How much should a new model charge?

[Virgo]

Heheh, actually again, you may be wrong. The bigger and better advised agencies or photographers will know these things, however the smaller agencies or photographers may not know these things. You know this because obviously you're more knowledgeable, but I'll bet that a lot of photographers or agencies are not as knowledgeable as you are. Heck, we see lots of misconceptions on legal issues surrounding photography every so often on this forum, including things like security guards and buildings, model releases and what not.

Hence it is still not entirely accurate to say that the model needs to bear the onus of this, regardless of whether the other party asks for it. If I was the model, I will not offer to have an indemnity from the parent unless the deal depends on it.

In commercial negotiations prior to contracting, each party will try to get away with as much as possible, and not to make any concessions unless it is required. This is why lawyers still have jobs advising each side during such pre-contractual negotiations.

Of course, now that this thread is here, photographers who read it will be better advised to make sure to get an indemnity from the parent in such cases . This is the beauty of a forum - to share knowledge and information, especially those which benefit is members

Yes, I agree to what you've mentioned above.

A lot (I would safely say more than 80%) of photographers here don't do a model release for TFCDs here, as firstly, they do not want to engage a solicitor to do it because of cost involved, and secondly, some may not even know they have to do it! In addition, only the knowledgeable know how to go about doing this. Most, if not all, will want to avoid the trouble, save some money, and get along with the shoot with a minor, not knowing that it MAY bring them more trouble later!

 

[randytay]

Yes, I agree to what you've mentioned above.

A lot (I would safely say more than 80%) of photographers here don't do a model release for TFCDs here, as firstly, they do not want to engage a solicitor to do it because of cost involved, and secondly, some may not even know they have to do it! In addition, only the knowledgeable know how to go about doing this. Most, if not all, will want to avoid the trouble, save some money, and get along with the shoot with a minor, not knowing that it MAY bring them more trouble later!

The way I look at it, some would even pay their way just to shoot a model... and then not cover their own a** adequately after that...duh -_-"

 

[Virgo]

The way I look at it, some would even pay their way just to shoot a model... and then not cover their own a** adequately after that...duh -_-"

Ultimate sad case...

 

[wildstallion]

Yes, I agree to what you've mentioned above.

A lot (I would safely say more than 80%) of photographers here don't do a model release for TFCDs here, as firstly, they do not want to engage a solicitor to do it because of cost involved, and secondly, some may not even know they have to do it! In addition, only the knowledgeable know how to go about doing this. Most, if not all, will want to avoid the trouble, save some money, and get along with the shoot with a minor, not knowing that it MAY bring them more trouble later!

You dont always need to engage a solicitor. Getting a model release signed is cheap and easy if you know how to do it and where the images are going. Its not a big deal.

 

[vince123123]

And to add to that, I still think that unless you need to sell images to US based companies, you don't really require a model release. The solicitors fees are more to ensure you have a legal opinion to cover your ass to do that (although I think most of them don't really know for sure - at least based on those "workshops" or "seminars" i've been to and have asked the same question), more so than actually drafting the release.

I have encountered models who charge more to sign a release, and personally for me, I choose to simply forgo it because I'm pretty sure I can handle any fallout which may happen, as there isn't really much of cause of action to begin with.

 

[randytay]

And to add to that, I still think that unless you need to sell images to US based companies, you don't really require a model release. The solicitors fees are more to ensure you have a legal opinion to cover your ass to do that (although I think most of them don't really know for sure - at least based on those "workshops" or "seminars" i've been to and have asked the same question), more so than actually drafting the release.

I have encountered models who charge more to sign a release, and personally for me, I choose to simply forgo it because I'm pretty sure I can handle any fallout which may happen, as there isn't really much of cause of action to begin with.

Erm.. no. If you sell your images period, and if the model knows what is going on, she has a right to demand for payment/royalties etc if no releases are signed. And this is not just in the US. Even in Singapore when a model completes a job, he/she has to sign a release stating that "In consideration of payment amounting to $xxx, I hereby agree to ....". If he/she is managed by an agency, a model-agency contract basically states that the agency can "decide on the model's behalf" and the release thus will be signed between said agency and photography or client.

