years now , ( yea started at 19) , and this just sounds like a test to me . 

Define TEST ? What we as models need to do from time to time to update our books (Portfolios) .

Now in my career I've tested to many times to count, and this is how it works .

Agencies have relationships with " testing " photogs. These photogs derive their income from charging the models . I.e. 300 bucks for 3 looks , just a hypothetical . 

Said photogs sometimes move on up and become fashion, catalog or commercial photogs , at which point "most " will stop testing .

I've never signed a model release for a test as this is not a HIRED JOB , but a test !!! 

So yes I pay 300- 450 for a test do you few looks and typically get 4-8 prints . 


I'm sorry just don't get the difficulty here , If she doesn't pay , she gets nothing . 


Btw I've never gotten an image back with a watermark on it LOL.


----------



## joeymas

DavidVote said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.
> 
> If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.
Click to expand...



Dave, lets stop for a sec. You are 100% right in what you said.  We all take photos for different reason and with different goals. I am not against shooting for fun, but I don't call it work or give it a justification like "TFP" I like to call it "practice".


----------



## Vtec44

> So how often does a beginner have a studio or access to a set?
> Do beginners practice on dolls until they are good enough to charge every model?
> 
> Hmmm....photogaphy is tough.



When I first started, I just make friends with a lot of hot looking people.


----------



## JacaRanda

Manny would you pay Ned 300-450?  If so, Ned I will be your manager and help you book some tests 

Did you pay that much for tests when you first started modeling?

This modeling / photography thing is tough and weird.


----------



## DavidVote

Vtec44 said:


> So how often does a beginner have a studio or access to a set?
> Do beginners practice on dolls until they are good enough to charge every model?
> 
> Hmmm....photogaphy is tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started, I just make friends with a lot of hot looking people.
Click to expand...


Or just meet new people in general. The park, the mall, where ever. That only works after you built a good enough portfolio you could show them so they won't be too skeptical.

Good enough portfolio isn't really needed if you are really good at talking to people and give them a good pitch.


----------



## Forkie

joeymas said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.
> 
> If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, lets stop for a sec. You are 100% right in what you said.  We all take photos for different reason and with different goals. I am not against shooting for fun, but I don't call it work or give it a justification like "TFP" I like to call it "practice".
Click to expand...



TFP shoots are a valid exercise and are used for a variety of reasons.  They are used for, as you say, practice, but they are also used for testing new cameras, lenses, lighting, studios and for models to test poses, outfits, make-up, different looks. Particularly for people new to photography or modelling.  They are for mutual portfolio building.  Not financial gain.

They are used at every level of skill from amateur to seasoned, published professional. 

Just because no money is exchanged, doesn't make the session any less work, any less valid or any less professional and exchanging services without exchanging money is a very common business practice.  Your elitist attitude about "Playing model/photographer" might impress some people, but it is wholly arrogant.


----------



## JacaRanda

If I find out I can get a few hundred bucks from a beginner model - forget the birds and ducks and geese and hawks; I'm going strictly for chicks.  Glad I kept the softbox and stand thingies.


----------



## Forkie

manny212 said:


> I'm sorry I just don't understand this whole thing . I've been a model going on 30 years now , ( yea started at 19) , and this just sounds like a test to me .
> 
> Define TEST ? What we as models need to do from time to time to update our books (Portfolios) .
> 
> Now in my career I've tested to many times to count, and this is how it works .
> 
> Agencies have relationships with " testing " photogs. These photogs derive their income from charging the models . I.e. 300 bucks for 3 looks , just a hypothetical .
> 
> Said photogs sometimes move on up and become fashion, catalog or commercial photogs , at which point "most " will stop testing .
> 
> I've never signed a model release for a test as this is not a HIRED JOB , but a test !!!
> 
> So yes I pay 300- 450 for a test do you few looks and typically get 4-8 prints .
> 
> 
> I'm sorry just don't get the difficulty here , If she doesn't pay , she gets nothing .
> 
> 
> Btw I've never gotten an image back with a watermark on it LOL.




Manny, you are describing a different thing.  Testing is not the same as TFP.  TFP is trading services for images.  *T*rade/*T*ime *F*or *P*hotos.  The photos are the compensation for both parties' time and no money is exchanged.

There is no expectation from either party for useable images on a test (although there can end up being some) because either a photographer, model or agency is paying one or more of the other to test equipment, a new concept or a model's calibre.  That's why it's called a _test_.


----------



## manny212

JacaRanda said:


> Manny would you pay Ned 300-450?  If so, Ned I will be your manager and help you book some tests
> 
> Did you pay that much for tests when you first started modeling?
> 
> This modeling / photography thing is tough and weird.




It might seem weird , but it is a very needed niche in this industry . Do remember that not every Tom , Dick or Harry can start testing for an Agency . These peeps have probably been assisting working photogs for a while , you just don't pick up a camera , go to an agency and start testing working published models LOLOL. 

Would I pay Ned ? Don't know his work so I cant answer that . 

When I first stater the agency would pay the photog , it would go on my account and then as I stated working I would be taken our of earnings . 

Problem as I see it is that this whole "MODELING" thing is way misunderstood as well as exploited by some less than scrupulous people out there . My agencies have always looked out and protected me . Then again , Ford, Willi, Elite, Next just to name a few are not fly by nights . Just my two cents


----------



## joeymas

"Your elitist attitude about "Playing model/photographer" might impress some people, but it is wholly arrogant." - My tear sheets are on-line for viewing at anytime.

My problem is that when a person calls my studio for a quote and they reply with... "oh some guy on Mayhem said he would do it for free." My answer is that you will get what you pay for and good luck with it."


----------



## DavidVote

joeymas said:


> "Your elitist attitude about "Playing model/photographer" might impress some people, but it is wholly arrogant." - My tear sheets are on-line for viewing at anytime.
> 
> My problem is that when a person calls my studio for a quote and they reply with... "oh some guy on Mayhem said he would do it for free." My answer is that you will get what you pay for and good luck with it."



OFF TOPIC: 

This photo you posted on your profile looks really odd. Was it on a green screen or something?


