Bro...I 100% agree with you about tagged paid vs unpaid. I would go a few steps further. On unpaid collabs tagging is important (for all creators involved), but IMO giving credit/tag in caption too. I find most people don't even look at the tag (within the image). Additionally, all these hub sites on IG that take images from a models account and repost it on their account and only tag the model - they are technically violating copyright. I fkn hate that.
Very, very good point, and if the post has music, you have to actually tap the tag icon to see who’s tagged. Most people aren’t doing that. I always tag the model in both areas. I agree 100% on the repost sites, that has always been a pet peeve of mine. They can’t even take 20 seconds to see who the photographer was (and any other people associated) and tag them as well. You are indeed right, they are violating copyright because they didn’t get permission from the owner. I tend to dislike those repost sites in general because they build their platform off the backs of other creators and they generally only post work from people who already have a huge following (in a copout attempt to grow their own following.)
Agreed! The frustration lies when it’s a collaboration, discuss tagging before hand yet still no credit when you’re working for free. It’s always a plus when getting credited for your work when paid but never expected.
Preach, bruh -- PREACH! Yessir!!! Anthony, I'd also say that the opposite is true -- when we (the photographer) hire a model for a project, we're the customer. As such - if it's not in my contract agreement, I owe the model no final shots. Know what I mean? I've had models -- that I've paid, ask me for copies, and I"ve rejected that. Just as we shouldn't expect a paying client to tag us, models shouldn't expect us to give them product -- when we've paid them up front. Now, to your point -- it's a nice courtesy, especially for a photographer who's just getting started, but make no mistake, it's 100% optional. Man, I've had models, that I've paid for a project, ask me for raw files. Seriously. Uh ... Nope, not doing that. We have contracts (Hopefully everyone does) and that's where the specificity of what is -- and what isn't a 'deliverable' is spelled out. I have no expectations -- ZERO -- to be tagged in work where the client pays me. At the same time, I have no obligation to provide free content to a model I'm paying. We -- the photographers, have to understand this principle and adhere to it. Appreciate this one. It's hitting an area that needs hitting -- well done, my friend.
I'm exactly the same with models I pay for, and it's mind-boggling how some models can't understand that premise. I don't get how someone could think they should be paid for a service, and then receive something additional of value just because. But yeah, I have never sweat over the tag thing from paying clients. I care more about their money and building a relationship with them. And here's the thing, if someone sees a tagged photographer, they're almost certainly going to reach out to the person who tagged them first to see what the experience was like. And guess what, they would do the same even if a tag wasn't there. "Hey so-and-so, what photographer did you use for this shoot? Did you have a good experience?"
@@AnthonyToglife models are so used to TF shoots and, if they're attractive, photogs falling over themsleves to shoot them, that they figure, why not get photos too? lol The model asking to be paid is because she values her time and talent more than the photos you're producing
You've got it right, once again. As you put it correctly, the _principle_ is that the client pays us for our services with no further obligation on them. A related issue is photographers thinking clients are obligated to sign model releases, with many photographers having model releases built into their session contracts. Those photographers will often charge extra to clients who aren't willing to sign releases. In fact, the client's visage is their property...that is the law in every state. They own the right to control the commercial use of their visage. So, photographers are attempting to charge their clients for a legal right their clients already own. That's an extortion law suit waiting to happen. I separate my session contract from my model release because they are two wholly different legal agreements. The first is an agreement for me to provide a specified service for specified pay. The second is them giving me permission to make commercial use of their visage. These are totally different legal propositions that should not be connected. Especially when dealing with families and children, people may have understandable uncertainties about the extent of what they're signing away. They didn't come to me to give away their privacy. At that point, the client may be excited, but they still don't know for sure they'll like the end results. They're still thinking about the money they're spending. There is still a lot of uncertainty...and I don't want to add any more uncertainty. I present the model release to the client during the product delivery. At that point, they've got their pictures, I've got my money, all other pressure is off the client, everyone is smiling, and the dopamine is flowing. I can say, "Aren't these great? You look terrific! May I use these on my website? Just sign here."
