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

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.