Allen Coefield wrote:
I can understand models approaching photographers for TFP....it is free and no one wants to pay....however...what is up with the following?
1.  Models who act insulted when photographers respond back to a request for a TFP with a refusal to do images without cash payment.
2.  Models who assume that they can require photographers to "give" the model copyrights on images shot of the models simply because the model requests them.

   Models dont seem to understand something...they are on the bottom of the food chain...clients come first because they sign the checks to us all....secondly are photographers because clients come to us for our shootin skills, experiences and last but typically least...models are chosen according to their look for assignments.  Models do not have the freedom in the real world to determine the factors by which they are hired in commercial work......clients call the shots..whether that client is the photographer or not.
      I am sure some photographers do like to give copyrights....not sure why...but do.....and anything can be agreed to in a shoot contract....but that is not my point...My point is......"who told models they have the right to expect copyrights on TFP, paying or anyother types of shoots?
Allen

Ah, but this is the iWay (funny joke behind that one...I'll explain some other time).  On the internet models call all the shots...for instance emailing me requesting I review their portfolio and then when I respond asking if they're looking for testing or for portfolio critique, the model responding that her rates are reasonable...hrm...when I want a hooker I'll let you know.......

BUT! in the spirit of POSITIVE WEEK here on ModelMayhem!  I POSITIVELY AGREE WITH YOU!



Anyway...good luck

raveneyes wrote:

Ah, but this is the iWay (funny joke behind that one...I'll explain some other time).  On the internet models call all the shots...for instance emailing me requesting I review their portfolio and then when I respond asking if they're looking for testing or for portfolio critique, the model responding that her rates are reasonable...hrm...when I want a hooker I'll let you know.......

BUT! in the spirit of POSITIVE WEEK here on ModelMayhem!  I POSITIVELY AGREE WITH YOU!



Anyway...good luck

Hahaha that's funny. I agree with you too but couldnt help myself not to laugh about the hooker part

Allen Coefield wrote:
Models dont seem to understand something...they are on the bottom of the food chain...clients come first because they sign the checks to us all....secondly are photographers because clients come to us for our shootin skills, experiences and last but typically least...models are chosen according to their look for assignments.  llamas do not have the freedom in the real world to determine the factors by which they are hired in commercial work......clients call the shots..whether that client is the photographer or not.

It is interesting, I happen to agree on the copyright issue.  Most llamas don't udnerstand it, but I chuckle a bit on the food chain issue.

I find in the real world, it is often the photographer, not the llama who is at the bottom of the food chain.  But then just as often, that changes.

I can think of many cases where photographers were hired long after the art director had built the set and cast the llamas and did little more than set up the lights and point the camera.

Obviously with the super llamas, the advertisers will fight to see who gets Elle McPherson next.  But even will lesser, but well known llamas, they are often picked for the project long before the photographer comes into the picture.  They are often picked because they are up and coming and sometimes will have a fair amount of clout because of their rising status.

But then in other cases, the photographer is the producer and/or the photographer is commissioned to just get the talent and deliver the project.  Photographers are also often commissioned early in a project, and while they may not be doing the casting, they are often permitted to participate in the decision.

It is not often that the llama becomes the producer, unless she owns a clothing like like Brooke Shields.

So the bottom line is that, while the photographer will often have more clout than the llama, they are often an after thought as well.  In all cases, the top of the food chain is the money and everyone else is just looking for a piece.

Allen Coefield wrote:
Models dont seem to understand something...they are on the bottom of the food chain...clients come first because they sign the checks to us all....secondly are photographers because clients come to us for our shootin skills, experiences and last but typically least...models are chosen according to their look for assignments.  Models do not have the freedom in the real world to determine the factors by which they are hired in commercial work......clients call the shots..whether that client is the photographer or not.

Allen

Geez Allen, in the last couple of weeks models have been called "wa_m pr_ps" and now you refer to therm as the "bottom of the food chain." They're gonna think we are picking on them... but in truth we are not but we're only stating the reality of the thing... sooooo

So I may as well jump in here and also point out that the models are, in 99.9% of the cases, aptly described as the "invisible / anonymous people" in both the fashion and advertising business's scheme of things.

In [print] publishing and TV advertising [as discussed on the advertising industry websites and in their printed trades] it is extremely common to see photographs / video - and that IS the paying work for 99% of ordinary non-contracted models - where the photographer gets a by-line; the hair stylist get a by-line; the MUA gets a by-line; the fashion designer gets a by-line; but, it is also extremely common that the model's name is nowhere in sight.

