Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
I agree with previous posters that it gives WAY too much control to the model. I also disagree about putting terms of payment, especially the commission over a period of time, into the model release.
Point taken. Having the model share in the financial rewards seems OK to me. It is NOT unheard of for a model or photographer to request and obtain a more reasonable amount for compensation. If I photograph a model as "Fine Art", and pay her a small amount for the model release, say $10, and later that image is the central to a national or world-wide advertising campaign involving great sums of money, it is, to me. only a matter of "good faith" to re-negotiate the contract and increase her compensation.

If a model hears nothing from you for three years from the date of the shoot, and then five years later sees their photo in a book or a gallery, how are you going to prove to them that you didn't stiff them out of three years' commission, and more to the point, how are you going to prove to a court of law that you didn't, and aren't subject to punitive damages?
Unless I've been advised incorrectly, the person bringing the suit will have the primary burden of proof. How will the model PROVE that I DID sell anything, or that I did not exhaust all reasonable means to contact her when, in fact, I will have done exactly that?

That's all-around bad mojo. Just pay them whatever you're going to pay them.
Nah! In my book that is good mojo.

The same goes with the "provide digital and analog copies for their use" bit. I have no problem with providing copies of work to models for their portfolios. I am not going to give them unlimited rights to reproduce without some degree of supervision from me - I don't want them taking my work and turning it into posters they're selling on Ebay.
I specified "Portfolio use only". There is nothing there giving them absolute free us of those images for any other purpose.