Let me get this straight about Cybernet..

[JFK]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I just read this:



When I get a model release signed by talent, I am the one paying the bill. This company wants me to pay them, sign a model release, so they can use my (or anyone else's) image for their own commercial purposes.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I pay them so they can use my image to make money.

In my world the producer pays the talent so the producer is entitled to earn money off the images.

This is kind of through the looking glass stuff. Would someone please clarify for me why this is included in the terms of purchase?

Obviously you have not been to too many shows lately. They all have similar disclaimers, eighter signs at the door, or as part of the sign up forms.

[softball]

Originally Posted by JFK

Obviously you have not been to too many shows lately. They all have similar disclaimers, eighter signs at the door, or as part of the sign up forms.

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

Thats standard even on the B2C shows these days..even the C2C show Im going to this weekend.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Thats standard even on the B2C shows these days..even the C2C show Im going to this weekend.

Maybe we should make it the standard for the business. Models pay us and we sell their pictures. I don't care if it is the standard. It sucks. I just wonder why you guys have let them get away with making money off of your images with no reward. Not even a link back at the very least.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

I dont run the shows, this is just part of the admisson to any of them. If they want to do a pictorical, for later promo, or you happen to be in a video even in the background they want to cover themselfes. So Infact admission to a show constitutes your agreement to have your image used in any promo they decide to do.

[softball]

Originally Posted by JFK

I dont run the shows, this is just part of the admisson to any of them. If they want to do a pictorical, for later promo, or you happen to be in a video even in the background they want to cover themselfes. So Infact admission to a show constitutes your agreement to have your image used in any promo they decide to do.

I understand the logic. But being in the background and being the subject of a promotional picture are two totally different things.

[Hammer]

Dude, you're talking like JFK or anyone else would actually try to make money from a picture of you or any model you brought with you. When would that happen? As far as I know, JFK's website and magazine are free and I don't know of any other commercial photographers that go to the shows. Oh, the guy from Klixxx is usually there running around but they don't make money from the show pics either.

You simply sign the release so the show promoters can use pics that are taken at the show to promote the show next year and not have to worry that if Rhetorical happens to be in one that they have to get his permission.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I understand the logic. But being in the background and being the subject of a promotional picture are two totally different things.

Are you weasling on going now?

I told you Id buy dinner you fucker!

Honestly no one takes your picture there if you tell them not to.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Honestly no one takes your picture there if you tell them not to.

No, that's not true in Rhetorical's case. I'm sure the paparazzi will be running around snapping photos right and left and using them to make lots of money.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Hammer

No, that's not true in Rhetorical's case. I'm sure the paparazzi will be running around snapping photos right and left and using them to make lots of money.

You know they made lots of money off of two old guys last year trying to look ghetto.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

No, that's not true in Rhetorical's case. I'm sure the paparazzi will be running around snapping photos right and left and using them to make lots of money.

As far as I know, JFK's website and magazine are free

There are no free websites. Come on, Hammer, you've been around. And you are deflecting the issue. It has nothing to do with me, its the principle. It could be anyone caught in a compromising situation and we are not talking about background here. Fact is they want a model release from you to use your pictures for commercial reasons. Now please tell me that is not the case.