I did a rather non-scientific survey a while back of a number of popular magazines on the racks and low and behold unless the person pictured was hired for their NAME specifically [usualy one of the very few "super-models" but mostly it's well known actors and TV personalities] the ordinary run-of-the-mill working model was just invisible and / or anonymous.

Models in some parts of the business have such a short shelf life when compared to all the support peeps, not to mention that, unlike the others, they can not assert, so called, "moral rights" in their images, that they don't seem to even rate honourable mention.

Get a big pile of mags-n-rags and try it yourself and see if you don't agree.

Studio36

bencook2 wrote:
Give copyright or share copyright?

Give?  Who would give away copyrights?

Share?  I have shared copyright.  Hell we all do that when we give permision for the model to reproduce the images for their portfolio.

You do not need to 'share' the copyright of an image to give the model permission to print it.

Allen Coefield wrote:
Models dont seem to understand something...they are on the bottom of the food chain...

Without the model Mr Chauvanist pig, you wouldnt even have a shot to get paid by the client.....

So I dont think that is true about bottom of the food chain...

And I think a model can choose who she works with and who she doesnt... I know I can.....paid or not, corporate or not.

There is such a thing as equality and the fact that a model is NO LESS valuable that the photographer ... without EITHER there would be NO IMAGE

Allen Coefield wrote:
I can understand models approaching photographers for TFP....it is free and no one wants to pay....however...what is up with the following?
1.  Models who act insulted when photographers respond back to a request for a TFP with a refusal to do images without cash payment.
2.  Models who assume that they can require photographers to "give" the model copyrights on images shot of the models simply because the model requests them.

   Models dont seem to understand something...they are on the bottom of the food chain...clients come first because they sign the checks to us all....secondly are photographers because clients come to us for our shootin skills, experiences and last but typically least...models are chosen according to their look for assignments.  Models do not have the freedom in the real world to determine the factors by which they are hired in commercial work......clients call the shots..whether that client is the photographer or not.
      I am sure some photographers do like to give copyrights....not sure why...but do.....and anything can be agreed to in a shoot contract....but that is not my point...My point is......"who told models they have the right to expect copyrights on TFP, paying or anyother types of shoots?
Allen

I think it's a basic misunderstanding of copyright law.

The creator of the image, the photographer, owns the copyright to the image from the moment the shutter is snapped. In order for there to be any different application of the copyright, there has to be a written transfer of copyright.

This is also true for those photographers that work with clients that require "buy-outs" or complete ownership of the images. The photographer signs a contract that releases those images and transfers the copyright to the client. In many cases, there is an ample amount of money that is exchanged for this to happen.

In the case of models that want to "share" a copyright, there will have to be a written transfer of copyright to the model. I don't recommend this for any professional photographer.

I was a senior photo editor for a group of about 50 photographers at a major stock agency a few years ago, and I would get the question of "what do I do when models ask to share in my royalties for an image?" The answer to that is - don't do anything. Models get paid for a shoot, or receive images for the shoot, and that is the end of their interest in the profit margin of your business.

My advice to photographers who are serious professionals is to require a model release from any model that they shoot, whether paid or trade-out. For any shoot where you are the client, give the model written permission to use the images for her online and print portfolios, self-promotion, etc. This is very helpful for the models in building their books and promoting themselves. The pemission form should also state that the model cannot sell the images, transfer them to a third party for sale, or manipulate/distort the images in any way.

I'm not sure where the whole idea started that models can "share" a copyright, but it's not good business and not on solid legal ground, IMO.  I would advise any serious model to pick up a copy of the "ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography" to see what this business is really about.

I have to respectfully disagree that models are "on the botom of the food chain" however - each member of the creative team is equally important in terms of producing quality imagery. The model can make or break the shoot, as I've personally witnessed many times.

It is quite a thing to see when an art director fires a model on the spot for showing up to a shoot with a boyfriend in tow. Or a producer firing a model from a respected agency who refuses to sign a model release because she might be "up for the Revlon contract". Methinks not...

Sophia wrote:
Without the model Mr Chauvanist pig, you wouldnt even have a shot to get paid by the client.....

So I dont think that is true about bottom of the food chain...

And I think a model can choose who she works with and who she doesnt... I know I can.....paid or not, corporate or not.

