Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2017, 02:26 AM   #31
Veteran Member
maltfalc's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, it's everyone's right to charge according to circumstances, Maltfalc.
agreed, so what's your problem?
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

In a traditional TFP arrangement, no one's getting paid, you're both portfolio building: Time for print - Wikipedia
tfp is common for models looking to add to their port or photographers not wanting to pay cash for models, but there's no expectation that photographers won't be selling photos from a tfp shoot. even your wikipedia link doesn't support your claim.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

When somebody is making money directly from the shots, written contracts contain the signed agreements of expectations and limits of both parties.
sometimes, but it's not a requirement a great deal of the time, at least for photographers.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

A model or photographer are entirely in their rights to offer their services gratis to a charity, for instance, but not a local newspaper.
why wouldn't they be? happens all the time.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

In the case of a model, once a shoot is commercial in nature rather than an art project, they maybe required by their agency for a minimum fee.
ok. agencies are another matter entirely.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

I think anyone who goes into, say, wedding photography, without a properly written up contract is nuts!
why are you bringing wedding photography into this?

you still haven't answered my question. what is it models are supposed to "be careful" about? how does a photographer negatively impact a model by selling photos from a shoot she was paid for in photos???

07-25-2017, 07:10 AM - 1 Like   #32
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,249
QuoteOriginally posted by maltfalc Quote
why? what does the model being paid in photos rather than cash have to do with what the photographer does with the photos afterwards? why should models "be careful" when a photographer plans to sell photos he has every right to sell?
It has nothing to do with payment, and everything to do with what the model release says, if there is one. If there is no release, the photographer does not have the right to sell the image. That needs to be spelled out specifically in a release.

The same with usage releases. The model may have copies of the images given to him or her (that is the basis of TFP), but if there is no usage agreement, the images cannot be sold to a third party.

---------- Post added 07-25-17 at 08:17 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, it's everyone's right to charge according to circumstances, Maltfalc.

In a traditional TFP arrangement, no one's getting paid, you're both portfolio building: Time for print - Wikipedia

When somebody is making money directly from the shots, written contracts contain the signed agreements of expectations and limits of both parties.

A model or photographer are entirely in their rights to offer their services gratis to a charity, for instance, but not a local newspaper.

In the case of a model, once a shoot is commercial in nature rather than an art project, they maybe required by their agency for a minimum fee.

I think anyone who goes into, say, wedding photography, without a properly written up contract is nuts!
I did wedding photography for 30 years. The only time I had my lawyer draw up a contract, at the customer's insistence, the whole thing was a complete fiasco.

---------- Post added 07-25-17 at 08:30 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by maltfalc Quote
agreed, so what's your problem? tfp is common for models looking to add to their port or photographers not wanting to pay cash for models, but there's no expectation that photographers won't be selling photos from a tfp shoot. even your wikipedia link doesn't support your claim.sometimes, but it's not a requirement a great deal of the time, at least for photographers.why wouldn't they be? happens all the time.ok. agencies are another matter entirely.why are you bringing wedding photography into this?

you still haven't answered my question. what is it models are supposed to "be careful" about? how does a photographer negatively impact a model by selling photos from a shoot she was paid for in photos???
If there was no model release signed, the photographer does not have a right to sell the photos. If the release does not spell out specifically how the photographer will use the photos, he may get into problems depending on where he sells them.
A general rights clause, for example, may still land a photographer in hot water if the images are sold for a use that the model feels is detrimental to her reputation (which is in part what a model needs to be careful about).

Photographers do get sued for inappropriate use of images. I know of one instance where a model sued a photographer for selling her image for use in an HIV positive advertisement.
Another sued a photographer for selling images of her for the covers of erotic books.
Another woman sued Chipotle's resteraunt for using her image without her permission in advertising.
There was a rather famous incident a while back about a Black guy suing Time Magazine because the stock photo of him that they ran along with the caption showed him in a bad light.
07-25-2017, 09:22 AM - 1 Like   #33
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,455
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
. . .
If you earn your living from this stuff, you should definitely engage Aslyfox, Aslyfox and Aslyfox Inc . . .
.
I might be persuaded to work in exchange for good quality Pentax equipment
07-25-2017, 09:27 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,249
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Anyone who wants to copy a model release I've used for TFP arrangements, I'm happy if you modify the one I've attached. It reassures the model by even allowing an email address for them to be contacted to discuss additional revenue from the shots.

If you earn your living from this stuff, you should definitely engage Aslyfox, Aslyfox and Aslyfox Inc (or equivalent) for professional advice relevant to where you work!

