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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Didereaux]

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]

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]

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....

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

 

[DavidVote]

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]

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.

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]

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?