----------



## joeymas

There are so many people in forums that would absolutely adore  moving photography from hobby to professional, but yet when professionals offer advice  and information they tell us we are wrong. It does not make sense to me....


----------



## photoguy99

Increasingly there are talented, capable, photographers who will work for free. Many of them just like hanging around with pretty girls. Of course, increasing at a somewhat faster rate, there are the other sort of photographer.

Increasingly, there are terrible, inexperienced models who will work for free, or even pay. Most of them have big dreams and very little else.


----------



## DavidVote

photoguy99 said:


> Increasingly there are talented, capable, photographers who will work for free. Many of them just like hanging around with pretty girls. Of course, increasing at a somewhat faster rate, there are the other sort of photographer.
> 
> Increasingly, there are terrible, inexperienced models who will work for free, or even pay. Most of them have big dreams and very little else.



You live in bellingham Washington? Western is there and I might attend it later this fall. If that happens, we should meet up and shoot photos!

Back on topic, I shoot for free because I like photography for photography. Demanding money for it makes me feel like it lost it's essence for me.

But of course, its also many people's bread and butter and I respect them for that.


----------



## photoguy99

Bellingham seems to have a crazily vibrant arts community in general. I just moved here a few months back. It's dark and wet in winter, tho. No foolin'.


----------



## joeymas

DavidVote said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your elitist attitude about "Playing model/photographer" might impress some people, but it is wholly arrogant." - My tear sheets are on-line for viewing at anytime.
> 
> My problem is that when a person calls my studio for a quote and they reply with... "oh some guy on Mayhem said he would do it for free." My answer is that you will get what you pay for and good luck with it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OFF TOPIC:
> 
> This photo you posted on your profile looks really odd. Was it on a green screen or something?
Click to expand...


Thank you for noticing that. Arthur St John uses specific processing and a shooting style that I wanted to learn and try. So after a few e-mails back and forth I went out to the beach and gave it a shot with a model that had already bought a shoot for that day. - I did this because ST. John is one of the best in the business and learning from him can only help me.


----------



## DavidVote

photoguy99 said:


> Bellingham seems to have a crazily vibrant arts community in general. I just moved here a few months back. It's dark and wet in winter, tho. No foolin'.



I visited about two weeks ago. I like the weather but the city as a whole, not really digging the sub urban location.


----------



## LiveinColor

This is a long thread.. So, I didn't bother to read every reply, but holy cow. There are way too many of you siding with the model. She signed a contract to let him use her likeness. It's nice of him to take the photo down. He doesn't legally have to. He wasted his time too since he's not using the photos. The terms of a shoot should be agreed upon before it happens. If she expected unmarked images, she should have said so before the shoot. I don't know anyone who gives models unmarked images without pay. I watermark all of my trade work as well. I mean I don't charge them to license usage, but if they want a print quality image, they have to buy the print through my lab.


----------



## tirediron

LiveinColor said:


> This is a long thread.. So,* I didn't bother to read every reply*, but holy cow. There are way too many of you siding with the model. She signed a contract to let him use her likeness. It's nice of him to take the photo down. He doesn't legally have to. He wasted his time too since he's not using the photos. The terms of a shoot should be agreed upon before it happens. If she expected unmarked images, she should have said so before the shoot. I don't know anyone who gives models unmarked images without pay. I watermark all of my trade work as well. I mean I don't charge them to license usage, but if they want a print quality image, they have to buy the print through my lab.


I think you may have missed a few critical pieces of information then....  first and foremost, the shoot was allegedly a TPF session; "Trade" implies exchange for items/services of like value.  Water-marked images, IMO, are not of "like value" to the model's services in a TF* exchange.  Additionally, the photographer was using a release/licensing document which was not well written, and in fact almost certainly not actionable.  Had the model approached him and solicited work which wouldn't have benefited him, then certainly at a minimum, water-marked images would be fine, but that was not, as I understand it, the case here.  

There seems to be a lot of 'looking down the nose' by some at those of us who do shoot TF* (and I do, reasonably frequently).  I don't really understand why.  I frequently have ideas for images I'd like to create, and generally speaking, as personal projects, they don't justify the cost of hiring talent, so...  hey, look: A website chock-a-block with people will gladly stand in front of my camera and all I have to give them are copies of the images I'm going to create.  I'm not seeing a down-side!

If Mike M. Model calls me and says, "I need a new comp card", then the first thing he gets are my rates; if someone calls and says, "Yeah, I'd like to be part of that shoot you were discussing on MM!" then I say, "Sure.... TF*?"  About the only time I give out water-marked images is when I'm donating images to charity, and then I ask them if they mind.


----------



## Overread

joeymas said:


> There are so many people in forums that would absolutely adore  moving photography from hobby to professional, but yet when professionals offer advice  and information they tell us we are wrong. It does not make sense to me....



Most likely it is that professionals in the same field can have widely different experiences and expectations. It's not that either one is wrong nor that either one is right; its that both have a different background. It could be they are in different countries - or states (USA is a huge spot so states vary considerably more than counties or states might in some smaller countries) - might be they service different ends of the market - or that their advertising/hiring method is such that they end up dealing with different target markets. 

Thus two pros in the same field; even if in the same area might still have very different expectations and experiences. Forums allow us to come together; to present our own experiences and views; from there we present our justifications and arguments and the members reading make their own minds up who they do and don't listen to.



As an aside in trade for prints both parties pay - its just that their professional rates are identical so its in effect a trade of services and nothing else. Both parties are paying - one pays in modelling the other in photography. About the only difference is that the photographer will have some after-event work to do with the files/film. 



Note also that just because you've signed a contract doesn't make it

1) Right - contracts can be wrong (morals etc...) and as such if an individual is using a contract which is wrong; or which goes against the established normal its going to be challenged. When that happens they can re-negociate and adapt or stick to their guns. Ideally this happens before the contract is signed; after its signed its up to the parties involved. Sensible and reasoned changes to contracts is not a sign of weakness. 

2) Legal - just because its in a contract doesn't mean it would stand up in court if challenged. 