There is such a thing as equality and the fact that a model is NO LESS valuable that the photographer ... without EITHER there would be NO IMAGE

However, next time I tread in any dog $hit on the sidewalk, I will let you lick it off the bottom of my shoe.

I want to know WHAT EXACTLY makes him a Chauvinist (yes my spelling is correct, yours is not)?  The scenario would be exactly the same male or female photographer.

I think perhaps you should become a photographer...well let's just say you'd have a better perspective

raveneyes wrote:
I want to know WHAT EXACTLY makes him a Chauvinist (yes my spelling is correct, yours is not)?  The scenario would be exactly the same male or female photographer.

I think perhaps you should become a photographer.  You'd look better on this side of the lens.

I think what the OP said could have been a little less provocative (ie. "bottom of the food chain"), but after seeing post after post from Sophia attacking men and photographers, I have to ask: "What's your damage, Sophia??!!"

If she has such a dim view of photographers, maybe she should find another hobby. I like to say that I've never shot with an unpleasant model before. Just reading her posts would scare me away from booking her.

Sophia wrote:
There is such a thing as equality and the fact that a model is NO LESS valuable that the photographer ... without EITHER there would be NO IMAGE

You miss the point here Sophia. You are not the ONLY model; or even only one of a FEW models looking for work. Start making too many "demands" and the job will go to one of the 1,000,001 other models who don't / won't. If there is one sure thing in this world it is that there are already too many hungry models out there to have to put up with divas and drama queens. Models are as interchangable as the cans in a six pack.

VeeStudio wrote:
It is quite a thing to see when an art director fires a model on the spot for showing up to a shoot with a boyfriend in tow. Or a producer firing a model from a respected agency who refuses to sign a model release because she might be "up for the Revlon contract".

And the tears flow like rivers. Too friggen bad! I have never worked with a model that couldn't be replaced, within hours at the most, by another identical model; or a client who wouldn't do it if a model became "difficult". We have enough to concern us on production work that we don't ever have to do "difficult"... and won't do it.

Had one in some time back that showed up with a guy [live in boyfriend] - and the guy started making the demands. They hadn't even left the studio when the fax went to the agent describing them as having "one pair of tits; two big mouths; and no brains between them" and inviting the agency NEVER to send them back.

An hour or two later, AIUI, she [they?] no longer even had an agent. Don't call us we'll call you.

Studio36

Sophia wrote:
Without the model Mr Chauvanist pig, you wouldnt even have a shot to get paid by the client.....

Yeah, that was a bit harsh about bottom of the food chain - LOL!

But as a photographer, I have done thousands of shoots for clients without any models at all.
It's called product photography 

A model can't do a shoot without a photographer.

Just a thought.


Bill    < ----- Ducks high heels thrown at him.

Sophia wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Models are as interchangable as the cans in a six pack.


Studio36

As are photographers too

(And I certainly dont think Im the only model around and have never given reason for you to say that? It seems a minority of the photographers here who think they are some sort of god and superior to mere models... I DONT.. I see all people as equals)



I doubt VERY much a female photographer would use such chauvinistic and derogatory words...as "Bottom of the food chain"

As I said Models and photographers ARE equal, neither are NO lesser...WITHOUT EITHER there would be NO image.

Start viewing models as people who do a JOB and not as pieces of meat..

People may not like how I speak, but I couldnt give a damn and NO, I dont have ANY respect for the ones who speak like it either. (and before you say it, I couldnt give a hoot if they dont respect me, I wouldnt expect it from such ones who view models as lower than them.

Sophia,
I beg to differ with you.
To be a model, A good model, you need to look good, you need to pose, you need to take direction well etc.....
to be a good photographer, there are a ton more skills that must be acquired, not to mention equipment and space etc...
Also, Photogs, have to find the clients to get the money to pay the models.

Consider it like a management chain in a company.
the Owners (CEO, COO etc.....) have the Budgets.
They hire a manager to oversee and accomplish a task (on a continuous basis)
The Manager hires employees to do the Task.

For the Most part, The Owners are the money bags. How they got it is academic. they got it, and everyone else wants it.

Management is a position that usually requires either a ton of knowledge, a ton of skill or a ton of education.

Employee is usually a limited skill set, little to no education, little to no experience.

This is not always the case, Especially in my industry (Computers)
However, It is close to standard.

By your logic, That employee is equal to the manager and or the money bags?
Not by a long shot.
That employee gets his salary (and / or commission and / or bonus) and benefits, and that is it.
If the Company is a good Company, the manager (Senior Manager, in companies with multiple manager levels, middle and lower management does not apply) Gets Salary, bonus, and sometimes a percentage of the Company via stock options.

