| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2009 02:58:40 AM · #1 |
I'm having this huge moral dilemma dealing with a model. I posted a casting on a site (to remain unnamed) and i had several models reply that they were interested. The casting was for an FHM/maxim international style shoot that would range from fashion to implied nude and stated models comfortable with partial nudity would be preferred. I had a great model say that she was interested. I layed out the whole shoot before her, before we ever got started shooting and made sure she was comfortable with all shots. She said she was. We shot, and got some great shots...of course alot of sexy lingerie type shots, implied, and the only partial nudity we got to was her showing her butt (her face not shown) and even most of those shots, she was purposely blurred. She signed a release saying that i can use the photos for whatever purposes (mainly stock).
The shooting was wednesday night and ended at 10:30pm. Well Thursday morning i received an email from her saying that she got picked up by a agency that day who is stict against nude, partial nude, implied nude, and sexy shots...and that she told them she had not done any. She asked me not to use any shots that included partial nude, implied nude, or sexy shots...that's almost the entire shoot! I spent 3 hours shooting this girl and the shoot took place in a hotel suite (that i rented) and in another country (Canada).
I lost three hours of my life, some money, and a whole lot of great shots. It pisses me off because it's an obvious lie on her part..and second it's as if that shoot never existed. My thoughts are to tell her that since i don't know what she considers sexy that she should let me edit them and then tell me which ones that she thinks i should get rid of...but that still eliminates 75% of the shots because half was implied, meant to be sexy, or shows her butt.
What do I do? Keep in mind that this shoot was TFCD with her getting a certain number of photos and 15% of any photos sold for publication....so i lost a whole lot of stock photos in this as well.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 03:32:33 AM · #2 |
| I think perhaps the reasonable compromise is to have her pay for the shoot, as if it was a portrait sitting, and for you to agree to not (commercially) use any shots in which she's identifiable. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 05:41:30 AM · #3 |
Agreed.....
She signed off, entered into an agreement.
She needs to compensate you for your time & materiels if she doesn't want the images out there as was originally specified. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 06:52:31 AM · #4 |
| Since she's asking you to be complicit in her lie (if, indeed, she is being truthful about lying to the agency) you're doing her a BIG favour and she owes you at least expenses in return, IF you decide to do her the favour. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 06:55:54 AM · #5 |
| Yes that seems like the best compromise, if she's signed a release then legally there's not a lot she can do about it but morally of course its a bit uncomfortable if she doesn't want the images used. However having said that, if she is now signed with an agency then she's taking modelling pretty seriously and in the real world I doubt she'd find too many compassionate clients when they are paying out lots of money for her to pose. If she is serious, I'd get back in touch and say your happy not to use the photos provided she cover both the cost of the shoot and your time - why should you lose out, you have done nothing wrong. If she doesn't pay the invoice I'd use the images regardless. That might seem harsh but as I'm sure you know from working with 'aspiring' models, the majority of them are really hard work because they change their mind so often and haven't yet built up enough knowledge about the industry to have a professional attitude. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:03:25 AM · #6 |
The moral dilemma is hers - she is the one who lied.
You have a release. Yours is a business question - figure out what the release is worth and let her buy the release back. You have actual expenses to consider as well as lost opportunity cost. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:12:10 AM · #7 |
wow...I never even thought about charging to repay for my time. That may be the course of action
I don't mind not using any of the partial nude shots...but implied and sexy were laid out in the casting, in the email traffic before the shoot, and before the shoot. So that may become a major problem.
I just hate being the douchebag photographer who uses shots the model doesn't want used.
I'm going to email her back today letting her know that I'm not happy with the situation. That she can pay for the shoot (which i will lay out a price) or she can let me finish editing the photos and photos that she STRONGLy unapproves may not be used up to a reasonable amount...in my eyes that shouldn't be more than 5 photos or so though.
I'll let you guys know how it goes.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:45:10 AM · #8 |
keep documentation of everything - print out the emails, etc. If it ever comes to something bigger you want proof of what you told her, what she understood.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:46:27 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by albc28:
wow...I never even thought about charging to repay for my time. |
Truly, that's the crux of the issue.
If she balks, remind her that what she's asking you to do is to condone her duplicity.
That's bad enough in itself, but if she's not willing to compensate you for your time, then why should you do her any favors? |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 09:06:44 AM · #10 |
Here is the message i sent her...
Nathalia,
This is actually very disappointing. There is a major difference in asking one or two photos to be deleted or taking down from a site, but you are asking me to delete over 75% of the photo shoot.
The casting was for FHM/Maxim type of shoots from Fashion to Implied nude. During the email traffic I discussed that we were going for very sexy. And I laid out the shoot ahead of time before we shot.
The days of planning, choice of hotels, 3 hours of shooting, some time already spent editing, and loss of possible revenue, it wouldn't smart for me business-wise to delete 75% of the photos.
As much as I want to help, after conferring with some of my peers, this is the best plan i can do for you.
You can pay for the shoot in which i will give you all rights to all the photos. Based off the work done for this shoot, i would have to charge you $150 sitting fee and $5 shot in which i would be removing any blurred or unusable photos and all shots would remain unedited.