Unfortunately, during the current rage and relative low prices of DSLR today, *anyone* can become a "photographer" and these "photographers" are paying models to do a photoshoot (kind of putting the cart in front of the horse). Since no releases are signed, these images technically cannot be used for anything, even if the models are paid. All we need is one nasty model who knows what to do and I assure you, all the vaseline in Singapore will be in high demand overnight.

Vince, I don't know about you but I do not pay models, period. Exception is that there is a paying client. If the model refuses to sign a release, I do not take their pictures. ITs about establishing your worth as a photographer rather than being thumb handled by a "model". Ever wondered why photographers in Singapore generally have lower regards than say in Europe, Japan or the US? Photographers in Singapore must first learn how to put their foot down.

Anyway, regarding paying a model, there is a difference between paying a model to do a photoshoot (which I will not do) and paying for a seminar whereby there is a model shooting session (in which case a release should have been signed between the model(s) and the organizer).

I am basically trying to share my knowledge of what a model release entails the the implication when there is a lack of one. Do a shoot without a release at your own risk.

 

[randytay]

Guys/Gals,

If you need a template for a model release, PM me with your email and I'll send one to you. Better be safe than sorry.

Doing my part as a CSer who is no longer in Sg....

 

[vince123123]

In the United States, there is specific legislation enacted which prescribes the cause of action you are talking about.

In Singapore, there is no such legislation to my knowledge. Perhaps you could shed some light by sharing where you got your source of knowledge from - perhaps say some Act, subsidiary legislation or case law. If it is solely just your personal opinion, do state so; if otherwise, do provide us with some references, or at least, even a single case where someone won such an action of use of photographs per se (without other causes of action)

The only cases I have come across where action against use of photographs succeeded was not in respect of model releases or the like, but another cause of action, such as defamation or perhaps copyright infringement (as in the Chiam See Tong and Hanis Hussey cases). There is no cause of action that I have come across where use of photographs without a model release is actionable per se.

I do think that the risk is overstated, unless of course proper authorities are cited. I understand you aretrying to share your knowledge, and so am I - I do hope that a fruitful discussion can come out of this, with references to authoritative references, rather than just our personal opinions.

Erm.. no. If you sell your images period, and if the model knows what is going on, she has a right to demand for payment/royalties etc if no releases are signed. And this is not just in the US. Even in Singapore when a model completes a job, he/she has to sign a release stating that "In consideration of payment amounting to $xxx, I hereby agree to ....". If he/she is managed by an agency, a model-agency contract basically states that the agency can "decide on the model's behalf" and the release thus will be signed between said agency and photography or client.

Unfortunately, during the current rage and relative low prices of DSLR today, *anyone* can become a "photographer" and these "photographers" are paying models to do a photoshoot (kind of putting the cart in front of the horse). Since no releases are signed, these images technically cannot be used for anything, even if the models are paid. All we need is one nasty model who knows what to do and I assure you, all the vaseline in Singapore will be in high demand overnight.

Vince, I don't know about you but I do not pay models, period. Exception is that there is a paying client. If the model refuses to sign a release, I do not take their pictures. ITs about establishing your worth as a photographer rather than being thumb handled by a "model". Ever wondered why photographers in Singapore generally have lower regards than say in Europe, Japan or the US? Photographers in Singapore must first learn how to put their foot down.

Anyway, regarding paying a model, there is a difference between paying a model to do a photoshoot (which I will not do) and paying for a seminar whereby there is a model shooting session (in which case a release should have been signed between the model(s) and the organizer).

I am basically trying to share my knowledge of what a model release entails the the implication when there is a lack of one. Do a shoot without a release at your own risk.

 

[randytay]

In the United States, there is specific legislation enacted which prescribes the cause of action you are talking about.