If an Employee refuses to work for a company because they are not given equal benefits with the manager, The company could care less, they will find someone that will work as an employee only.

It is the same in this industry.
The Ad Company is the Deep Pockets.
The Photog is the manager
and the Model is the employee
(for Comparison purposes only)

When a Model thinks she is an equal to a photographer, then in my opinion, she is overstepping her place.

NOW, having said all that.
This is MM, and not the photography industry.
on MM you can pick and choose, and so can the Photog.
So, if you want to work with only photogs that give copyright etc... that is of course your choice. (I give joint rights because I am not a professional photographer)
I think you will find however that there are far and few photogs that will do this for you......

As for needing the Model to make an image..... Not anymore. We got Poser.
And so far, no one has been able to correctly identify the poser models from the real people in my portfolio......

bencook2 wrote:
Give copyright or share copyright?

Give?  Who would give away copyrights?

Share?  I have shared copyright.  Hell we all do that when we give permision for the model to reproduce the images for their portfolio.

No! We give models licensing agreements.

Sophia wrote:

Without the model Mr Chauvanist pig, you wouldnt even have a shot to get paid by the client.....

So I dont think that is true about bottom of the food chain...

And I think a model can choose who she works with and who she doesnt... I know I can.....paid or not, corporate or not.

There is such a thing as equality and the fact that a model is NO LESS valuable that the photographer ... without EITHER there would be NO IMAGE

However, next time I tread in any dog $hit on the sidewalk, I will let you lick it off the bottom of my shoe.

As said above, a model can be replaced (by the photographer and/or client). So can the photographer. But since 2 different levels can replace a model and only 1 level can replace a photographer, the model is "on the bottom of the food chain". The OP used the phrase to describe the pecking order of the system, not to degrade models.

luciano  Mello wrote:
Model's don't have any rights over the Copurights of the photo there is only one owner and it's the photographer.  However models have the right for their Image and once she is on the shot, she has this right and she doesnt need any release to prove, she is on the photo. The true is common sense. Photographers need to have a model release from the models if they plan to seel the pivtures. There is no stock image or smart company or advertising agency will use a photo with out the model release.
We photographers, we have the right to use for our promotion without ask the model or need the model release and the model has the same right, so if I send some photos of my portfolio to French Photo I don't need the model Release as long they are publishing as my promotion. However I know they normaly ask anyway.

No! No! NO! A model, intrinsically does not have the right to do what they want with their images. It must be granted (via a usage license or other written permission) by the copyright holder (usually the photographer). You can't pull laws and rules out of a butt and think they're right.

Bill Tracy wrote:
I had a model actually tell me that she doesn't want me to be able to sell the images - and she was being paid - not a TFP shoot - LOL!

See Paul, See Paul roll on the floor laughing. Ya gotta be kiddin..geezeus!

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
Well....I don't ask for copyright as a model, but as a photographer, I always give a models a release to print the photos for their portfolio, website, online submissions and mail submissions in return for TFP.

I handle it the same way you do - it's not about "sharing" copyright on any level or granting copyright to the model, it's about releasing your copyright restrictions on certain images to only a certain party in only certain situations.

At the start of any shoot I have the model fill out a model release form and I either photocopy or photograph his/her government-issued ID, preferably with him/her holding it up for the camera.  At the end of the shoot, assuming it's a TFP shoot or I've been paid and a certain level of rights were negotiated, I'll fill out and give the model a copyright release form that states they're allowed non-commercial self-promotional usage of the resulting images for a specified period of time with NO ability to sell the images in any fashion or transfer usage rights to any other party.

I have a corporate client whose standard contract with me states that they'll own all rights to any images resulting from a shoot that they commission - total rights buyout, and it's a clause they added within the last 6 months.  As a result, shoots I do for them now cost them twice as much as they did before that clause was added.  Similarly, if a model wanted to own commercial rights to images we shot together, there'd be a hefty (but reasonable) fee attached...it's just how it works.

Sophia wrote:
Any employee is an equal...

Then why does the CEO live in a luxurious mansion while the salesman lives in a 2 room flat? Because they're equal?

Can the salesman fire the CEO and hire a better one?

