egafd.com

Claire you do know that even without model release the photographer owns copyright & can publish the pictures as & when & WHERE he wants. And if the photographer did publish it on the net then you havent got a leg to stand on if you requested to have it removed.

Stating what you just have all you will attract is guys claiming to be "photographers" just so they can get a handjob off a model!!

Good advice Honey. Claire if you do this level of work it WILL end up being circulated whatever the rules ! Simple if your not happy seeing it in the public domain -don't do it- a certain newspaper you have been in would love a scoop like that

Contact Charlie at www.purecfnm.com seen him advertising some work which would be perfect for you Claire

Ummmm.. can someone explain what the point of a model release is, if the photographer or videographer owns copyright of the material anyway?

Is it just a way for a model to earn a bit extra by offering a model release, even if you don't need one????

So what if a guy claims to be a photgrapher in order to shoot some handjobs off a model. If he turns up with a camera, pays what is agreed, and both parties fulfil their commitmment, what's the big deal?

Also the only people likely to publish any handjobs etc. are those people that would wish to make money from them. If Mr wannabee photographer, is mainly shooting handjobs for fun, the he will enjoy the time spent with the model (why wouldn't he?) and also enjoy the 'memento' of material taken privately and is less likely to want to publish them.

I know for a fact of a very well known adult website off a 'reputable' nature (not from my view point btw) that published pictures of people without their consent. I believe this issue was corrected. So, don't knock the 'guy of the street'. Some of the 'big knobs', are far more unscrupulous!

Also, if Claire is only offering such modelling unpublished, of course it's far more likely to be the bloke with an instamatic camera (do they still make them..lol) Why would a professional, who makes money from publishing material, use a model who wont allow it (for this level)? I'm sure Claire is merely trying to maximise her 'customer base' to increase bookings and thus realises, it not professionals who are likely to book for this. There's plenty of honourable ams. out there and dodgy pros. too.

Claire - i tried ringing you ealier 2day - BE CAREFUL listen to all the advice (esp from HoneyB) don't leave yourself open to all those free-loading tossers out there.
lol
TT4u2e xx

I would agree purecfnm would be perfect, except that it would published

Free loading tossers? That would imply photographers booking Claire for no fee. I'm sure that's not what Claire has in mind.

Anyway, not knocking you Top Totty, you've obviusly worked with Claire and thus in a far better position to offer advice to her.

BTW, I'm not trying to offer advice, as such, just responding the usual 'double standards' and that often occur on this board.... 'all amateurs are dodgy and all professionals are saints' etc.

forepl4yer i am only offering this type of advise to Claire as i have spoken to her on other forums about things & know what her view came accross as being when it came to photographers that are just there for a wank.

Model release forms-Models shouldnt charge for them as it protects them more than it does anyone else. Without one the photographer can & usually will, publish wherever they want anyway as they hold copyright, they do not need the models permission to publish them.

Claire, either you do it professional or you don't, you will attract loads of amateur togs looking for a wank... is that the route you want to take? It sure don't look like you do as you don't want them published...

Also as it's been said the photographer owns copyright to the right to the images... That is correct HoneyB (release or no release)

Any published work for mags (most if not all) require ID and model release, though they don't actually hold copyright unless 100% sold. I had 2 sets published and the deal was they used them 2 times only and I was free to publish elsewhere even at the same time - all that in saying they never asked for a release or ID, but I sent it as no-doubt they would have asked if I did not.