In Singapore, there is no such legislation to my knowledge. Perhaps you could shed some light by sharing where you got your source of knowledge from - perhaps say some Act, subsidiary legislation or case law. If it is solely just your personal opinion, do state so; if otherwise, do provide us with some references, or at least, even a single case where someone won such an action of use of photographs per se (without other causes of action)

The only cases I have come across where action against use of photographs succeeded was not in respect of model releases or the like, but another cause of action, such as defamation or perhaps copyright infringement (as in the Chiam See Tong and Hanis Hussey cases). There is no cause of action that I have come across where use of photographs without a model release is actionable per se.

I do think that the risk is overstated, unless of course proper authorities are cited. I understand you aretrying to share your knowledge, and so am I - I do hope that a fruitful discussion can come out of this, with references to authoritative references, rather than just our personal opinions.

To answer you question, you would be surprise to know that said legislation do not exist in the USA also. Like Singapore, the issue of model release is not a "legislation" per se, but arise out of a civil case should a model decide to pursue action on a photographer when the latter uses an image in his/her likeness.

E.g., you take a picture of me but I did not sign a model release. You decide to use that picture for a publicity and say you got famous as a result (or maybe made some money out of that). I would feel that you have "used" me since I was not compensated when you use the image of my likeness, and therefore can sue you for damages citing that I did not agree to have my likeness published/showcase. Since you are not able to prove otherwise, the court will rule that you have to compensate me since it is irrefutable that you have used the image of my likeness without my express consent. You lose. End of story.

In other words, contrary to what you think about an "act" made as a statute, it is a practice to prevent such civil case arising should there be any dispute and complications. Now, what would you rather do? Obtain the signature and have peace of mind or risk going to court (a civil court, not a criminal court as you implied, but a court nevertheless). Even if you can win the case, do you want to go through all those troubles?

 

[vince123123]

From your answer, it is quite clear to me that your opninons are merely personal opinions, or at best, Internet-speak research without any clear legal authority or basis.

There is specific legislation in the United States, do read up the Californian Civil Code Section 3344 onwards. I understand that similar codes are enacted in other states - but since it is not in dispute that model releases apply in US, I will not dwell on this point further.

Also, some cases were decided in the United States based upon privacy laws and torts in the United States - again I note that Singapore does not have any privacy laws.
And by the way, contrary to what was implied in your post, Statutes are not only for criminal actions - many civil causes of action arise through statute. It is not as you have said, statute for criminal actions and "any thing I can think up" in a civil action. This is not the US where someone can sue someone for anything they can dream up of - even then, they do try to fit it within a cause of action (e.g. the Macdonalds spilling hot coffee thing where it was argued based on product liability and negligence - which incidentally, failed in the UK).

And to clarify, I did not refer to criminal court in my post #48 - I am fully aware of and intended to refer to a civil claim as opposed to a criminal claim - Im not sure how you read it as a criminal action, but now am guessing it is probably because of the misconception stated in the paragraph above.

It may sound as simple as you put it, to frame a cause of action in terms of "You used my picture and didn't pay me hence I'm suing you", but if your Statement and Grounds of Claim do not disclose a cause of action which falls under established causes of action, such as breach of contract, or breach of obligations imposed by some statute, or tort (defamation, infringement etc) or the like, all I can say is that you have a big long road ahead of you with multiple hurdles to cross. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your action would probably not even reach trial and would be prematurally halted by an Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) application .

Specific to your example, I can easily argue that "The law does not require that I get your consent before selling your photograph". Hence, no consent is required. Hence I wont lose if all your action is based on, is merely your bare assertion (without reference to case law or legislation) that I must get your consent.

Of course, if it is as easy as "obtaining a signature", then sure, go ahead and get it to be safe and kiasu. However, if for whatever reason a release isn't obtained (whether due to money reasons, or practical reasons (street shooting for example) or whatever reason at all), I wouldn't sweat it either at all, simply because there is very limited legal liability involved.

To answer you question, you would be surprise to know that said legislation do not exist in the USA also. Like Singapore, the issue of model release is not a "legislation" per se, but arise out of a civil case should a model decide to pursue action on a photographer when the latter uses an image in his/her likeness.