There is a pecking order to different jobs.
One order is:
                                     Client (BigName Pefume Company)
                                                       hires
                                          Billy Bob Nikon (photographer)
                                                       hires
                                             Betty Beautiful  (model)

Now, sometimes, a client does want a specific model and the photographer must use her/him, but in the case above, the model is on the bottom of the food chain. The model cannot hire/fire anyone above, the photographer can hire/fire the model, but be fired by the Client and the Client can hire/fire either the photographer, the model or both.

Sophia wrote:
Any employee is an equal...

Equal as human beings, yes.  Professional equals in the business of photography?  Not at all.

In business, everyone's got someone who's higher up the ladder than they are, who calls the shots for them.  In commercial photography that's especially true.  As the photographer, I answer to my client's art director, who in turn answers their creative director, who in turn answers to their end client, who has their own boss.  On-set or in the studio, the models, stylists, assistants all answer to me, the photographer.  To be frank, those people may be collaborators and creative equals, but they're lower down the ladder and as such aren't business equals in that moment.  In very few cases are any of those people going to be able to have me removed from a job, regardless of how inappopriate my actions might be, unless the art director or end client wants me gone.  On the other hand, I can have any of those people kicked from a project without any explanation and can probably have them replaced with a few phone calls and a couple hours of delay.  That's simply business, and there's no such thing as equality in business.  Business exists on a hierarchy, where people have authority over other people, and where the higher up that pyramid you exist the more value you're thought to provide.  In this business, photographers are perceived to be higher up that pyramid than models by a pretty fair bit.

Unless, as a model, you've risen to such a prominence that you're the next Kate Moss or Naomi Campbell the photographer is your boss and you're his/her employee.  You're there to serve his/her vision, just like the stylists and assistants and everyone else who pitches into the process.

This has nothing to do with how I think people should treat other people, and I do think that some of the comments above out what models are worth were pretty rude.  I do believe that all people are created equal.  I don't, however, kid myself that models and photographers are treated as equals in the industry.

BLoPhoto wrote:
It amazes me how people feel it necessary to denegrate one another to prove a point. Some the attitudes of both photographer and model are comical at best.
The challenge is always to stay on task. I agree that if a photographer decides to sign away the copyright to a model (or anyone for that matter without a substantial pay-out),  is an unwise decsion. But the photographer has that option. It does not mean the model is less than, it is simply the law. I think it is quite simple for model and photographer-"don't like it, don't agree to it-whatever the parameters maybe. But the name calling and disrespect-is it necessary?

I don't see (maybe I missed it) the degenration. The OP used the phrase "bottom of the food chain" to describe the pecking order of a typical client inititated shoot. It was not equating a model with a piece of meat.

As far as the copyright issue, models do not own copyrights, they get usage releases. A lot of "internet models" are getting bad advice from "internet lawyers" and are demanding copyrights. That doesn't work like that in the real world.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
So, I typically only ask to be able to use the photos for my portfolio and online web presence. Even use for compcards. I don't think I need more than that. And I don't understand why any model would want more.

So, the question here is, what difference would having full copyright allow the model versus sharing the copyright or having a limited for use ?  Is it to make sure the photographer can't use them?  Or that they don't have to put the photographer's name as a credit?

I don't understand why this is an issue.

For myself, I have no problem giving unrevocable usage rights to the models. I would also add that if the model should sell the image (for use as a poster or something similar), that I would get a percentage of the sales and a credit. And I would do the same, if I sold images.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
So, I typically only ask to be able to use the photos for my portfolio and online web presence. Even use for compcards. I don't think I need more than that. And I don't understand why any model would want more.

So, the question here is, what difference would having full copyright allow the model versus sharing the copyright or having a limited for use ?  Is it to make sure the photographer can't use them?  Or that they don't have to put the photographer's name as a credit?

I don't understand why this is an issue.

Phew, we get to talk about the issue.  To some degree, if you grant full rights to a model, including the right for the model to relicense the issue (meaning that the model has the right to authorize a third party to publish an image commercially) there is not a lot of difference between sharing the copyright and the model being given full rights.

The problem with shared copyright (and granting full rights) is that it allows the model to do things with the image that the original owner woudl have no knowledge or control over.  A lot of photographers are sensitive to loss of control of the image.

More importantly, by sharing copyright, you are sharing ownership which complicates things in terms of who benefits from future sales and how does the photographer guarantee credit as the photographer.

Generally speaking, a better solution is to license the image for specific use by a model.  Even if that use is broad.

For example, if you were doing a trade with a model where you were going to allow her to use the images on her paysite, a license could permit that use but require that the image carry the photographer's copyright notice on it (to protect him from future redistribution).