Having a lawyer in the field of interest for the legal document is a big help in avoiding problems and in getting a well written contract. Remember whilst a contract you write is going to be biased toward you (generally but not always) it should exist at its core to protect both parties and to clearly present the exchange that is to take place. Some companies will then use that to ask/demand lots of extras; they don't expect to get them - but if you don't re-negociate then they get them


----------



## photoguy99

TF is a long established and fully legitimate tradition. It's also widely abused. You gotta check the person on the other side of the deal out to see if the deal is going to work out about square.


----------



## joeymas

Now I have a decent question and I feel that there is no right or wrong answer so please give me your thoughts. I only watermark my photos in the corner. I believe that uploading my photos in a usable form to be passed around and shared is one of my best advertisements. My business model has always been to make my money from the shoot rather than the prints. Keep in mind that I do many events and work in entertainment so after my stuff gets posted it is kinda useless to me after the fact. Do you guys feel that WATERMARKING across a photo is even worth it at this point?


----------



## DavidVote

joeymas said:


> Now I have a decent question and I feel that there is no right or wrong answer so please give me your thoughts. I only watermark my photos in the corner. I believe that uploading my photos in a usable form to be passed around and shared is one of my best advertisements. My business model has always been to make my money from the shoot rather than the prints. Keep in mind that I do many events and work in entertainment so after my stuff gets posted it is kinda useless to me after the fact. Do you guys feel that WATERMARKING across a photo is even worth it at this point?



Nothing wrong with watermarking. Its just that in this situation OP watermarked his photo's to the point where it's unusable to the person he's _collaborating _with. 

I just don't like watermark but I don't disagree with people who choose to. Their photos, their choices.


----------



## tirediron

joeymas said:


> Now I have a decent question and I feel that there is no right or wrong answer so please give me your thoughts. I only watermark my photos in the corner. I believe that uploading my photos in a usable form to be passed around and shared is one of my best advertisements. My business model has always been to make my money from the shoot rather than the prints. Keep in mind that I do many events and work in entertainment so after my stuff gets posted it is kinda useless to me after the fact. Do you guys feel that WATERMARKING across a photo is even worth it at this point?


That seems perfectly reasonable based on your business model.  It wouldn't work for me, but we're shooting in two totally segments.


----------



## Karsyn Taelyr

That's so shady! I would have made her pay me upfront!


----------



## Vtec44

joeymas said:


> Now I have a decent question and I feel that there is no right or wrong answer so please give me your thoughts. I only watermark my photos in the corner. I believe that uploading my photos in a usable form to be passed around and shared is one of my best advertisements. My business model has always been to make my money from the shoot rather than the prints. Keep in mind that I do many events and work in entertainment so after my stuff gets posted it is kinda useless to me after the fact. Do you guys feel that WATERMARKING across a photo is even worth it at this point?



To be honest, if it works for you the don't stop.  I make money on both shoots and prints, and the experience that I bring to my clients. My clients will advertise for me based on their experience with me, so there is no need for me to watermark my photos as a form of advertising.  So for my type of business, watermark is irrelevant  IMHO.


----------



## KmH

Your profile does not indicate where you and your business are.

Was the model release you posted the entirety of your 'contract'?
Model release law is state law and varies by state in the USA.
If you decide to use the model release you linked to at ASMP.org, be sure you have a qualified attorney make sure the release is valid in the state where you are.
Having an attorney check over your contracts and other legal documents probably won't cost as much as you think.
And you can shop around for a good price.

You say in one of your posts that you do not have insurance.
It is pretty standard in the USA that you _must have_ business liability insurance to be a _legal_ retail business.
If you are in a state that has sales tax you would also need a state sales tax account to be a _legal_ retail business.
A common way the authorities find out about an illegal business is when legal business competitors tell the state about the illegal business.


----------



## Forkie

joeymas said:


> "Your elitist attitude about "Playing model/photographer" might impress some people, but it is wholly arrogant." - My tear sheets are on-line for viewing at anytime.
> 
> My problem is that when a person calls my studio for a quote and they reply with... "oh some guy on Mayhem said he would do it for free." My answer is that you will get what you pay for and good luck with it."



If someone calls your studio for a quote and expects you to say, "Yes, that'll be $0.00, please".  Then yes, that person is calling the wrong place.  Loads of people will ask photographers to do things for free and it is the bane of all our lives, but we are not discussing models who want a free ride.  We are talking about a photographer who needs a free model and a model who needs a free photographer working *together* and collaborating on a shoot.  Which is not the same thing as a free ride.




LiveinColor said:


> This is a long thread.. So, I didn't bother to read every reply, but holy cow. There are way too many of you siding with the model. She signed a contract to let him use her likeness. It's nice of him to take the photo down. He doesn't legally have to. He wasted his time too since he's not using the photos. The terms of a shoot should be agreed upon before it happens. If she expected unmarked images, she should have said so before the shoot. I don't know anyone who gives models unmarked images without pay. I watermark all of my trade work as well. I mean I don't charge them to license usage, but if they want a print quality image, they have to buy the print through my lab.



The terms of a TFP shoot are already widely known and accepted, @LiveinColor  .  As we've discussed, if you'd read the rest of the thread, the OP should have made it clear right from the start that the model would be getting watermarked photos and since she could not use watermarked photos, would have certainly turned down the TFP shoot if she'd known.

You cannot arrange a certain type of collaboration and then make the model sign a contract which has nothing to do with the type of shoot that was discussed.  Yes, perhaps the model should have read the contract properly, but the contract was (inadvertently, as we've also discovered) wrong for the type of shoot and therefore invalid.



joeymas said:


> Now I have a decent question and I feel that there is no right or wrong answer so please give me your thoughts. I only watermark my photos in the corner. I believe that uploading my photos in a usable form to be passed around and shared is one of my best advertisements. My business model has always been to make my money from the shoot rather than the prints. Keep in mind that I do many events and work in entertainment so after my stuff gets posted it is kinda useless to me after the fact. Do you guys feel that WATERMARKING across a photo is even worth it at this point?



As DavidVote said, there is nothing wrong with watermarking and if it works for you without problems, then that's great. Keep doing it.  But please make your future models aware that they will receive a watermarked image beforehand, not just hide it in the contract and say "you should have read your contract" afterwards - that could be construed as misleading, deception or dishonest.  And be prepared, that if a model wants unwatermarked images, to either supply them unwatermarked, or decline the shoot from the start.