E.g., you take a picture of me but I did not sign a model release. You decide to use that picture for a publicity and say you got famous as a result (or maybe made some money out of that). I would feel that you have "used" me since I was not compensated when you use the image of my likeness, and therefore can sue you for damages citing that I did not agree to have my likeness published/showcase. Since you are not able to prove otherwise, the court will rule that you have to compensate me since it is irrefutable that you have used the image of my likeness without my express consent. You lose. End of story.

In other words, contrary to what you think about an "act" made as a statute, it is a practice to prevent such civil case arising should there be any dispute and complications. Now, what would you rather do? Obtain the signature and have peace of mind or risk going to court (a civil court, not a criminal court as you implied, but a court nevertheless). Even if you can win the case, do you want to go through all those troubles?

 

[randytay]

From your answer, it is quite clear to me that your opninons are merely personal opinions, or at best, Internet-speak research without any clear legal authority or basis.

Nope. Based on personal experience, and they are not "opinions", its business practice as a professional.

There is specific legislation in the United States, do read up the Californian Civil Code Section 3344 onwards. I understand that similar codes are enacted in other states - but since it is not in dispute that model releases apply in US, I will not dwell on this point further.

Erm... do not confuse State laws with Federal laws. The Federal law (as a country) did not have such provision. If you are only quoting from the law of CA, then it applies specifically to the state of CA. Model release is applicable anywhere, only if you want to apply it or not. Its porbably not important to you until someone files a claim.

Also, some cases were decided in the United States based upon privacy laws and torts in the United States - again I note that Singapore does not have any privacy laws.

This is nothing about "privacy laws" or "torts, its simply "rights of usage".

And by the way, contrary to what was implied in your post, Statutes are not only for criminal actions - many civil causes of action arise through statute. It is not as you have said, statute for criminal actions and "any thing I can think up" in a civil action. This is not the US where someone can sue someone for anything they can dream up of - even then, they do try to fit it within a cause of action (e.g. the Macdonalds spilling hot coffee thing where it was argued based on product liability and negligence - which incidentally, failed in the UK).

Good point about the US being a sue happy country. But if you publish my likeness and I am not in a public place, I can sue you for usage of my likeness, even in Singapore for wrongful usage of my property, i.e. my likeness to sell a product I did not endorse (your print/skill/name/etc). You simply cannot publish anyone's picture as you please even if there were no malicious intent.

It may sound as simple as you put it, to frame a cause of action in terms of "You used my picture and didn't pay me hence I'm suing you", but if your Statement and Grounds of Claim do not disclose a cause of action which falls under established causes of action, such as breach of contract, or breach of obligations imposed by some statute, or tort (defamation, infringement etc) or the like, all I can say is that you have a big long road ahead of you with multiple hurdles to cross.

Actually, I felt that you were the one who thought things were easy and hence dispense with necessary practice. To put it simply, you are using "my likeness" without "my permission". Just because you take my pictures do not give you the right to use it in any way you please, and therefore, I will have grounds to obtain compensation. My grounds of claim is simply this: Using my likeness without my consent IS an infringement. Period.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that your action would probably not even reach trial and would be prematurally halted by an Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) application .

thanks for the quote but I would prefer that you quote in simple English. I am a professional photographer who knows my practice, not an academic who research on chapters and sections. Thats why I hire a lawyer for.

Specific to your example, I can easily argue that "The law does not require that I get your consent before selling your photograph". Hence, no consent is required. Hence I wont lose if all your action is based on, is merely your bare assertion (without reference to case law or legislation) that I must get your consent.

Just because you can argue does not mean it is legit. the law did not state something simply meant you are not breaking the law, but it does not mean that you are not infringing my rights/privacy. To use your argument: the law did not state that I cannot spit on you, so therefore I can and I would not bare any consequences if I do.

Of course, if it is as easy as "obtaining a signature", then sure, go ahead and get it to be safe and kiasu. However, if for whatever reason a release isn't obtained (whether due to money reasons, or practical reasons (street shooting for example) or whatever reason at all), I wouldn't sweat it either at all, simply because there is very limited legal liability involved.