If you wanted to allow the model to be able to resell the image for commercial purposes, the license could grant her the right to remarket the image, however, it could require the photographer to issue the license (including language that says the right to re-sell would not be unreasonably witheld).

In those cases, the photographer still protects his copyright, protects his credit and can be sure that sub-licenses that are issued are sufficiently narrow for their purpose.

So the bottom line, is if you share copyright, you get into complicated issues in terms of ownership, royalty and licensing.  If, on the other hand, a photographer grants a properly written license which clearly enumerates the rights of the model and the procedures for executing those rights, it is a lot less complicated and provides protections for both parties.

Sophia wrote:
Any employee is an equal...

Example:

A director or CEO takes  responsibility... a Salesman sells, without the salesman the company would not sell any product......Being a sales man doesnt make him "bottom of the food chain"... they are all part of a big TEAM and thats how a model / photographer should view eachother A TEAM that work together to produce an overall JOINT result.

BTW, in the UK, most commercial companies I have worked with choose the model they want for the job via an agency, then the commercial company instruct *a photographer to do the shoot..... (Sometimes this is done by an advertising agency too), but never once has the photographer been the one to choose the model in  situation I have encountered or friends of mine who model to have encountered. The only time that happens is when a photographer wants to do a shoot with a certain model (Him usually wanting TFP)

And the fact that a photographer invests in equipment, does not mean he is more important either, so cut that bs out too

As for the copyright issue, Im not even talking about that... Im talking about the overall attitude of a minority of photographers here who think models are lower than them...To those I say stop your delusion of grandeur and remove your heads from your a$$es

When there is a paying client involved, the client rules. Photographers and models are replacable as far as the client is concerned. the only thing a client is concerned about is the result. The photographer and model does have only 2 choices, work with the client or not. The only power the photographer has is what the client LETS him/her have - e.g. the client ALLOWS the photographer to choose the model. The client could very well tell the photographer to work with a specific model who could very well be the mistress. Point being, the client hires the photographer and model to achieve his/her vision and then the photographer and model becomes part of the team to achieve that vision.

The corporate analogy is a good one - all are part of a team devoted to achieving the goals of the employer/client. All members of the team follows the rules/requirements of the employer/client to achieve the goals/vision.

The photographer and model may be given a lot of creative control by the client or the client has very specific ideas of what is wanted and the photographer and model are just there to fulfill the requirements. As in the corporate world, if the employee/photograhper/model does not agree with the employer/client, they do not have to work together, the employer/client will just find a model/photographer  that will. If we want to get paid by the client/employer, we play by their rules.

Which is why I LOVE TFP! TFP is strictly the collaboration between the photographer and the model. No middleman involved, no money, just creative collaboration, pure and simple. The model and photographer are equal partners. It is a team effort where both help each other achieve what each want. What I love is the creative synergy when both the photographer and model work together to achieve a vision. I want input and ideas from the models I work with. I love the creativity some models bring to a shoot. Some of my best artistic work has been due to that harmonious participation between the photographer and model. Give me a model who is creative and I will collaborate with her ALL the time. It is this synergy that makes this possible:

http://www.newnudemag.com/en/contest/46.html

Ok, maybe a bit of a shameless plug but the point being I could not achieve that exact shot without that particular model and I working together.

Jeff

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
So, I typically only ask to be able to use the photos for my portfolio and online web presence. Even use for compcards. I don't think I need more than that. And I don't understand why any model would want more.

So, the question here is, what difference would having full copyright allow the model versus sharing the copyright or having a limited for use ?  Is it to make sure the photographer can't use them?  Or that they don't have to put the photographer's name as a credit?

I don't understand why this is an issue.

This isn't an issue as far as I am concerned.

My release for photos from a shoot indicates:

Copyright ownership: Me only.

Credits: Myself and the Model(s) always

Distribution Rights: If I pay, I get exclusive distribution, if it's TFP/TFCD/TFR both the model(s) and I get exclusive distribution.

When I do a TFP/TFCD/TFR shoot, essentially I license the models to use the photos on their websites, portfolios, paysites, etc.  For paid shoots, they do not get those rights, per se, but I do usually give the models a few images for promotional purposes.  Since I have sample images up on my site, my rule is that if I make an image a sample, the model can use it for promotion. 

Distribution licensing isn't the same as copyright.  Even when I give full distribution to someone else, I retain the copyright and ask that it be displayed in all cases...