Poll: Model Release

I imagine its a case by case thing. Some will not care, some will care a lot. Saftest bet is is to ask up front.

My opinion is that if it's signed or watermarked, then it shouldn't be altered.

If the signature or watermark can be cropped out, then you can alter it but only if you 1. give credit to the photographer and 2. state that you've altered/edited it.

I get severely pissed when editors decide to get "creative" (and I use that term very loosely) and reframe, enlarge, alter, etc. something I've shot. Film editors are not cinematographers.

I also get pissed when someone other than a professional colorist tries to color correct something I've shot, but I get equally pissed if the professional colorist does it when I'm not there to supervise.

That's my work, my name is on it and that's what people think how I intended it to look. I don't want you blowing it up 30% and adding sharpening in post because "I think the shot works better as a medium instead of a wide shot" or "I think this night scene plays better if we make it as bright as this day scene" (both actual examples).

If you do that, I will pirate a copy of your movie, dub in bad, pretentious British accents, add lots of horribly done CGI effects for no reason, and slow it down 10% so it's really incredibly painful to watch, post it on the internet, and then tell people it's the director's cut and how you originally inteneted it to be.

Jessica

Been on both sides of this one. As a model I tend to work with photographers who give me the roughs to play with on my own, and to use for self-promotion or experimentation as I see fit--I wouldn't work with them if they didn't understand that I was an artist and a public figure myself, and had my own uses for images of my own face and body.

At the same time, they have their own roughs which they use to make finished pieces, and they manipulate and market them as they choose. Everyone is happy. Some of the photographers who work with me have made good money and broken into good galleries with those photos, so...*shrug*...no reason for either one of us to rock the boat.

From the artist's perspective--I always give people roughs of everything I shot, as well as the images I chose to "finish". Naturally I would much prefer that they did not alter a finished image. I do not "sign" my work, but if you ever do dick with a finished piece, I'd obviously prefer NOT to have my name on it!

I use the photos and images that I want to represent my art on my own websites or profile pages, so anyone who is interested in my work can finid them there in the form I intended. If something is published with my name on it, naturally I want it to be in a form I have at least seen, if not approved.--I've had my writing edited before, but I haven't had photos adulterated.

Overall I think Steve has the right answer--it's case by case. But in general, if you're going to want to manipulate images of yourself, you should ask your photographer for the raw data. If he gets huffy about how the only thing he "has" to give you is a print in exchange for posing for him, you don't want to work with him anyway. He's a selfish dick, and as a model you should never work with a selfish dick until you're getting paid.

--Arinn

I too have been on both sides of this issue. I have altered many pictures, usually just for fun or to make a funny avatar or myspace picture, but never have i altered a photographer's work and then tried to sell it at a convention or online or passed it off as "art" I created.

Maybe it wouldn't be bad if I did, but for me, I'd feel like I was doing something wrong taking it to that level.