Karsyn Taelyr said:


> That's so shady! I would have made her pay me upfront!



It was a TFP shoot @Karsyn Taelyr .  There is no money involved, let alone upfront.


----------



## Designer

Karsyn Taelyr said:


> That's so shady! I would have made her pay me upfront!


Do you know who called who first?  I can't tell from the OP.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

Designer said:


> Have you read the contract?  Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?



Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.



SquarePeg said:


> If networking and getting referrals while building a portfolio is the goal then being right is irrelevant.



And that's a two-way street. 

How many models want to have the reputation of signing contracts and then completely reneging on them? It would appear as though th OP is in a position to demonstrate how this one model does just that.

Again, I'm not defending the OP's approach as the right thing to do; I honestly don't have an opinion on that. But, if a contract was signed, then all parties should adhere to the terms of the contract. If one of those parties (in this case the model) didn't understand the terms of the contract, she shouldn't have signed it.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

KmH said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> Did i miss it?
> Where is it made apparent that the model signed a contract?
Click to expand...


Second to last paragraph: 

"Too bad she signed a contract that allowed me keep all copyrights to the images."

That certainly suggests to _me _that she signed a contract but, hey, maybe "she signed a contract" means something different in your neck o' the woods.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

photoguy99 said:


> If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.



That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

I have, on occasion, photographed models.

When I went to them, I paid them. When they came to me, they paid me.

Pretty simple stuff, really.


----------



## photoguy99

Mr. Innuendo said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
Click to expand...

Oh do tell.

Perhaps you need to get out more?


----------



## Designer

Mr. Innuendo said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the contract?  Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.
Click to expand...

There is no "contract".  We were shown a model release that was poorly written.  

The format of delivery seems to be the *ONLY* issue.  With or without a watermark.


----------



## pgriz

Of course, the real problem is that the contract, as written (see post #53), does not touch upon either what the "consideration" is, nor is there any mention of watermarks.  The model may well insist that for her the "value" are the unwatermarked prints, and there's nothing in the contract as written that would contradict that interpretation.  The point of any good contract is to define the deliverables, the responsibilities of both parties, and the expectations of what will transpire.  If these details were covered verbally, but not in the contract, then the contract has limited (if any) value, as it becomes a case of "he said-she said".

In my business, I deal with the retail clients every single day, and when we sign a contract, it is very clear what the deliverables are, when they will be done, what my and my client's responsibilities are, including any assumptions about the environment is prior to work being started, and the conditions of work.  There are also several points at which either party can change the agreement based on previously-defined checkpoints.

The point of consulting a lawyer is that case law in any given jurisdiction may strongly influence the interpretation of a "standard" contract or clauses.  It is usually unrealistic for a lay person to be aware of these issues, and it takes only one lawsuit to make the initial cost of consultation to look like a very good investment.

The point has also been made earlier that what the OP really needs is a license agreement that governs how the prints or images he may supply will be used.  I believe that is still valid.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

Designer said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the contract?  Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "contract".  We were shown a model release that was poorly written.
> 
> The format of delivery seems to be the *ONLY* issue.  With or without a watermark.
Click to expand...


I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.

To that point, though, a model release is a contract, in that its terms cannot be altered or deviated from without the knowledge and consent of each signatory. If one of the signatories deviated from it, and the other filed a lawsuit, what would be the basis for it? Breach of model release? No, it would be breach of _contract_.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

photoguy99 said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh do tell.
> 
> Perhaps you need to get out more?
Click to expand...


You're the one who said someone who can afford a camera can, by default, afford a lawyer.

Sorry, but that's not ridiculous, that's stupid.

Or, perhaps you can explain it a little further. Barring that, though, it will remain only a stupid comment.


----------



## photoguy99

If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. The lawyer costs less than nothing. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.

If you bought a camera for pleasure, then presumably you have a little loose cash or at any rate credit, and can afford a lawyer based on that.

Note that I did not say "you can afford to place a top-end law firm on retainer" or "you can afford to pay a lawyer to mount a lawsuit against Citibank and take it to the supreme court", I said you can afford a lawyer. In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. We're talking a billable hour here.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

photoguy99 said:


> If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. *The lawyer costs less than nothing*. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.





> In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. *We're talking a billable hour here*.



So a "billable hour" costs less than nothing?

Can't be too good an attorney, then.


----------



## Designer

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.


Uh huh.  He did write that.  

He also wrote the model release that he called a "contract".

I usually attempt to understand what someone writes even if the writer doesn't always understand it.


----------



## joeymas

LOL, can we start being realistic... Has anyone here ever hired a lawyer over a digital photo? Be for real. Unless WARNER BROS. Steals and uses your shot, it is not worth your time or money.


----------



## Overread

*Mod notice*
I just removed a couple of posts. Lets keep this thread going sensibly and cut the sillyness. If you want to be silly go into Off-topic and be silly down there; not just by picking a long thread and messing around childishly.


----------



## Overread

joeymas said:


> LOL, can we start being realistic... Has anyone here ever hired a lawyer over a digital photo? Be for real. Unless WARNER BROS. Steals and uses your shot, it is not worth your time or money.



"A" photo possibly not; but this is a discussion not just on a single set of photos taken, but upon the OP's general professional approach to their photography; both in the cases of Trade for Prints and also in general. As such a lawyer hired/consulted for the purposes of ensuring that contracts are legal, fair and sensible is a very important step.


----------



## photoguy99

Mr. Innuendo said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. *The lawyer costs less than nothing*. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. *We're talking a billable hour here*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a "billable hour" costs less than nothing?
> 
> Can't be too good an attorney, then.
Click to expand...


That is a mis-reading of my remarks.


----------



## joeymas

Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

Designer said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  He did write that.
> 
> He also wrote the model release that he called a "contract".
> 
> I usually attempt to understand what someone writes even if the writer doesn't always understand it.
Click to expand...


A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.


----------



## tirediron

Mr. Innuendo said:


> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.


Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

tirediron said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.
Click to expand...


