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

[photoguy99]

If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. The lawyer costs less than nothing. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.

In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. We're talking a billable hour here.

So a "billable hour" costs less than nothing?

Can't be too good an attorney, then.

That is a mis-reading of my remarks.

 

[joeymas]

Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.

Uh huh. He did write that.

He also wrote the model release that he called a "contract".

I usually attempt to understand what someone writes even if the writer doesn't always understand it.

A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

 

[tirediron]

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

To clarify what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up) A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.

 

[Life]

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.

I agree with this. I'm not in this business ( yet ), however, a contract is a contract, If she signed it she should have read it knowing the terms and if she had a question she should have asked before signing. Every photographer will have their way of doing business and have their OWN contracts. If it's signed then it's signed.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

Here's a scenario:

You photograph a model. The model release is signed. It gives you the right to use the photos on your website, but you're not allowed to sell them. The model happens to be wearing a blouse made by the latest hot designer. A local retailer, who sells that blouse, sees a photo of the model on your website and contacts you, saying they'd liked to buy that photo from you. You sell it to them. A week later, your model sees her photo in an ad for "Fancy Blouses-R-Us" and freaks out. She hires a lawyer to sue you.

Are you going to be sued for "breach of model agreement" or "breach of contract"?

 

[W.Y.Photo]

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.

I agree with this. I'm not in this business ( yet ), however, a contract is a contract, If she signed it she should have read it knowing the terms and if she had a question she should have asked before signing. Every photographer will have their way of doing business and have their OWN contracts. If it's signed then it's signed.

Well, I don't think there is anyone who necessarily disagrees with that. What most everyone was saying was that its not a good idea to toss away a good piece of your social network in the photo world over a watermark.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

To clarify what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up) A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.

If the photographer provides the model a model release which permits specific usage by the photographer, and the model signs it, there is most certainly an agreement there.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

To clarify what you said here, (since I was confused and looked it up) A model release by definition is simply a written permission from the model that "releases" the rights of their image to someone. It isn't exactly an agreement and therefor it isn't a contract.

If the photographer provides the model a model release which permits specific usage by the photographer, and the model signs it, there is most certainly an agreement there.

The Photographer need not sign or agree to any terms if the document is in fact JUST a release.

If it is combined with a contractual agreement (some sort of clause that both parties must agree upon) then it can be considered a contract.

...A model release is, in fact, a form of a contract.

Not necessarily, no. While a model release can be combined with a contract (and often is) the model release in and of itself is not a contract in that there is no consideration involved.

Here's a scenario:

You photograph a model. The model release is signed. It gives you the right to use the photos on your website, but you're not allowed to sell them. The model happens to be wearing a blouse made by the latest hot designer. A local retailer, who sells that blouse, sees a photo of the model on your website and contacts you, saying they'd liked to buy that photo from you. You sell it to them. A week later, your model sees her photo in an ad for "Fancy Blouses-R-Us" and freaks out. She hires a lawyer to sue you.

Are you going to be sued for "breach of model agreement" or "breach of contract"?

You can be sued for anything, it doesn't mean they are suing you for the right thing.

You wouldn't be sued for breach of contract if there was no contract signed. The model could possibly win if she sued you for copyright infringement however.

 

[Designer]

If she signed it she should have read it..

I see that you didn't read it.

 

[Overread]

There has been no disagreement that the model didn't sign a contract.

What has been argued is that the contract itself, that was signed is flawed, and presents little to no benefit for the model and potentially little long term reward for the photographer in question. It has also been pointed out that even if the OP wants to retain the same rights and ideas that he's using in his contract now, that the contract itself needs seriously re-writing to present a more correct and formal document.

No one is saying that the contract isn't binding; what they are saying is that the model might have signed a contact which, upon further study, they might not otherwise have signed and that the photographer might be risking a bad/poor reputation by the use of such a contract in the Trade for Prints sector (which directly impacts upon potential contacts in the paid model world at the local level for the photographer).

 

[photoguy99]

In the presence of a release of that sort, without a contract in play, the suit might be a "breach of waiver" if you could find someone to pursue such a mess.

 

[Austin Greene]

I'm with Forkie here, and by that, I mean largely with the model. You're trying to run a business, I get that, I'm in the same boat, but if you're serious then you know that customer service is the biggest priority. From the moment that model sat in front of your lens she was your customer, paying or not. Your priority needs to be on making those images as useful to her as possible. Referrals largely don't happen by people reading watermarks, they happen through word of mouth.

I would suggest that you apologize to her, mention that you value her time and that you appreciated the shoot, and give her the unwatermarked copies. You yourself called her wonderful, so how you would can future opportunities with her for the sake of a watermark I have no idea. The agency isn't going to hire you just because they've seen your name on a photo, they hire based on your body of work, which you have now permanently dented by removing future shoots with her.

Sure, it's a business, but what's a business without clients.

P.S: I should note that for my own personal uses, anyone (even family) who ends up in front of my camera signs a model release. A moment of paperwork is worth hours of wasted time. Simply because I have those releases though doesn't mean I start posting nudes of clients all over Facebook where they've requested them to not be posted.

 

[JacaRanda]

Well message me where you do post the nudes

J/K people. This has been a good lesson thread even with the disagreements.