Or we can continue with the plan as we have already mapped out on the model release. I will edit the photos and you will receive 5 high resolution edited photos on a CD and 15% of any photo sold for publication. I would then post the photos on to my website where only you have access to see them. You could then pick the 5 that you want and if there are any photos that step outside the boundaries of the casting and what we previously discussed before you arrived (meaning the partial nude with your butt in focus) you can ask for those to be deleted.
I'm sorry and i know that this is not what you want to hear, but i'm sure you will have problems with other photographers as well. You still have an implied nude shot on your portfolio right now.
Anthony |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 11:27:57 AM · #11 |
| I think your letter is very well written. Good luck, and I hope all works out in your favor! |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 12:12:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by albc28:
You can pay for the shoot in which i will give you all rights to all the photos. Based off the work done for this shoot, i would have to charge you $150 sitting fee and $5 shot in which i would be removing any blurred or unusable photos and all shots would remain unedited. |
Wow. I would've charged her $150 sitting fee, 3 hours at $75/hour for your time, and the cost of the hotel. That's if you wanted to be nice. I'd throw in $500/image that she wanted full rights to.
Of course, I'm saying from an armchair, you're the one who has to deal with it. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 12:43:56 PM · #13 |
This scenario is exactly why I cannot understand the stupidity of some people when it comes to their eager willingness to disrobe in front of a camera. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a cooling off period required prior to commencement of such a shoot. Anyone who is serious about fashion modeling would be insane to allow a photographer to get nude shots without "extraordinary compensation".
As for your time and compensation? Look at it this way, you can charge her and make her pay for your time. Yes, that is one solution that will result in a few hundred bucks in your jeans and the implied label that you are a slime ball photographer. Yes, in her eyes and everyone she knows, that is what you will be portrayed as regardless and she will see that YOU wronged her. The other side is to destroy the images without compensation, and in the future accept this type of assignment ONLY as a paid assignment out front. Either way, for the short term, you lose. In the long term, you will define yourself as a pro with dignity, foresight and integrity. In other words, wash your hands of this and move on. Crap happens and this event can be used as one of those wonderful learning moments. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 02:57:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
This scenario is exactly why I cannot understand the stupidity of some people when it comes to their eager willingness to disrobe in front of a camera. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a cooling off period required prior to commencement of such a shoot. Anyone who is serious about fashion modeling would be insane to allow a photographer to get nude shots without "extraordinary compensation".
As for your time and compensation? Look at it this way, you can charge her and make her pay for your time. Yes, that is one solution that will result in a few hundred bucks in your jeans and the implied label that you are a slime ball photographer. Yes, in her eyes and everyone she knows, that is what you will be portrayed as regardless and she will see that YOU wronged her. The other side is to destroy the images without compensation, and in the future accept this type of assignment ONLY as a paid assignment out front. Either way, for the short term, you lose. In the long term, you will define yourself as a pro with dignity, foresight and integrity. In other words, wash your hands of this and move on. Crap happens and this event can be used as one of those wonderful learning moments. |
I think you missed some of what went on. This wasn't a spur of the moment planning of the shoot. The casting was listed there for a couple of weeks prior to the shoot. Email traffic detailing the shoot happened for weeks before the shoot. And then there was a period before I even bought out my camera that the shoot was detailed to her room by room and even showed her example pictures of the shoot. At no point were improper parts shown on camera...except her butt (standing in an artistic form) in 5 shots. Her breasts were always covered. She was also allowed to view all the photos before she left to make sure she is okay with them. And it was not her first model shoot. Not quite sure how you get a label of slime bag photographer out of that deal. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 02:59:16 PM · #15 |
Well she seems genuine and this was her reply was sincere as she will pay for the time and photos.
Again thank you all. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 03:01:52 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Well she seems genuine and this was her reply was sincere as she will pay for the time and photos.
Again thank you all. |
Nice for you to help her make her lie to the agency work, but hopefully you leave some sort of feedback on the casting site so the next guy doesn't have to go through such a pain in the ass with her the next time she flakes out. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 03:13:43 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by albc28:
I think you missed some of what went on. This wasn't a spur of the moment planning of the shoot. The casting was listed there for a couple of weeks prior to the shoot. Email traffic detailing the shoot happened for weeks before the shoot. And then there was a period before I even bought out my camera that the shoot was detailed to her room by room and even showed her example pictures of the shoot. At no point were improper parts shown on camera...except her butt (standing in an artistic form) in 5 shots. Her breasts were always covered. She was also allowed to view all the photos before she left to make sure she is okay with them. And it was not her first model shoot. Not quite sure how you get a label of slime bag photographer out of that deal. |
The additional information you have provided is "additional". The "slimeball" comment is a no brainer. Guy with camera, takes shots of woman (legitimately or not), woman changes mind, photographer does not, woman blabs to friends about injustice, world see photographer as slime ball why??? Because it is the world we live in.
Congrats by the way on the resolution. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 03:43:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by albc28:
Well she seems genuine and this was her reply was sincere as she will pay for the time and photos.