This is an interesting point Kirk. Very interesting. I'm not so sure I agree with it 100% though. At least for me, the agreement my clients sign is basically a documenting outlining the details of the shoot, what they client can do with the finished product, and what I can do with the finished product. That last part is essentially what a model release is, it grants rights to a photographer to use the image. I know for me, if I was expected to sign a document outlining what I can and can't do with an image, but there's was nothing saying what the photographer could or couldn't do, I would be reluctant to sign it. Most regular people don't really know about model releases, and that we need them to use images in any commercial use, so I would think some people would be uneasy signing something and *thinking* the photographer will have free-reign to use the images however they see fit. But I think more than anything, I would include the model release altogether for the sake of efficiency. Since I don't do IPS, it would be an unnecessary step to have to circle back to a model release at the time of delivering the images. I've never had a client nor model not want to sign my agreement. I've had to make some modifications to it a handful of times, but never an outright denial. I don't particularly mind people charging extra if a client doesn't want to allow the images to be used by the photographer. If every client you ever had said no, you wouldn't have any images to market with, and doing TFP shoots to fill your portfolio - although doable - feels a tad bit unethical to me. It's okay to have TFP shoots to fill holes or to diversify, but not to be your entire portfolio when you have clients paying you. At the end of the day it all comes down to whatever works for you. I've always included my "model release" in my agreement and can't imagine I'll shy away from that anytime soon. I will say, I have separate releases for children, and my usage is much more restricted with those images than clients of age.
@@AnthonyToglife My model release does state what my uses will be as well as what the client is allowed to do with the images. Doing retail portraiture, I'm finding a lot of parents hesitant about their children appearing on the Internet, but not minding me using them for hardcopy exhibition, such as in salons.
Fully agreed. Back in Dec. I did my first shoot for a brand and I know better not to expect them to tag me lol, I got paid, that was the deal, photos for exchange of money.
Yupper. I do a lot of commercial work and I never expect my clients to tag me. They’re posting their images from a business point of view, why would I have a sense of entitlement that they should tag me in those posts?! And then where does it stop, should the tag their hairstylist they paid to get them right for the shoot, their MUA, the car wash attendant they paid to clean their car, on and on. If I’m getting paid, a tag is a bonus, simple as that.
Re: the tagging, totally agree with you, if you are being paid then absolutely you are not owed a tag from the client. Analogously, would I let everybody who has ever done work on my property, place a sign at the entrance of my house detailing who fixed my roof, who landscaped my garden, who detailed my car, who painted and decorated my home interior.......of course not 😂🤣 Heck, I pay the tradesperson to do the job, it gets done, they get paid and thats the end of it. lol. Can you imagine what my house would look like covered in advertising boards for everyone I'd conducted business with? Here's an idea, how about I put a sign outside my house promoting Charmin Extra Soft because I used their product to wipe my ass! 😁😂
I do get you, if they've paid for it. I feel like it does help with copyright, if you've only signed the image away for licenced use you really don't want people nicking that.
@@AnthonyToglife it might be different in the US, but in UK the photographer retains copyright of an image unless specifically signed away, but you give a license for use. I feel like it's not widely known, so if people tag the photographer and include something like "licenced from..." it helps keep the photographer's name attached to the piece and makes it harder for those without a license to use the image and claim ignorance.
It works the same here in the US, and sadly we see a lot of repost pages on social media reposting an image and only giving the model credit. I take issue with that because these pages build their following off the backs of creators and rarely give them credit for it, let alone actually getting approval to repost.
When I got my driveway done.. the installer left a pallet outside against the wall with a sign on advertising their business. I ofcourse removed it as soon as they left as they didn't give me any prior notification that they were going to do this, nor did they offer any discount. I kinda of feel like this matches up with what you're saying. I could have left the sign out there ( real world tag ) or I could take it away... Either way, they got paid for the job they did. So nobody got hurt.
I would have done the same! I don't mind saying good things about a company when asked, but I'm not going to publicly market/endorse any company. That is something that has value and therefore requires some form of compensation. If you'd like to offer me a discount on your services to in-turn allow you to place a sign in my yard, we can discuss that.
Bro...I 100% agree with you about tagged paid vs unpaid. I would go a few steps further. On unpaid collabs tagging is important (for all creators involved), but IMO giving credit/tag in caption too. I find most people don't even look at the tag (within the image). Additionally, all these hub sites on IG that take images from a models account and repost it on their account and only tag the model - they are technically violating copyright. I fkn hate that.
Very, very good point, and if the post has music, you have to actually tap the tag icon to see who’s tagged. Most people aren’t doing that. I always tag the model in both areas.
