At 08:31 22/10/2009, you wrote:
>Hi.
>What's loud and clear to me here is that I think the whole concept of what
>the meetup groups might be misunderstood or maybe I have misunderstood.

No, not at all.

>Are these meet ups supposed to be commercial in nature or an opportunity for
>the two main elements in certain areas in the art of photography to come
>together?

I see it as an opportunity to give my professional experience to 
photogs and models.  I see it as an opportunity for me to learn from 
other models. (Not too many photogs can teach me anything new! But 
I'm always observant!)

As with Models, it's an opportunity to learn from the direction of a 
photog.  Not all photog's have the ability to direct, in fact some 
are down right terrible, even in the pro world.  Hence they have 
directors with them.

But, as with any film project I work on, I expect that the true 
meaning of Amateur is applied.

An Amateur is a person who does a professional job, but doesn't get paid.

In the case of this group, we aren't taking commercial photo's for 
commercial projects such as Magazine Ads or Fashion posters.

We SIMULATE that process, so we can all learn what works, what 
doesn't, what is innovative, and to even take some time to try new 
and experimental things.

I also see it as an opportunity for models to try a range of angles 
and poses that might be less flattering, but you can't know unless 
you try and see.  Being on a professional shoot, you don't have time 
to stuff around as much.

What isn't happening, for the models, anyway, is SEEING RESULTS of 
the work we do that we can explore, expose and share.

I keen a VERY detailed record of every image I have.  I will use any 
image I have to exploit my professional career.  And I'll enure that 
if an image is used, say in a newspaper, that the Photog gets the 
credit for it.

You only need ONE photo published in a rag or mag and you're on your way.

>Wouldn't it be better if this coming together remained
>non-commercial for both models and photographers. In other words it's an
>opportunity to practice on each other not to try and take each other for a
>ride.

I've said that.

Incidentally you need to be careful about the terms used in the Industry.

COMMERCIAL photography has a very specific meaning relating to a very 
specific 'genre' of photography.  It doesn't exclusively mean 
"exchanging money".  In fact rarely does one use humans in Commercial 
photography.  Well I haven't.

In any event, this is an Amateur group, and I expect a range of 
experiences from "never done this before" to "That billboard poster 
over there - that's mine"

 From both Photog and model.

>Most of this confusion can be solved with a suitably worded meetup group
>model's release.

There is, theoretically no need for a model release.  A Model release 
provides for the photog to do as he/she pleases with the images.

As the Models aren't being paid and the models aren't getting copies 
of ANY (well much of) of the work done, there is NO release.

I don't think you understand the purpose of Model Release 
agreements.  But like Actors handing our B/W 8x10's.  It's a myth 
that is enacted by the entry level of the industry and Talent Agents 
making commissions from photogs for sending them expensive photo shoots.

>Draw up a standard meetup group release which clearly says
>that neither party may use the photographs for commercial purposes and
>clearly indicate what both parties can use the photographs for.

That would be self defeating.  If an image has market potential it 
should be exploited, by the model or the photog.

However, copyright protects both parties rights, financially and morally.

See a Photog can't sell an image without paying for a right to the 
model.  I'd NEVER EVER advise or recommend a Model sign a Model 
Release where the photog has moral rights to the image without 
payment in perpetuity. EVER.

I'd also never allow a model to use an image without knowing or 
crediting the photog.  Remember, if the Photog composed the image, 
then the photog has Moral and Artistic rights in the taking of the image.

I don't know a Photog that doesn't openly let Models and Artists use 
their images as far and wide as possible.

Of course if an image is sold then the photog should receive 
something for the effort.  In the publishing and marketing world, we 
won't use an image unless we get a release from the photog, either 
saying they release the image or they have been paid and the supplier 
can do as they please.

We just can't afford to have an unexpected random photog appear from 
nowhere with a Summons to pay compensation.

So when you talk "commercial" and "non-commercial" and all the rest, 
you are demonstrating to me your experience and knowledge of the 
Professional world - very limited.

That's OK.  Now you know!


>In my little world:
>If I use a professional model who has charged me for her services, she gets
>nothing apart from the cash.

Correct, usually.  Although, is s/he was a good model, then you'd be 
wanting maximum exposure and would want that Professional Model to 
have YOUR work at the front of his/her portfolio and not someone else's.

By MISSING this perfect marketing opportunity, you are failing to 
promote yourself in an extremely competitive world.  So I ALWAYS give 
FREE licence to Models that I pay, to use any of the images for self 
promotion purposes.

I always make sure the model can contact me for copies in the future, 
access to digital versions, or to negotiate use for market 
professional purposes. You never know one of those images might suite 
the front cover of Vogue!

Actually I do know, one of my images has been used on a Magazine 
cover, and I was so flattered I didn't ask for a penny!  The COST of 
buying a cover compared to the exposure I got, I'd go the exposure it 
was far better, and it set me up professionally.

>She is required to sign a commercial model's
>release signing all rights over to me. That's what they get paid for.

Correct.

>If I use a model on a TFP basis I give her all the raw digital images I have
>taken before she leaves, on a CD.

Only happened ONCE with this group out of a dozen photogs.  Only one 
other photog has posted me a DVD.

I've not received ANY of the images taken of my TWO UNDER AGE children.

>It's quick and easy to do as I download
>everything and review the photos with her as part of the deal.

Of course.  That's part of the learning and exploring process.  I 
like to sit down with a photog and go through the images and discuss 
their success or failure too.   But then, again, I've had a lot of 
BEHIND CAMERA experience so I can offer subjective opinions.

>I offer her the chance to pick 5 or 10 for enhancement (in her own time),

I'd not ask a Photog to enhance any photos.  They have far better 
things to do,  like improve their techniques so enhancements aren't needed.

I come from an "Optical is best" era.  Photoshop is for removing 
backgrounds, not enhancing images.

>where appropriate, but this is negotiated before we start. TFP model's in my
>world are permitted to use a limited number of photographs promote
>themselves, but again how and where is included in the model's release along
>with the proviso that any and all images have to be credited to the
>photographer if seen in public. This process can be time consuming, it may
>be regarded by some as not necessary, but believe you me if you have a
>commercial business self-protection is very important.

It doesn't have to be time consuming.  As a society we put so much 
energy into law and pretend realities, we forget the common goals of 
the parties.

Releases should exploit the common goals, not list prohibitions.

As with anything, we should be focusing on what we can ACHIEVE, not 
what we don't want.  Society is nuts when it comes to laws and 
contracts these days.  It's all about what can't be done, and 
anything NOT in the contract, in the eyes of the court, is considered 
'non existent therefore it can't rule.

Easier to say what the common goals of the TFP are, and note that any 
financial gain by either party must be settled before entering into sale.