I'm used to legal sorts - I hung out with law students throughout my college days, I still play sport with them as team mates, my oldest stepson is an environmental lawyer with the federal broadband agency and my daughter in law is an IP counsel for the nation's major telco.
Really, really bad advice. If you need legal advice, hire a lawyer that is familiar with the laws in your jurisdiction. I'm sure Mr. Fox is a competent lawyer, but why would I trust someone in Kansas to know wht the laws are in Canada?

07-25-2017, 10:35 AM   #35
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,455
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Really, really bad advice. If you need legal advice, hire a lawyer that is familiar with the laws in your jurisdiction. I'm sure Mr. Fox is a competent lawyer, but why would I trust someone in Kansas to know wht the laws are in Canada?
I think

1 we may be getting far afield from the O P's question

2 you missed something so I have enhanced it:

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
. . .

If you earn your living from this stuff, you should definitely engage Aslyfox, Aslyfox and Aslyfox Inc (or equivalent) for professional advice relevant to where you work!
. . .
I think Clackers clearly meant to indicate to seek legal advice from the area you work in

at least that is the way I took it.
07-25-2017, 10:55 AM   #36
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,249
QuoteOriginally posted by Aslyfox Quote
I think

1 we may be getting far afield from the O P's question

2 you missed something so I have enhanced it:



I think Clackers clearly meant to indicate to seek legal advice from the area you work in

at least that is the way I took it.
Fair enough.
07-25-2017, 12:19 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,527
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Aslyfox Quote
I think
1 we may be getting far afield from the O P's question
It's ok, very interesting to read.
07-25-2017, 12:23 PM   #38
Veteran Member
maltfalc's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
It has nothing to do with payment, and everything to do with what the model release says, if there is one. If there is no release, the photographer does not have the right to sell the image. That needs to be spelled out specifically in a release.
we need to clarify the term "sell". the photographer can sell copies of the photo in the form of prints, photobooks, paid access to an online gallery,
etc. without the model's permission, at least here in north america. if we're talking about selling or licencing the photographer's rights to the photo,
the photographer doesn't need the model's permission for that either. the only way the photographer could get themselves in trouble is if they falsely claim to own the rights for commercial use and include those in the sale.
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote

The same with usage releases. The model may have copies of the images given to him or her (that is the basis of TFP), but if there is no usage agreement, the images cannot be sold to a third party.


If there was no model release signed, the photographer does not have a right to sell the photos. If the release does not spell out specifically how the photographer will use the photos, he may get into problems depending on where he sells them.

A general rights clause, for example, may still land a photographer in hot water if the images are sold for a use that the model feels is detrimental to her reputation (which is in part what a model needs to be careful about).

Photographers do get sued for inappropriate use of images. I know of one instance where a model sued a photographer for selling her image for use in an HIV positive advertisement.
i assume you mean this model? https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/hivad.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1200 she sued getty, not the photographer.
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote

Another sued a photographer for selling images of her for the covers of erotic books.
Another woman sued Chipotle's resteraunt for using her image without her permission in advertising.
There was a rather famous incident a while back about a Black guy suing Time Magazine because the stock photo of him that they ran along with the caption showed him in a bad light.
sounds like the issue in all these cases is how the photos were used, not just the sale of the photos.

07-25-2017, 11:14 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,249
QuoteOriginally posted by maltfalc Quote
we need to clarify the term "sell". the photographer can sell copies of the photo in the form of prints, photobooks, paid access to an online gallery,
etc. without the model's permission, at least here in north america. if we're talking about selling or licencing the photographer's rights to the photo,
the photographer doesn't need the model's permission for that either. the only way the photographer could get themselves in trouble is if they falsely claim to own the rights for commercial use and include those in the sale.i assume you mean this model? https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/hivad.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1200 she sued getty, not the photographer.
sounds like the issue in all these cases is how the photos were used, not just the sale of the photos.
I believe you are wrong about how a photographer can use an image without a release. If it's a commercial venture, certainly a release is required.
Photographers ignore this, and get sued, and it costs them.
As for the other lawsuits being how the images were used, that is what i specified when i said detrimental to the model's reputation.
07-26-2017, 02:20 AM   #40
Veteran Member
maltfalc's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I believe you are wrong about how a photographer can use an image without a release. If it's a commercial venture, certainly a release is required.
Photographers ignore this, and get sued, and it costs them.
As for the other lawsuits being how the images were used, that is what i specified when i said detrimental to the model's reputation.
define "commercial venture".
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
contract, images, model, models, photo, photographer, photography, photos, pictures, post, release, shoot, site, tfp, time, timeline, usage, watermark, wedding
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camera question/ISO question Photography91 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 01-07-2014 07:56 AM
People Uncommon Manners Rupert Post Your Photos! 7 08-14-2012 08:21 PM
An Answer to a question and a question. granitic Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 02-23-2007 09:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top