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

photoguy99 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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."

Click to expand...

OFF TOPIC:

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

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 2, 2015

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

Vtec44 · Feb 2, 2015

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 · Feb 3, 2015

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 · Feb 3, 2015

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.