a breakthrough, no more tf...(kinda) am I selfish?

TF work is to get shots for my portfolio. The model has to have the right look and have some experience. If the shots will not enhance my portfolio I will not work for free.

It is not selfish, it is called running a business.

BTW, I do get my models to sign releases and explain that I have copyright and may wish to sell the images. The models are almost always OK with this.

Oh the joys of MM models! I have gotten to the point I prefer walk-ins.....

RDKirk wrote in post #11540233
Presenting a modeling appointment as TFP with the intention of licensing the image for further commercial use can backfire on you in court--model releases have been overturned on that basis. If you know upfront that you intend to use the images commercially, it's better to pay the model a standard rate.

My standard procedure: If I ask you, it's free. If you ask me (even if you asked me in response to my marketing), it's full price.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't know why that would be. If you sign a witnessed release stating that I can use the images however I want, I can't see how one could prevail against you in a privacy tort case in just about any state. I suppose there's a litigation risk to just about anything, but that seems like a particularly low risk to me.

chakalakasp wrote in post #11592429
I'm no lawyer, but I don't know why that would be. If you sign a witnessed release stating that I can use the images however I want, I can't see how one could prevail against you in a privacy tort case in just about any state. I suppose there's a litigation risk to just about anything, but that seems like a particularly low risk to me.

I've read about a couple of cases in which photographers got signed releases from models, one on a TFP basis, the other with a very minimal compensation, both with fully comprehensive model releases, and the photographs were then used in very lucrative advertising campaigns.

The models were able to prove that the photographers knew from the beginning that the images would be commercially used and misrepresented the certainty of their commercial use. In both cases, however, if the photographer had actually paid a nominal modeling fee for the area (which wasn't much--these weren't major metropolitian areas)--the cases would probably have failed.

But because the photographers paid nothing for work they knew in advance would reap them significant compensation, the courts ruled they had operated in bad faith, invalidating the model releases.

The botton line, for me, is that if I'm photographing a model with an intent (even a hope) of using it commercially, I will pay her the going rate for her time in my area.

Thats interesting.

However even with signed releases, if someone approaches me about a picture i took and wants to buy it for commercial use, i would re-contact the model and talk it out with her/him, and of course pay them some compensation if the work was TF originally.

But i still get them to sign the releases, because if not you're no longer driving the train.