To clarify  what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up)  A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.


----------



## Life

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.


I agree with this. I'm not in this business ( yet ), however, a contract is a contract, If she signed it she should have read it knowing the terms and if she had a question she should have asked before signing. Every photographer will have their way of doing business and have their OWN contracts. If it's signed then it's signed.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

tirediron said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.
Click to expand...


Here's a scenario:

You photograph a model. The model release is signed. It gives you the right to use the photos on your website, but you're not allowed to sell them. The model happens to be wearing a blouse made by the latest hot designer. A local retailer, who sells that blouse, sees a photo of the model on your website and contacts you, saying they'd liked to buy that photo from you. You sell it to them. A week later, your model sees her photo in an ad for "Fancy Blouses-R-Us" and freaks out. She hires a lawyer to sue you.

Are you going to be sued for "breach of model agreement" or "breach of contract"?


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Life said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.
> 
> Whether I agree with it or not is completely irrelavent. She agreed to the photographer's terms and, as such, has no reason to complain after the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this. I'm not in this business ( yet ), however, a contract is a contract, If she signed it she should have read it knowing the terms and if she had a question she should have asked before signing. Every photographer will have their way of doing business and have their OWN contracts. If it's signed then it's signed.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't think there is anyone who necessarily disagrees with that. What most everyone was saying was that its not a good idea to toss away a good piece of your social network in the photo world over a watermark.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

W.Y.Photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To clarify  what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up)  A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.
Click to expand...


If the photographer provides the model a model release which permits specific usage by the photographer, and the model signs it, there is most certainly an agreement there.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Mr. Innuendo said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To clarify  what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up)  A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the photographer provides the model a model release which permits specific usage by the photographer, and the model signs it, there is most certainly an agreement there.
Click to expand...


The Photographer need not sign or agree to any terms if the document is in fact JUST a release.

If it is combined with a contractual agreement (some sort of clause that both parties must agree upon) then it can be considered a contract.



Mr. Innuendo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, no.  While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You photograph a model. The model release is signed. It gives you the right to use the photos on your website, but you're not allowed to sell them. The model happens to be wearing a blouse made by the latest hot designer. A local retailer, who sells that blouse, sees a photo of the model on your website and contacts you, saying they'd liked to buy that photo from you. You sell it to them. A week later, your model sees her photo in an ad for "Fancy Blouses-R-Us" and freaks out. She hires a lawyer to sue you.
> 
> Are you going to be sued for "breach of model agreement" or "breach of contract"?
Click to expand...


You can be sued for anything, it doesn't mean they are suing you for the right thing.

You wouldn't be sued for breach of contract if there was no contract signed. The model could possibly win if she sued you for copyright infringement however.


----------



## Designer

Life said:


> If she signed it she should have read it..



I see that you didn't read it.


----------



## Overread

There has been no disagreement that the model didn't sign a contract. 

What has been argued is that the contract itself, that was signed is flawed, and presents little to no benefit for the model and potentially little long term reward for the photographer in question. It has also been pointed out that even if the OP wants to retain the same rights and ideas that he's using in his contract now, that the contract itself needs seriously re-writing to present a more correct and formal document.

No one is saying that the contract isn't binding; what they are saying is that the model might have signed a contact which, upon further study, they might not otherwise have signed and that the photographer might be risking a bad/poor reputation by the use of such a contract in the Trade for Prints sector (which directly impacts upon potential contacts in the paid model world at the local level for the photographer).


----------



## photoguy99

In the presence of a release of that sort, without a contract in play, the suit might be a "breach of waiver" if you could find someone to pursue such a mess.


----------



## Austin Greene

I'm with Forkie here, and by that, I mean largely with the model. You're trying to run a business, I get that, I'm in the same boat, but if you're serious then you know that customer service is the biggest priority. From the moment that model sat in front of your lens she was your customer, paying or not. Your priority needs to be on making those images as useful to her as possible. Referrals largely don't happen by people reading watermarks, they happen through word of mouth.

I would suggest that you apologize to her, mention that you value her time and that you appreciated the shoot, and give her the unwatermarked copies. You yourself called her wonderful, so how you would can future opportunities with her for the sake of a watermark I have no idea. The agency isn't going to hire you just because they've seen your name on a photo, they hire based on your body of work, which you have now permanently dented by removing future shoots with her.

Sure, it's a business, but what's a business without clients.

P.S: I should note that for my own personal uses, anyone (even family) who ends up in front of my camera signs a model release. A moment of paperwork is worth hours of wasted time. Simply because I have those releases though doesn't mean I start posting nudes of clients all over Facebook where they've requested them to not be posted.


----------



## JacaRanda

Well message me where you do post the nudes 

J/K people.  This has been a good lesson thread even with the disagreements.


----------



## Designer

joeymas said:


> Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.


Huh?  Expensive how?

There is such a thing known as "trade for photographs" wherein it is expected that NO MONEY will change hands.


----------



## Overread

Designer said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Expensive how?
> 
> There is such a thing known as "trade for photographs" wherein it is expected that NO MONEY will change hands.
Click to expand...


I believe this quotation was in relation to the proposal that the photographer hires a lawyer. However it was a somewhat exaggerated situation since the recommendation wasn't to hire one for a single shoot; but to help produce a single (or likely series) of contracts and legal documents suitable for use over multiple such deals in the future.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

DavidVote said:


> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.
> 
> If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.
Click to expand...


Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.

If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.

I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.


----------



## gsgary

I would love to see some of the shoots to see if they are worth paying for


----------



## SquarePeg

Buried somewhere in this thread is a link to the OPs website.


----------



## DavidVote

gsgary said:


> I would love to see some of the shoots to see if they are worth paying for



It's not that bad. His work looks like every other commercial portrait photographer. Bright, cheery, senior portrait style pictures. 

Nothing wrong with it, having that style is desirable and most popular in the market right now.


----------



## DavidVote

W.Y.Photo said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.
> 
> If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.
> 
> If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.
> 
> I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.
Click to expand...


I'm not very good with words, I've never been, but hopefully this will make sense.

The difference is, that once you start seeing photography as an income source, as money, its very easy to lose your original sights and views on photography. Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.