That is because most in Singapore (and even elsewhere) do nit know that they can and should be compensated for such usage.

Your familiarity with the law implies you are either a law student or perhaps a lawyer. However, knowing provisions and legislation sometimes do not cover special situations that applies to specific profession. Particular being a photographer in singapore since most are either freelancers who otherwise have a "proper" job, or simply enthusiasts, there is no professional body to help to disseminate or govern proper practice of the trade. Law makers will also overlook since it is such a negligible percentage of the workforce but it does not mean that a model cannot make a claim if some rogue photographer decides to cash in on the model's likeness without duly compensated.

 

[wildstallion]

I think this is getting rather off topic. Maybe start a new thread guys.

 

[randytay]

I think this is getting rather off topic. Maybe start a new thread guys.

Oops.. you are right... but I am done

 

[vince123123]

Nope. Based on personal experience, and they are not "opinions", its business practice as a professional.

In that case, tell me if your practice has ever encountered a successful court judgement by someone who sued for using his photograph without consent. I doubt so. If not, then its just industry practice, which may or may not be founded in law.

For example, it is an industry practice for security guards to stop photographers from taking photographs of their buildings and it is an industry practice for them to say that management approval is required before photographs may be taken, even though we all know that they do not have a legal right to do so.

Erm... do not confuse State laws with Federal laws. The Federal law (as a country) did not have such provision. If you are only quoting from the law of CA, then it applies specifically to the state of CA. Model release is applicable anywhere, only if you want to apply it or not. Its porbably not important to you until someone files a claim.

I have not confused State law with Federal laws - read my comment again when I said that similar provisions probably exist in other states as well. You made a categorical statement that such rights are not legislated, I am pointing out to you that there is. Besides, even if there is no legislation, there is a good chance that case law exists in those other states. Note that Singapore has neither.

And since I am not contesting that such rights exist in the United States anyway - I won't dweel further on the laws in US as I do not know enough about it anyway, and it is not relevant as I intend to focus on Singapre laws anyway.

This is nothing about "privacy laws" or "torts, its simply "rights of usage".

There is no such cause of action as "rights of usage" unfortunately. Hence I doubt you can sue by asserting "right of usage".

Good point about the US being a sue happy country. But if you publish my likeness and I am not in a public place, I can sue you for usage of my likeness, even in Singapore for wrongful usage of my property, i.e. my likeness to sell a product I did not endorse (your print/skill/name/etc). You simply cannot publish anyone's picture as you please even if there were no malicious intent.

Yeap, sure you can sue, but I doubt you will succeed, simply because you have sitll not failed to show a cause of action on which you are basing your claim on for use or selling of a photograph per se. If I use your likeness to sell a product you did not endorse, yes that is a cause of action - and that was the basis of the Chaim See Tong case, where his photograph was used to promote a restaurant - in that case, the cause of action was not "model releases" or "rights of usage", but an established action called defamation - the court held as follows (extracted).

the photographic portrait suggested that Chiam consented to the use of his photograph for publicity, either for gain or to sponsor a private restaurant and that he had done so by taking advantage of his position as a Member of Parliament and also for the benefit of promoting himself as an advocate and solicitor. In view of all the circumstances, all the advertisements were defamatory of Chiam. The restaurant used the photograph to attract customers to the business of the restaurant and wrongfully appropriated Chiam’s reputation both as a Member of Parliament and an advocate and solicitor for commercial purposes.

However, I am referring to the selling or publication of photographs per se. For example, if i take a photo of you, and you did not consent, and I sold it for S$100 to some guy, or if I published it per se, without any indications or product endorsements or in a way that was defamatory - then you have no cause of action against me.

Actually, I felt that you were the one who thought things were easy and hence dispense with necessary practice. To put it simply, you are using "my likeness" without "my permission". Just because you take my pictures do not give you the right to use it in any way you please, and therefore, I will have grounds to obtain compensation. My grounds of claim is simply this: Using my likeness without my consent IS an infringement. Period.

