Model Compnsation for Pro Work...How Much??

[mobius55]

Hi, folks! I'd like to ask any pros here a question or two...

I plan to start shooting for stock / CD collections on spec - GettyImages, Fotosearch - that sort of thing.

1. What would be a fair compensation rate to a non-professional model whose image might wind up on a royalty-free CD or such? How can I be fair to the model and not break the bank in the process? Since it's spec work I don't know if I'll ever see a return. :?:

2. Anyone had good/bad experiences with these outfits?

Thanx in advance for your thoughts!

mobius55

 

[drlynn]

I haven't done much work with models, but I know a lot of the guys on here who do do a work for prints type deal.

It's good if a model needs some help building a portfolio. If you're gonna sell the shots, tho, I don't know what kind of hassle that might be.

 

[motcon]

not a professional model that may have her pic all over a cd? uh, you pay that model nothing. you do a 'tfp' - time for prints. you do the shoot under conditions:

- you (obviously) own the negs. get a model release.
- the model gets prints (you really should in the least decide on a reasonable expectation)

think about it this way: she has a better shot of making it big than you do.

been there.

 

[cfoto]

I've heard and have read recently that "TFP" (Trade for Prints), doesn't cut it these days when you want a model release, whether that model is pro or not. Has to do with the legal system. Business and Legal Forms for Photographers recommends you pay the model something, and include that rate in the release.

Paying by check, you will have a receipt (cancelled check) that the model was payed.

Not sure what would be a good rate, though.

 

[markc]

Do you have any news references? Since I'm doing TFP, I'd really like to see them.

 

[cfoto]

As I mentioned previously, the book Business and Legal Forms for Photographers mentions this. I can supply the direct quote later, as I don't have the book with me. I've read it elsewhere, but don't recall where. I'll check my other books and magazines to see where I read it.

My question to you, MarcC, is how do you work the TFPs? I've never really done any stock work or work that requires a release. I shoot mostly editorial for the paper. I've considered stock and the like, but the release thing has seemed more trouble then what's it's worth.

It's my understanding that during the shoot, whether it in a studio or on the street, that you have the release signed on the spot. Most of the releases I've seen (and I haven't seen many, but Business and Legal Forms have them), have a spot for the model's compensation. If the compensation is TFPs, the release is sorta invalid since you can't supply the TFPs on the spot where the model and the photographer sign the release. Thus, the photographer has a signed release, but the model is without compensation until the photographer decides to give the prints. Unless there is another reciept signed by the model that he/she received the prints when they are delivered, the model later can say he/she was never received them and was never compensated (Let's say when the photographers photo is sold for a national advertising campaign bringing the photographer 1,000s of dollars and the model's image is up on billboads everywhere .).

Anyhow I know ethics is involved, but in this sue happy world, I guess I'm just overly cautious.

We have any lawyers that frequent this board?

 

[markc]

I changed mine so that there is a date for when the images were taken in addition to the date signed. I don't know if that's the right thing to do, but if I have them sign it at the time I give them the prints, it's a true receipt.

 

[markc]

Besides, every wedding photographer I know gets paid to photograph, and requires a release to boot. Not only are the customers not getting paid in prints, but they are paying the photographer.

So far most of the images I've done have been for my own use, and only recently have they included the subjects face enough that I have to get a release. I do plan on trying to use them to make some money for myself, though, so for those that do have faces I've gone back and asked if they would sign a release in exchange for prints. Everyone so far has been happy to.

 

[cfoto]

The start of the discussion dealt with Stock Photography. Photos that will be used in advertising and such, have the potential to appear in magazines, brochures, etc., and where the photographer gets paid a sizeable amount for the image.

I think wedding photography doesn't fit in this category as you likely wouldn't be using these for stock.

I'm not saying you can't do TFPs, it just appears you're more apt to have less of an issue down the road if you have a disgruntled model complaining about how his/her photo was used, if the subject was paid. (Say you sell a stock image of someone, and one of the drug companies buys it and decides to run it along for a Viagra (or the like) ad. Suddenly it's on brochures, billboards, magazines, and the model takes offense being associated with that drug. I know this is far reaching, but my point is that the photographer (or the model) doesn't have any control once selling a stock image in how it will be used. Is a TFP going to cut it?)

Also, it's my understanding that in the modeling world, TFPs are primarily used to just build up the model's portfolio and the photographer's portfolio (at least that's how it used to be). Not to make money for the model or the photographer.

Who else does TFPs here, and how does it work for them? And how do they use the photos afterwards?

 

[markc]

That all makes sense to me, cfoto. Thanks.

 

[motcon]

Who else does TFPs here, and how does it work for them? And how do they use the photos afterwards?

i do. model release is a legal document; an area for compensation is not necessary to make it 'more legal'. a witness, however; is helpful.

how do i use the prints? in any way that i can.