I was asked by a few classmates to shoot their senior portraits a few months back. The photos that came out of the sessions where fantastic; awesome lighting, sharp, nice sun in the background, nice flares, basically everything that makes an awesome senior portrait. But, no way am I ever going to share them with people other than the client, and definitely no way am I proud to say, "Yeah, I'm the one who took that". They have no special meaning to me.

Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.

This thread was just the deciding factor. It's beyond the opinion of a couple of people in this thread.

Who knows though, maybe I'm completely wrong in my analysis.


----------



## photoguy99

Actually, there's an echelon of commercial photographer that does largely follow their muse. The market is a lot tougher.

What you're not wanting to do is this: hang out a shingle and start selling $200 Senior Sessions next week.

What you'll be shooting is commodity, interchangeable with any other photographer. You sell it as a creative artistic thing where we really get to know you, but that's not what you actually do. Ultimately an 18 year old girl definitely Does Not Want some stupid artist's ideas. She wants some pictures that look quite a bit like her friends pictures, pictures where she looks hot. There's nothing wrong with shooting commodity, that's where the market is. But it's not what everyone wants to do.

At the other end of the spectrum, you're following a muse. You're not selling commodity portraits, or whatever. You're selling yourself and your distinctive vision. This means that in the first place you gotta have a distinctive vision, and in the second place you gotta find people that want to buy that, and in the third place you better find people who want to pay quite a lot of money for it since you have to work SO MUCH HARDER to find the clients.

But these people are out there. Kirk Tuck jumps to mind as a currently working guy who's doing it. He's not crazy artsy, but he's definitely doing something that's not commodity. He's got a vision, not a crazy vision at all, a pretty appealing, likeable vision, but it's his. I can probably name lots of dead guys who did much the same, I'm more of a history than "who's popular now" kind of guy.

You might like the other end of the spectrum better. But there's stuff you gotta do to get there. Like, develop a distinctive vision, just as step one.


----------



## DavidVote

photoguy99 said:


> Actually, there's an echelon of commercial photographer that does largely follow their muse. The market is a lot tougher.
> 
> What you're not wanting to do is this: hang out a shingle and start selling $200 Senior Sessions next week.
> 
> What you'll be shooting is commodity, interchangeable with any other photographer. You sell it as a creative artistic thing where we really get to know you, but that's not what you actually do. Ultimately an 18 year old girl definitely Does Not Want some stupid artist's ideas. She wants some pictures that look quite a bit like her friends pictures, pictures where she looks hot. There's nothing wrong with shooting commodity, that's where the market is. But it's not what everyone wants to do.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum, you're following a muse. You're not selling commodity portraits, or whatever. You're selling yourself and your distinctive vision. This means that in the first place you gotta have a distinctive vision, and in the second place you gotta find people that want to buy that, and in the third place you better find people who want to pay quite a lot of money for it since you have to work SO MUCH HARDER to find the clients.
> 
> But these people are out there. Kirk Tuck jumps to mind as a currently working guy who's doing it. He's not crazy artsy, but he's definitely doing something that's not commodity. He's got a vision, not a crazy vision at all, a pretty appealing, likeable vision, but it's his. I can probably name lots of dead guys who did much the same, I'm more of a history than "who's popular now" kind of guy.
> 
> You might like the other end of the spectrum better. But there's stuff you gotta do to get there. Like, develop a distinctive vision, just as step one.



You're good. Maybe I should start asking you for advice on how to write expressively xD. But pretty much this.

Because it's much harder to find work in the spectrum of photography I'm interested in, I'll prefer to remain amateur.


----------



## Vtec44

DavidVote said:


> Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.



Similar to other photographers?  That's because it's a trend.  Similar throughout the photographer's portfolio?  That's because of brand consistency.

Yeah when photography becomes your profession, it's a whole different challenge.  The challenge of being creative when you have shot the same thing many times before.  The challenge of being consistent because clients come to you and expect you to produce what they've seen in your portfolio previously.  The challenge of doing something you hate but the clients love.  The challenge of declining work because it would cheapen your brand.  You think differently when accepting money because there are expectations and you have to meet them, regardless of what may happen.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

DavidVote said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joeymas said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "
> 
> So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge?  ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.
> 
> I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models.  If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you.  Buy yourself a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.
> 
> If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.
> 
> If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.
> 
> I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not very good with words, I've never been, but hopefully this will make sense.
> 
> The difference is, that once you start seeing photography as an income source, as money, its very easy to lose your original sights and views on photography. Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.
> 
> I was asked by a few classmates to shoot their senior portraits a few months back. The photos that came out of the sessions where fantastic; awesome lighting, sharp, nice sun in the background, nice flares, basically everything that makes an awesome senior portrait. But, no way am I ever going to share them with people other than the client, and definitely no way am I proud to say, "Yeah, I'm the one who took that". They have no special meaning to me.
> 
> Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.
> 
> This thread was just the deciding factor. It's beyond the opinion of a couple of people in this thread.
> 
> Who knows though, maybe I'm completely wrong in my analysis.
Click to expand...


This does happen.. I find it a very poor response to a markets needs to be honest. Why use your creativity to be the opposite of creative?

In a business sense, sure there is more risk in not popping out generic photograph after generic photograph, but there is much more reward to be gained by giving your clients truly unique work rather than something predictable that anyone else could have done.

I defiantly understand your position now. This is the reason I keep the mentalitys of my personal and commercial work compartmentalized so as not to allow my personal work to be tainted by the almighty dollar.


----------



## DGMPhotography

TLDR.. at least the pages between 2 and 11, but here's my thoughts:

When I do TFP, I watermark the images for use on social media so that the model is promoting me, whether she forgets to link my page or not. I make sure to credit the model on my page. And if the model wants the picture files, I will give her the full res files, still with watermark. 

However, I believe that building your business reputation is very important, so if the model asks for un-watermarked images, I give them to her. When I give them the un-watermarked images I ask that they still credit me somehow, if they are able to and it is appropriate. That way they get the image they want, I still get the exposure, and everyone is happy. 