Actually, I am not taking things easy, I spent substantial time doing legal research on this point before coming to my conclusion; and I am always open to anyone who is able to rebutt my conclusion by showing that I am wrong. With all research, there may come lapses, and if someone can show me a case authority or legal reference showing an alternative view, I'm more than happy to consider it and see if it changes things - in fact, I would welcome these input as it may help to consider things better.

You keep asserting that you will have rights to obtain compensation, but still, you are still not able to provide me with concrete references other than your bare assertion. As for "infringement" what infringement are you referring to? You can't infringe something for which there are no rights on. And infringement is not used in vacuo, typically referring to either copyright infringement or infringement of some other rights.

A cause of action is something which is founded on clear legal principles, or case law, if you dont have any, you dont have a cause of action.

Some examples of causes of action are : contract (breach of), tort (nuisance, defamation assault, false imprisonment, ip infringement, breach of confidential information etc), breach of statutory duty (these are imposed by legislation) etc. I'm sorry, but you can't just make up a cause of action when none has been established.

thanks for the quote but I would prefer that you quote in simple English. I am a professional photographer who knows my practice, not an academic who research on chapters and sections. Thats why I hire a lawyer for.

Alright, I apologise for that, I was basically stating that an application can be made to dismiss the action on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.[/quote]

Just because you can argue does not mean it is legit. the law did not state something simply meant you are not breaking the law, but it does not mean that you are not infringing my rights/privacy. To use your argument: the law did not state that I cannot spit on you, so therefore I can and I would not bare any consequences if I do.

Yeap, and just because you can state "rights of usage" does not mean that it is legit. As I have said before, the law (both legislated laws and case law) must be established for BOTH criminal and civil actions. If there is no case law or legislated provisions, you will have serious obstacles trying to create a new cause of action.

As for your spitting example, actually there is a legislation which will covers that; see the following:

Force.

349. A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling:

Criminal force.
350. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

That is because most in Singapore (and even elsewhere) do nit know that they can and should be compensated for such usage.

Actually, I think a lot of people in Singapore think they can be compensated by such usage, when it may or may not be true. I would reckon that the majority of photographers and poeple in the industry think that there is such compensation available when the legal strength of such a case is actually quite in doubt.

Your familiarity with the law implies you are either a law student or perhaps a lawyer. However, knowing provisions and legislation sometimes do not cover special situations that applies to specific profession. Particular being a photographer in singapore since most are either freelancers who otherwise have a "proper" job, or simply enthusiasts, there is no professional body to help to disseminate or govern proper practice of the trade. Law makers will also overlook since it is such a negligible percentage of the workforce but it does not mean that a model cannot make a claim if some rogue photographer decides to cash in on the model's likeness without duly compensated.

New causes of action are typically created based on analogy with existing causes of action. However, right now, I can't even think of any analogous causes of action which an action for the act of selling a photograph of a person without his consent, can be based on.

I'm not saying that the model cannot make a claim - anyone can make a claim by filing an action in court; I am just saying that he/she will have a big legal battle ahead of him/her especially if he/she wants to win. And there are special lawyers and laws for certain fields of industry, it is not as 'general' as you may think it is.

 

[chngpe01]

In that case, tell me if your practice has ever encountered a successful court judgement by someone who sued for using his photograph without consent. I doubt so. If not, then its just industry practice, which may or may not be founded in law.

For example, it is an industry practice for security guards to stop photographers from taking photographs of their buildings and it is an industry practice for them to say that management approval is required before photographs may be taken, even though we all know that they do not have a legal right to do so.



I have not confused State law with Federal laws - read my comment again when I said that similar provisions probably exist in other states as well. You made a categorical statement that such rights are not legislated, I am pointing out to you that there is. Besides, even if there is no legislation, there is a good chance that case law exists in those other states. Note that Singapore has neither.

And since I am not contesting that such rights exist in the United States anyway - I won't dweel further on the laws in US as I do not know enough about it anyway, and it is not relevant as I intend to focus on Singapre laws anyway.



