No-show rate

[Peter]

jamieedin wrote:

> Cenobitez - Wouldn't a list of photographers and producers who
> are reliable not be a better solution? If people are risk
> adverse, they could just only accept work from them.


Then you end up with either

a. Guilty by omission. You're not on the list, you must be dodgy
b. List publisher becomes open to action when one of the genuine people on the
list turns out bad. ("you said he was alright, i'm sueing you")

[jamieedin]

What part are you referring to?

[Gary]

I've had a few no shows from well known models. Excuse i was sent by the model a text saying she hadn't finished screwing the bloke the day before on a film and had to go back that day to finish filming. Never mind my expences for hiring studios and so on.

[sparky]

Fair comment about amateurs setting up a gallery.

However normally an amateur would not ask/pay for model release hence if they then published even a couple of softer pictures the model would have good reason to be unhappy and post a negative comment about the photographer.

[Stockie]

sparky wrote:

> Fair comment about amateurs setting up a gallery.
>
> However normally an amateur would not ask/pay for model release
> hence if they then published even a couple of softer pictures
> the model would have good reason to be unhappy and post a
> negative comment about the photographer.
>
>

Never understood why people on forums regularly talk about 'model release' because if the photographer owns copyright then a model has nothing at all to actually release.

[Emily Cartwright]

jamieedin wrote:

> Cenobitez - Wouldn't a list of photographers and producers who
> are reliable not be a better solution? If people are risk
> adverse, they could just only accept work from them.

The trouble with this or the other option of a 'no-show' list is that it's completely open to abuse.

It has to be a more organic thing to work properly, just people sharing information as and when.

That's the thing with reputations, they're hard to build and very fragile. For every photographer claiming that a model no-showed, there's a model claiming that a photographer was a perv. I don't know what percentage of these claims are true, but I do know it's not 100%. I've several times been victim of someone trying to damage my rep, once on another forum where a photographer touched me during a shoot and then posted a bad ref about me so if I told anyone I'd look like a liar, and I've occasionally had abuse from people I've never met, your typical random internet stalkers, who I guarantee would make a false claim of no-show or worse against me if there was such a resource available.

Thing is that my reputation is very good, I've never no-showed, I'm totally professional and easy to work with, however that doesn't necessarily mean that I'd show up on everyone's "reliable" list because not everyone knows me and not everyone has worked with me. Does that mean that someone shouldn't consider working with me? Similarly, I don't think that everyone on such a list would necessarily be 100% reliable. I know of a couple of models who show up and do a brilliant job on 80% of their shoots, but the remaining 20% they either phone in sick or just don't turn up. One photographer will say "she's excellent, book her" and another will say "complete waste of time, don't go near her" So there's definitely more to it than a model does or doesn't turn up.

[paul jones]

No model should complain about tasteful clothed glamour.

Portfolios don't have to be hard, or even nude - they just need to show that you are a genuine photographer.

That said:-

Model release

You don't need a Model Release to publish pics - you can do it because you own the copyright and the model has no say UNLESS you have signed a document saying you won't publish.

Any dispute would be civil, not crimminal, so it just ain't gonna happen...

I always tell models not to do any work that they wouldn't want to see published, but if they do, they need to get the photographer to sign that it won't be published, and if it is, that they (the model) will get all the money paid...

The reason that publishers want them is simply to avoid aggro. But if there is money in it, they'll pay up. Papparazzi don't get model releases....

[jamieedin]

I've been thinking about all these replies and it does appear that it's just going to be a problem to plague the industry. It's a shame because there are photographers/models who can't get the work far less not turn up.

I forget who mentioned they have a site that has positive comments on photographers/producers but perhaps they could extend that by having some sort of track record - much like the ebay rating system where you will get a few moaners but you'll also build up a record that shows you to be 95% reliable or otherwise.

[jamieedin]

From a thread last year, I thought the conclusion was that 'model release' were pretty much pointless?

[ptolomy]

Totally agree with Paul, copyright will always remain with the photographer and therefore release forms are useless as it would be argued that the intellectual copyright lies with the photographer alone.
A colleague of mine has just taken on and won a civil case against a rather famous sports company who shall we say "borrowed" his work for one of their websites, their arguement ( as what i would expect would be argued by a model ) was that because their product ( replace with model) was featured the copyright of the photo belonged to them. Fortunatly the law does not see it that way.
P