I agree 100% on the repost sites, that has always been a pet peeve of mine. They can’t even take 20 seconds to see who the photographer was (and any other people associated) and tag them as well. You are indeed right, they are violating copyright because they didn’t get permission from the owner. I tend to dislike those repost sites in general because they build their platform off the backs of other creators and they generally only post work from people who already have a huge following (in a copout attempt to grow their own following.)
Agreed! The frustration lies when it’s a collaboration, discuss tagging before hand yet still no credit when you’re working for free. It’s always a plus when getting credited for your work when paid but never expected.
That's it right there!
Preach, bruh -- PREACH! Yessir!!! Anthony, I'd also say that the opposite is true -- when we (the photographer) hire a model for a project, we're the customer. As such - if it's not in my contract agreement, I owe the model no final shots. Know what I mean?
I've had models -- that I've paid, ask me for copies, and I"ve rejected that. Just as we shouldn't expect a paying client to tag us, models shouldn't expect us to give them product -- when we've paid them up front.
Now, to your point -- it's a nice courtesy, especially for a photographer who's just getting started, but make no mistake, it's 100% optional. Man, I've had models, that I've paid for a project, ask me for raw files. Seriously. Uh ... Nope, not doing that. We have contracts (Hopefully everyone does) and that's where the specificity of what is -- and what isn't a 'deliverable' is spelled out.
I have no expectations -- ZERO -- to be tagged in work where the client pays me. At the same time, I have no obligation to provide free content to a model I'm paying. We -- the photographers, have to understand this principle and adhere to it.
Appreciate this one. It's hitting an area that needs hitting -- well done, my friend.
I'm exactly the same with models I pay for, and it's mind-boggling how some models can't understand that premise. I don't get how someone could think they should be paid for a service, and then receive something additional of value just because.
But yeah, I have never sweat over the tag thing from paying clients. I care more about their money and building a relationship with them. And here's the thing, if someone sees a tagged photographer, they're almost certainly going to reach out to the person who tagged them first to see what the experience was like. And guess what, they would do the same even if a tag wasn't there. "Hey so-and-so, what photographer did you use for this shoot? Did you have a good experience?"
@@AnthonyToglife models are so used to TF shoots and, if they're attractive, photogs falling over themsleves to shoot them, that they figure, why not get photos too? lol The model asking to be paid is because she values her time and talent more than the photos you're producing
@iunderstanphotography2780 many don’t have much talent, lol, but yes, that’s the gist of that.
You've got it right, once again. As you put it correctly, the _principle_ is that the client pays us for our services with no further obligation on them.
A related issue is photographers thinking clients are obligated to sign model releases, with many photographers having model releases built into their session contracts. Those photographers will often charge extra to clients who aren't willing to sign releases. In fact, the client's visage is their property...that is the law in every state. They own the right to control the commercial use of their visage. So, photographers are attempting to charge their clients for a legal right their clients already own. That's an extortion law suit waiting to happen.
I separate my session contract from my model release because they are two wholly different legal agreements. The first is an agreement for me to provide a specified service for specified pay. The second is them giving me permission to make commercial use of their visage. These are totally different legal propositions that should not be connected.
Especially when dealing with families and children, people may have understandable uncertainties about the extent of what they're signing away. They didn't come to me to give away their privacy. At that point, the client may be excited, but they still don't know for sure they'll like the end results. They're still thinking about the money they're spending. There is still a lot of uncertainty...and I don't want to add any more uncertainty.
I present the model release to the client during the product delivery. At that point, they've got their pictures, I've got my money, all other pressure is off the client, everyone is smiling, and the dopamine is flowing. I can say, "Aren't these great? You look terrific! May I use these on my website? Just sign here."
This is an interesting point Kirk. Very interesting.
I'm not so sure I agree with it 100% though. At least for me, the agreement my clients sign is basically a documenting outlining the details of the shoot, what they client can do with the finished product, and what I can do with the finished product. That last part is essentially what a model release is, it grants rights to a photographer to use the image.
I know for me, if I was expected to sign a document outlining what I can and can't do with an image, but there's was nothing saying what the photographer could or couldn't do, I would be reluctant to sign it. Most regular people don't really know about model releases, and that we need them to use images in any commercial use, so I would think some people would be uneasy signing something and *thinking* the photographer will have free-reign to use the images however they see fit.