I also usually work with people who aren't professional models, and aren't as worried about these type of things, or models who are just really chill. I'm assuming that will change eventually, and I assume then I might run into more problems, but for now this is what has worked for me!


----------



## Designer

Oh, hi, Daryl.  This problem had nothing to do with the fact that the model was at the "professional" level, but rather is apparently the result of a lack of communication and understanding between the photographer and the model. 

They each had made different assumptions about the process, and with nothing specific in writing regarding the session, they were left with just arguing after the fact.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

I love when threads like this turn into good productive discussions.


----------



## pgriz

Designer said:


> Oh, hi, Daryl.  This problem had nothing to do with the fact that the model was at the "professional" level, but rather is apparently the result of a lack of communication and understanding between the photographer and the model.
> 
> They each had made different assumptions about the process, and with nothing specific in writing regarding the session, they were left with just arguing after the fact.



Very nice condensation.   Reader's Digest wants to talk to you.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

DavidVote said:


> Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.



Why do so many people believe that?

I make my living with my camera. Every dime I earn I earn because I'm a photographer. When I'm shooting for a client, yes, I'm catering to what they want. They're paying me, so they get to call the shots.

But I _still _shoot for me. I don't do it as much anymore (thankfully; means I'm earning more), but I still do it a lot. I'm hardly a slave to it. It _is_ something I do for fun. I _do _take photos to express myself. I shoot, to borrow your words, for the sake of it.

It's been that way for the better part of a decade and, frankly, I don't see it changing anytime soon.


----------



## DavidVote

Mr. Innuendo said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people believe that?
> 
> I make my living with my camera. Every dime I earn I earn because I'm a photographer. When I'm shooting for a client, yes, I'm catering to what they want. They're paying me, so they get to call the shots.
> 
> But I _still _shoot for me. I don't do it as much anymore (thankfully; means I'm earning more), but I still do it a lot. I'm hardly a slave to it. It _is_ something I do for fun. I _do _take photos to express myself. I shoot, to borrow your words, for the sake of it.
> 
> It's been that way for the better part of a decade and, frankly, I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...


Like I've said, there are exceptions. I'm truly happy for you, and applaud you for being able to do that.

I personally wouldn't be able to stand taking photos full time and stay pumping out the same photos after photos that has no meaning to me.

I'm off to college soon, I'm planning on majoring in electrical engineering or computer science/engineering.

Afterwards, maybe, and hopefully, I'll make enough money to fund photography and buy whatever I want.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

DavidVote said:


> I personally wouldn't be able to stand taking photos full time and stay pumping out the same photos after photos that has no meaning to me.



Who's doing _that_?

I challenge myself to find new things to shoot. I could go to the beach every day and shoot the sunrise, or go shoot the Bridge Of Lions every night, but why? Take your photos and find something new. For me, challenging myself keeps ideas fresh.

Even when I'm shooting for clients I'm not shooting the same thing time after time.

I do consider myself fortunate that I can truly make a living doing what I enjoy doing. If I had to sit in an office all day, everyday, it would drive me out of my mind.


----------



## photoguy99

Who's pumping out the same photos over and over?

Uh. Lots of people?

Google up some local photographers and look at the work.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

photoguy99 said:


> Who's pumping out the same photos over and over?
> 
> Uh. Lots of people?
> 
> Google up some local photographers and look at the work.



There's no need; not really interested. Mine was more of a rhetorical question.

I don't really worry about what other photographers do. If someone is shooting the same old thing, and gets bored, they have only themselves to blame.

There's plenty out there to shoot.


----------



## photoguy99

It is pretty much the essence of much of retail photography (lookit me using my new words!) that much of it is the same.

Some people hire you to make some pichers a lot like those pichers you made last week. That's a big big slice of the market. If these are your clients, then by definition, you're pumping out the same old stuff over and over. Lots of photographers quite like this kind of work, because they find solving the technical problems interesting. "How can I make basically those same photos, in THIS room, where there's no room for my key light?' and 'How can I make basically those same pictures of this person who is, well, quite differently shaped?' and 'How can I make those same pictures in total darkness without a flash?' and so on.

It sounds like David simply doesn't want to go there. I don't see why that should bother anyone.


----------



## DavidVote

photoguy99 said:


> It is pretty much the essence of much of retail photography (lookit me using my new words!) that much of it is the same.
> 
> Some people hire you to make some pichers a lot like those pichers you made last week. That's a big big slice of the market. If these are your clients, then by definition, you're pumping out the same old stuff over and over. Lots of photographers quite like this kind of work, because they find solving the technical problems interesting. "How can I make basically those same photos, in THIS room, where there's no room for my key light?' and 'How can I make basically those same pictures of this person who is, well, quite differently shaped?' and 'How can I make those same pictures in total darkness without a flash?' and so on.
> 
> It sounds like David simply doesn't want to go there. I don't see why that should bother anyone.



By taking the same picture over and over again, like you said, is also the best and safest buissness decision

If photography is your business and your bread and butter, you WILL want to make the safest decision. 

Take a look at all the major mainstream music artists for example.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

That still doesn't mean you can't do far different work on the side. Noone's going to look at some great commercial photographers art they made and be like "phooey! I'll never buy another portrait from him again because he shot a landscape at a tilt with an 85mm lens and its 2 stops underexposed!!"


----------



## Braineack

I'm sure the most famous photographers out there all but in their dues before being able to make money shooting whatever they want.


----------



## Nevermore1

NedM said:


> This is the release I had the model signed. For obvious reasons I have removed any personal information.
> After each shoot, I always go over in detail of the contract with the model.
> 
> Perhaps I may have been negligent in letting the model know that her images would be watermarked.
> I have always done this with TFP shoots and not once have I had a model backlash at me for watermarking my images.
> 
> The way I see it, is if a model comes to me and expects not to pay, I can deliver the photos however I please to them.
> Afterall, it's the contract.
> 
> But I see now that what I am doing is not "industry standard" and will consider changing my business methods.
> 
> 
> Edit: Granted I am not a lawyer so therefor may be flaws in this contract. (Typos, wording, etc..)