Again thank you all. |
Nice for you to help her make her lie to the agency work, but hopefully you leave some sort of feedback on the casting site so the next guy doesn't have to go through such a pain in the ass with her the next time she flakes out. |
Is she now lying? Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise if nobody is there to hear? Does an implied nude photoshoot that never sees the light of day count as a photoshoot? I think the agency is more worried that someone will become famous and then the old pics will surface, but this seems to avoid that scenario. I don't think they are quite so concerned about the moral rectitude of their models. Maybe I'm wrong about that. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 03:58:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is she now lying? Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise if nobody is there to hear? Does an implied nude photoshoot that never sees the light of day count as a photoshoot? |
Nice ethics. Doctor, right?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2009 04:09:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is she now lying? Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise if nobody is there to hear? Does an implied nude photoshoot that never sees the light of day count as a photoshoot? |
Nice ethics. Doctor, right? |
I'm not defending her lying. I just thought it a bit harsh to imply that the photog was being complicit in enabling her. That probably wasn't very clear in my post.
Message edited by author 2009-01-16 16:09:59. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 04:20:10 PM · #21 |
| Were you ever alone with this model? |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 07:16:34 PM · #22 |
Out of curiosity, which agency is this? Doesn't sound right.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2009 07:28:07 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
This scenario is exactly why I cannot understand the stupidity of some people when it comes to their eager willingness to disrobe in front of a camera. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a cooling off period required prior to commencement of such a shoot. Anyone who is serious about fashion modeling would be insane to allow a photographer to get nude shots without "extraordinary compensation".
As for your time and compensation? Look at it this way, you can charge her and make her pay for your time. Yes, that is one solution that will result in a few hundred bucks in your jeans and the implied label that you are a slime ball photographer. Yes, in her eyes and everyone she knows, that is what you will be portrayed as regardless and she will see that YOU wronged her. The other side is to destroy the images without compensation, and in the future accept this type of assignment ONLY as a paid assignment out front. Either way, for the short term, you lose. In the long term, you will define yourself as a pro with dignity, foresight and integrity. In other words, wash your hands of this and move on. Crap happens and this event can be used as one of those wonderful learning moments. |
Wow...
I for one am totally against nude photography, but Ivo, I think your comments are way out of line. It is common from what I've seen for models to pose for free to build their portfolio. It's a win/win for the model and photographer. She made a standard agreement, got the work done and then backed out AFTER the shots were taken. Tough tacos. If the photographer received no benefit and all the cost of the shoot, then the models ONLY alternate recourse is to treat it as a work for hire, pay for the photos and the rights and move on -- OR accept the deal as is. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:06:35 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Ivo:
This scenario is exactly why I cannot understand the stupidity of some people when it comes to their eager willingness to disrobe in front of a camera. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a cooling off period required prior to commencement of such a shoot. Anyone who is serious about fashion modeling would be insane to allow a photographer to get nude shots without "extraordinary compensation".
As for your time and compensation? Look at it this way, you can charge her and make her pay for your time. Yes, that is one solution that will result in a few hundred bucks in your jeans and the implied label that you are a slime ball photographer. Yes, in her eyes and everyone she knows, that is what you will be portrayed as regardless and she will see that YOU wronged her. The other side is to destroy the images without compensation, and in the future accept this type of assignment ONLY as a paid assignment out front. Either way, for the short term, you lose. In the long term, you will define yourself as a pro with dignity, foresight and integrity. In other words, wash your hands of this and move on. Crap happens and this event can be used as one of those wonderful learning moments. |
Wow...
I for one am totally against nude photography, but Ivo, I think your comments are way out of line. It is common from what I've seen for models to pose for free to build their portfolio. It's a win/win for the model and photographer. She made a standard agreement, got the work done and then backed out AFTER the shots were taken. Tough tacos. If the photographer received no benefit and all the cost of the shoot, then the models ONLY alternate recourse is to treat it as a work for hire, pay for the photos and the rights and move on -- OR accept the deal as is. |
Actually, having spent many years as a "professional coat hanger", I'd say my comment is not that inaccurate. The idea of trading modeling for photos is nothing new as I employed that tactic quite frequently while I was building my book. (For goodness sake ..please CAREFULLY read my comment). Nude photos as an asset to any "serious" model's portfolio is ludicrous and a route sought out by naive amateurs with very little knowledge of the industry. These images surface if you become very successful! Yes, she made an agreement.....Whoopie!! Any agreement can be broken and public sentiment will side with the party that appears more vulnerable. If a "male" photographer wants to challenge this in an attempt to uphold a contract, he would be foolish. Read the papers. I AGREE that she had signed up but I'm also smart enough to know there are certain situations where you run rather than uphold a "contract". There would be very little glory to the photographer if this went bad.
Either way, it doesn't matter as it appears to have been resolved. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:49:42 PM · #25 |
I'm glad this was worked out sucessfully.
People, including me, make mistakes all the time. What matters is how we deal with them.
She's paying up for changing her mind... as she should.
You're letting her out of her contract because you're a "good guy", as you should.
Life is good.
|
|
