Photographic modeling fees

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:11 pm

Lincoln Penn wrote:

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

Better not! There are very specific paperwork requirements (18 USC 2257). I'm amazed they don't go after the revenge-porn or hacked-phone bastards for not having it. The consequences are serious.

Chasing modeling fees, and chasing photography rights in general, is usually not worth the bother because there's not that much money there.

In OP's case, I think they are willfully desiring to compensate you or the railroad... seems simple enough... let them!

An exception might be that trespasser-photographer where your train is in the high school yearbook with students dangling off it. Except you have to make the money about commercial rights, not trespassing per se, for instance by having an exclusive list of photographers you work with at reasonable rates.

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 2492

Full-Monty alone wouldn't put them foul of the 2257s; they're only for explicit CONDUCT. He'd have to do more than just be nude, or even dance nude, to trigger the consequences...

KevinM · **Posted:** Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:24 pm

Robby Peartree wrote:

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?

Hi Robby,

I wouldn't read too much into the fact that the photographer was trying to find you. It's quite possible that he had an offer from a magazine or other publication to use the image, and the very first thing the publisher asked him was: "Do you have a model release from this guy (meaning you)?" That's because the publisher is just covering his butt and making sure that he won't be hearing from any lawyers after the photo is published.

I've been in the same boat. A couple of years back, I had a publisher who was interested in an image of mine in which a crewmember was more or less recognizable. Once again, the first question that publisher asked me was if I had a model release on the guy.....which I did not. I didn't know the crewmember's name, but I believed he was no longer working for the railroad depicted in the photo. There was no practical way to get a release on the guy. The publisher wanted the image badly enough that he elected to digitally remove the guy from the image. Depending on the nature of the photo under discussion, if you elect not to provide this photographer with a model release, his publisher might just do the same thing.

Again, unless there are some extenuating circumstances, it is unlikely that the photographer in this case will make enough on the image to justify giving anyone a cut. While there are certainly exceptions, in general, no one is making a killing on selling train pictures.

/Kevin