But I think more than anything, I would include the model release altogether for the sake of efficiency. Since I don't do IPS, it would be an unnecessary step to have to circle back to a model release at the time of delivering the images. I've never had a client nor model not want to sign my agreement. I've had to make some modifications to it a handful of times, but never an outright denial.
I don't particularly mind people charging extra if a client doesn't want to allow the images to be used by the photographer. If every client you ever had said no, you wouldn't have any images to market with, and doing TFP shoots to fill your portfolio - although doable - feels a tad bit unethical to me. It's okay to have TFP shoots to fill holes or to diversify, but not to be your entire portfolio when you have clients paying you.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whatever works for you. I've always included my "model release" in my agreement and can't imagine I'll shy away from that anytime soon. I will say, I have separate releases for children, and my usage is much more restricted with those images than clients of age.
@@AnthonyToglife My model release does state what my uses will be as well as what the client is allowed to do with the images. Doing retail portraiture, I'm finding a lot of parents hesitant about their children appearing on the Internet, but not minding me using them for hardcopy exhibition, such as in salons.
Fully agreed. Back in Dec. I did my first shoot for a brand and I know better not to expect them to tag me lol, I got paid, that was the deal, photos for exchange of money.
Yupper. I do a lot of commercial work and I never expect my clients to tag me. They’re posting their images from a business point of view, why would I have a sense of entitlement that they should tag me in those posts?! And then where does it stop, should the tag their hairstylist they paid to get them right for the shoot, their MUA, the car wash attendant they paid to clean their car, on and on. If I’m getting paid, a tag is a bonus, simple as that.
@@AnthonyToglife true, you show the images in your portfolio and keep it moving
If I'm getting paid, i could careless about tagging. Only expect tag if its a collab. Its that simple.
Yup, I feel exactly the same.
Re: the tagging, totally agree with you, if you are being paid then absolutely you are not owed a tag from the client.
Analogously, would I let everybody who has ever done work on my property, place a sign at the entrance of my house detailing who fixed my roof, who landscaped my garden, who detailed my car, who painted and decorated my home interior.......of course not 😂🤣
Heck, I pay the tradesperson to do the job, it gets done, they get paid and thats the end of it. lol. Can you imagine what my house would look like covered in advertising boards for everyone I'd conducted business with?
Here's an idea, how about I put a sign outside my house promoting Charmin Extra Soft because I used their product to wipe my ass! 😁😂
That last part made me laugh out loud hahahaha
big facts!
Let's gooo!
Well said!!
Thanks big bro!
I do get you, if they've paid for it.
I feel like it does help with copyright, if you've only signed the image away for licenced use you really don't want people nicking that.
Can you better explain the copyright piece of your comment, I’m not quite understanding what you’re trying to say…
@@AnthonyToglife it might be different in the US, but in UK the photographer retains copyright of an image unless specifically signed away, but you give a license for use. I feel like it's not widely known, so if people tag the photographer and include something like "licenced from..." it helps keep the photographer's name attached to the piece and makes it harder for those without a license to use the image and claim ignorance.
It works the same here in the US, and sadly we see a lot of repost pages on social media reposting an image and only giving the model credit. I take issue with that because these pages build their following off the backs of creators and rarely give them credit for it, let alone actually getting approval to repost.
When I got my driveway done.. the installer left a pallet outside against the wall with a sign on advertising their business.
I ofcourse removed it as soon as they left as they didn't give me any prior notification that they were going to do this, nor did they offer any discount.
I kinda of feel like this matches up with what you're saying. I could have left the sign out there ( real world tag ) or I could take it away... Either way, they got paid for the job they did. So nobody got hurt.
I would have done the same! I don't mind saying good things about a company when asked, but I'm not going to publicly market/endorse any company. That is something that has value and therefore requires some form of compensation. If you'd like to offer me a discount on your services to in-turn allow you to place a sign in my yard, we can discuss that.
@@AnthonyToglife 🎯🎯🎯🎯 bullseye!!
They do tend to get a bit quiet after that chat though 🤣
Awesome video!
Thank you Agnetha! Happy Saturday!
I like your balanced and based opinions, as always.
Thank you so much Sebastian, much appreciated!
Sound advice...
Thank you Keith!
If the negoiations included tagging then yeah, other than that you get what they paid for
💯💯