Hi All

I was recently surprized to find a railroad photoggraph with my image in it for sale. Apparently the photographer has been trying to find me. Does any group have policies on modeling fees? My thought is any money should go to the preservation effort but I wonder policies are out there?

Robby Peartree

And no apparently I do not over him a New camera.

I didn't understand your post at all.
Did someone take a photo of your and put a model into it with photoshop and he's selling it now?

>facepalm<

He means 'model' in the sense that a photographer takes pictures of 'models', like if you meet a really hot chick and she says "I am a model!". He is a subject in a photo and he is asking what fees he may be owed, and he should be owed fees since his image is now for sale. (I am assuming he is well in frame with a clear image, not some faceless blurry blob way in the back)

I don't know what is reasonable and customary so far as fees go. It would likely depend on the end use of the image. We do have photographic release forms which grant us license to use a person, child or building, etc. (aka "model") for promotional purposes. Better to be safe than sorry, especially with kids. So far, know one has asked us for payment. You could probably search on-line and maybe get a feel for fees.

This raises a couple of issues --

a) is the original poster picture in the photo that is for sale or

b) it it a photo he took and

c) how did the person selling the photo get it.

Bob H

The photo is for sale. It is for profit. I am not planning to keep the monly but give it to the group if possible. I am just curious about possible legal concerns.

For commercial use, assuming it's for profit, you would normally be compensated in some fashion in return for granting the right to use your likeness. That's the basic definition of a model license. If it's for use by outside interests, get it in writing to restrict it's usage for specific purposes. Really depends on the end use, though.

Privacy issues have been litigated at great length. However if the photograph was taken in what is defined as a public place and not primarily of a person, that person has no control over any use of the image or require modeling fees. For example, if a person is standing alongside a locomotive in a park, a photographer of that locomotive is not liable for paying modeling fees no matter how the photograph may be used.

If you go into a television studio, you will pass a sign that says "By walking through this door I give permission to use my image on television." Television studios rarely are public spaces. I worked in television and and am familiar with the problems of people being included in the pictures.

Hi Robby,

I'm not quite sure what you meant in that line below your signature, but I understand the basic question.

Generally speaking, unless models or actors are hired for the specific purposes of a photo shoot, free-lance photographers do not typically pay fees to people who appear in photos that they've randomly shot. That's certainly true for media photographers. Many pros carry model release forms and may ask their subjects to sign them, if they think they've shot something that might ultimately get published. I don't personally do that, but many pros do. They don't pay for those releases. They are just looking to ensure that the person doesn't attempt to sue them later on for a cut of whatever profit might be made.

As others have pointed out, appearing randomly in someone's published photo doesn't necessarily entitle a person to anything. The exception would be if that photo were then used for some sort of political or promotional campaign, in which case, the person could claim that the presence of their likeness implied their endorsement of the product or cause. In that case, yeah, they could probably go to court. But a railroad picture that someone might sell to one of the railfan mags? If he's lucky, the photographer might have gotten a couple of hundred bucks for it.....and most likely, a lot less. Several railfan mags don't pay anything for train pictures. Even the most prominent ones are pretty stingy. I once sold a series of 3 or 4 images to a popular mag, one of which was used for a center fold-out. I think I got a total of $180 for the whole package. I've gotten more for single calendar images on numerous occasions.

I'm going to guess and say that very few folks can truly claim that they are making a living doing nothing but taking train pictures. Most of us just plow what little we get from it back into better equipment, or that next charter ticket.

/Kevin Madore

fkrock,
Very true for incidental inclusion in public where the is no assumption of privacy. Just to reiterate, you see it all the time in newspapers, magazines and TV. So don't everybody start considering a new income stream (intended humor). If the OP was the intended primary subject and the intended use is commercial, then it gets into the murky area of copyrights and licensing. I usually keep a couple different forms of release with my camera bag just in case. However, if I don't have permission to use the someone's image as the primary subject for promotional purposes or if they want paid, I won't take or use the image. I'm cheap like that. Almost all my photography is either general in nature or under contract so the number of specific releases I've had to get I can probably count on one hand.

It would be nice to see the image in question before committing to an opinion, though.

Hopefully, it isn't a full-Monty shot.

you should find out what the purpose of the photograph is about, you could negotiate terms how the photo is used, flat fee or earned by "each sale and use"

how its used is always varied and by its value, TV/Radio broadcasters value base on market area and value use by potential viewership.

His pic may sell for 100 bucks or less or more, its use where it goes is important so its worth knowing how it sells to you.

Other -use of photography, someone could stand in the middle of a crowded street and take a pic of everythng, cars, people etc and be free to use because its a public place, impossible to get licenses from everybody.

Value of the photo is variable and relative and how its used so find that out.

Hi,

As for professional models (like in the old Sears catalogs), the company I worked for about 1984 had a competer product called IRMA for linking an IBM mainframe to either an RS232 or a BNC connection for a printer.

They hired a professional model for the photo shoot. IIRC, she was paid in the neighborhood of $150 per hour. The marketing group decided that they wanted to have the "Irma" model be on call for a four (4) trade show (Comdex IIRC) and they had a hard time justifying 40 hours times $150 per hour ($6,000).

FWIW.

Doug vV

As has been suggested here, there is usually little, if any, remuneration for being in a photo where you are not the main subject. I have often signed releases when I've been at an event where a professional photographer was working to create images for profit. No compensation given at all--in fact, I had two speaking parts, provided props, and did illustrations for a kid's video, "Itgo and the Time Trains" and got nothing in return (although I was promised residuals. . .--oh wait, I did get in the credits, although they called me "Dave Dewey")--it was something of a success, as I bought my copy of the video at Wal-mart!
Considering all that, you might be able to convince the photographer to make a on-time donation to the organization, but don't expect it to be even in the low three figures.
Just my opinion, and What do I know??

Hi All,

Please remember the photographer was trying to find me. The idea of a a photograph in public is not new to me. At GCR I was asked many times about taking a photo of me and I always obliged. GCR did model releases for promotional photos on most of their employees. This is,the first time I have been searched for by and asked by the photographer for permission to use the image. I think any money should go to a responsible party in the project. This just raised the question for me of how do others deal with it?

On the coment about owing him a camera it was,mentioned as a joke about my ugly mug breaking the camera.

Robby Peartree