There is no such cause of action as "rights of usage" unfortunately. Hence I doubt you can sue by asserting "right of usage".



Yeap, sure you can sue, but I doubt you will succeed, simply because you have sitll not failed to show a cause of action on which you are basing your claim on for use or selling of a photograph per se. If I use your likeness to sell a product you did not endorse, yes that is a cause of action - and that was the basis of the Chaim See Tong case, where his photograph was used to promote a restaurant - in that case, the cause of action was not "model releases" or "rights of usage", but an established action called defamation - the court held as follows (extracted).



However, I am referring to the selling or publication of photographs per se. For example, if i take a photo of you, and you did not consent, and I sold it for S$100 to some guy, or if I published it per se, without any indications or product endorsements or in a way that was defamatory - then you have no cause of action against me.



Actually, I am not taking things easy, I spent substantial time doing legal research on this point before coming to my conclusion; and I am always open to anyone who is able to rebutt my conclusion by showing that I am wrong. With all research, there may come lapses, and if someone can show me a case authority or legal reference showing an alternative view, I'm more than happy to consider it and see if it changes things - in fact, I would welcome these input as it may help to consider things better.

You keep asserting that you will have rights to obtain compensation, but still, you are still not able to provide me with concrete references other than your bare assertion. As for "infringement" what infringement are you referring to? You can't infringe something for which there are no rights on. And infringement is not used in vacuo, typically referring to either copyright infringement or infringement of some other rights.

A cause of action is something which is founded on clear legal principles, or case law, if you dont have any, you dont have a cause of action.

Some examples of causes of action are : contract (breach of), tort (nuisance, defamation assault, false imprisonment, ip infringement, breach of confidential information etc), breach of statutory duty (these are imposed by legislation) etc. I'm sorry, but you can't just make up a cause of action when none has been established.



Alright, I apologise for that, I was basically stating that an application can be made to dismiss the action on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.



Yeap, and just because you can state "rights of usage" does not mean that it is legit. As I have said before, the law (both legislated laws and case law) must be established for BOTH criminal and civil actions. If there is no case law or legislated provisions, you will have serious obstacles trying to create a new cause of action.

As for your spitting example, actually there is a legislation which will covers that; see the following:





Actually, I think a lot of people in Singapore think they can be compensated by such usage, when it may or may not be true. I would reckon that the majority of photographers and poeple in the industry think that there is such compensation available when the legal strength of such a case is actually quite in doubt.



New causes of action are typically created based on analogy with existing causes of action. However, right now, I can't even think of any analogous causes of action which an action for the act of selling a photograph of a person without his consent, can be based on.

I'm not saying that the model cannot make a claim - anyone can make a claim by filing an action in court; I am just saying that he/she will have a big legal battle ahead of him/her especially if he/she wants to win. And there are special lawyers and laws for certain fields of industry, it is not as 'general' as you may think it is.

Since Randy has said he is done, I would suggest to Vince stop this OT.

The topic is very simple "How much should a new model charge?" Stick to it. Warning given and infraction will be given for further OT.

Oops.. you are right... but I am done

 

[vince123123]

Alright.

Since Randy has said he is done, I would suggest to Vince stop this OT.

The topic is very simple "How much should a new model charge?" Stick to it. Warning given and infraction will be given for further OT.

 

[pixie-stix]

Alright.

thank you.
I havent said anything about it being off topic as you can see and its kind of wasting to do it on a unrelated topic.

but thanks

 

[photonick2004]

I'm a new starting out freelancing model.
I'm 14, i've had no training whatsoever.
How much would I charge per hour for a shoot if I got some training first?

Hey, you're only 14. Why is there any hurry to earn money? You can go ahead and charge $100 per hour even, but I bet after the first shoot word will get around not to hire your services again. Like everyone here, I agree that you should do TFCD first, get lots of experience before talking about money. Moreover, at 14, many people can take you for a ride. Just be careful.

Best wishes in your endeavour.