I'll admit I haven't yet had the chance to read all the replies but the second paragraph you wrote here really stuck out to me.  You wrote that you review the contract with the models after the shoot???  I would think that would be something that is gone over in detail before the shoot or even on the phone after you have emailed them a copy of it for review before you have finalized the schedule for the shoot.  It would save both sides lots of time if the terms and what was expected of each party was clear before things were done.


----------



## Designer

Nevermore1 said:


> I'll admit I haven't yet had the chance to read all the replies but the second paragraph you wrote here really stuck out to me.  You wrote that you review the contract with the models after the shoot???  I would think that would be something that is gone over in detail before the shoot or even on the phone after you have emailed them a copy of it for review before you have finalized the schedule for the shoot.  It would save both sides lots of time if the terms and what was expected of each party was clear before things were done.


If you've read this, you should recognize that it isn't actually a contract, but a model release.

It's best not to overthink it.  NedM is aware that he needs to work on it.  

All of it.


----------



## NedM

Quick update:

I have since reached out to the model and apologized for my negligent ways. In turn, she has also apologized and we both have come to a mutual agreement.
We agreed that there was miscommunication on both our ends. We did not set expectations or standards beforehand and therefor it is both our faults for what happened. I have also sent her the images from her photo-shoot in full resolution with no watermarks. The model also agreed to give credit whenever possible and not sell the photos to any third party services. She has even told me that she will send work whenever she can my way. I think someone mentioned in this thread that most confidence photographers do not even bother with  watermarking their photos. I have decided that I will no longer deliver watermarked images to clients. I now understand that a TFP is a collaboration between two artists. It is a benefit to learn, test, and hone my skills in photography. A model is giving me their time, so I should have the courtesy of giving them clean usable images. I have also updated my contract tremendously, although I still have a lot to learn when it comes to release/licencing. (If there is anyone willing to look at my current model release and perhaps help me draft a better one, that would be awesome!) 

The model and I are now a good grounds and looking to work once again in the future.

So I think it's safe to say that this long thread about contracts, models, and lawyers could come to an end now.

Or not.


----------



## DavidVote

NedM said:


> Quick update:
> 
> I have since reached out to the model and apologized for my negligent ways. In turn, she has also apologized and we both have come to a mutual agreement.
> We agreed that there was miscommunication on both our ends. We did not set expectations or standards beforehand and therefor it is both our faults for what happened. I have also sent her the images from her photo-shoot in full resolution with no watermarks. The model also agreed to give credit whenever possible and not sell the photos to any third party services. She has even told me that she will send work whenever she can my way. I think someone mentioned in this thread that most confidence photographers do not even bother with  watermarking their photos. I have decided that I will no longer deliver watermarked images to clients. I now understand that a TFP is a collaboration between two artists. It is a benefit to learn, test, and hone my skills in photography. A model is giving me their time, so I should have the courtesy of giving them clean usable images. I have also updated my contract tremendously, although I still have a lot to learn when it comes to release/licencing. (If there is anyone willing to look at my current model release and perhaps help me draft a better one, that would be awesome!)
> 
> The model and I are now a good grounds and looking to work once again in the future.
> 
> So I think it's safe to say that this long thread about contracts, models, and lawyers could come to an end now.
> 
> Or not.



I love you <3


----------



## Vtec44

@NedM, I think you're going to do well in life.


----------



## Forkie

NedM said:


> Quick update:
> 
> I have since reached out to the model and apologized for my negligent ways. In turn, she has also apologized and we both have come to a mutual agreement.
> We agreed that there was miscommunication on both our ends. We did not set expectations or standards beforehand and therefor it is both our faults for what happened. I have also sent her the images from her photo-shoot in full resolution with no watermarks. The model also agreed to give credit whenever possible and not sell the photos to any third party services. She has even told me that she will send work whenever she can my way. I think someone mentioned in this thread that most confidence photographers do not even bother with  watermarking their photos. I have decided that I will no longer deliver watermarked images to clients. I now understand that a TFP is a collaboration between two artists. It is a benefit to learn, test, and hone my skills in photography. A model is giving me their time, so I should have the courtesy of giving them clean usable images. I have also updated my contract tremendously, although I still have a lot to learn when it comes to release/licencing. (If there is anyone willing to look at my current model release and perhaps help me draft a better one, that would be awesome!)
> 
> The model and I are now a good grounds and looking to work once again in the future.
> 
> So I think it's safe to say that this long thread about contracts, models, and lawyers could come to an end now.
> 
> Or not.



This is wonderful news, @NedM !  I had a genuine smile on my face as I read your post! 

Look at that!  You've rebuilt a relationship and will possibly even have a better relationship with this model than you would have before and she has even offered to send more work your way if she can. Plus, she's an agency model by what I could gather from your first original post, so that could be a great thing for you.

_THIS_ is networking and collaboration, and it will be your most effective client finding tool, not to mention more rewarding in general.  Congratulations Ned, you've done an outstanding job, there.  As @Vtec44  said, you will do well in life!

Onwards and upwards!


----------



## Designer

Very good, NedM, but instead of a bunch of amateurs pasting up a TFP contract or a model release, go find yourself an attorney to do that.  You'll be ahead in the long run.

Good luck!


----------



## W.Y.Photo

I agree. You did an awesome job of dealing with that situation!!

I think anyone reading this thread who has uncertainty's about how to handle this type of a situation would be helped an extraordinary amount by this book: How to Win Friends Influence People Dale Carnegie 9780671027032 Amazon.com Books

It's an excellent read and many of the worlds most successful people talk about how it has changed their life and led to their success. It's not the typical self help book, it reads less like "be this way" and more like "people have been this way and here's what they got out of it"

It's basically the bible of networking..


----------



## DinoThePhotoGuy

Forkie said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do collaborating work with models, HMUA's, wardrobe, etc.  I have almost never give out watermarked photos for trade work.  It's clear and up front before everything is done so we all know what we're getting before the shoot, regardless of who approached who.  I make a living with photography and that's just how I work.  Other people do things differently.
> 
> Edit, come to think of it I rarely watermark my photos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watermark mine, either.  I've never quite understood it.
Click to expand...

They are probably afraid that maybe someone will still their photos and claim it as theirs.


----------

