MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ethics and other Licensing Problems  (Read 6091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 22, 2015, 16:10 »
0
 
------
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 10:59 by SLP_London »


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2015, 16:17 »
+5
Problem number 1 doesn't exist IMO. If your models don't like how their image is used they shouldn't model for stock. It would be something if buyers had to remove all images because the model doesn't like how it's used. And I am not talking about  defamatory use.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2015, 16:28 »
+1
Problem number 1 doesn't exist IMO. If your models don't like how their image is used they shouldn't model for stock. It would be something if buyers had to remove all images because the model doesn't like how it's used. And I am not talking about  defamatory use.
As there was such a very clear disclaimer, I agree, there almost certainly isn't an issue. Presumably you went over all this with your models before the shoot.

NB, I don't use models. I've never met anyone who's happy with the perfectly legitimate uses of stock images I've explained, far less borderline uses.

Issue 2 is an ethical issue for sure. It's probably an allowable use of a stock image, I've seen this usage and it's been mentioned on msg before. I don't know enough about German law, so maybe someone else can advise. I have seen websites with a similar disclaimer to yours above, in very small print that 'images are for illustration only".
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 16:32 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2015, 16:32 »
+1
I'm sure other photographers can't promote your work as their own though, vis a vis point #2.

« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2015, 17:09 »
0
Nothing wrong with a photographer using your photo as long as they do not state or imply that it is their work.  Only the same as a roofing contactor using you photo - it would be morally wrong if thet implied that this was a roof that they had fitted.

Just be happy you got a sale.

« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2015, 17:21 »
+3
Nothing wrong with a photographer using your photo as long as they do not state or imply that it is their work.  Only the same as a roofing contactor using you photo - it would be morally wrong if thet implied that this was a roof that they had fitted.

Just be happy you got a sale.

Always happy to make a sale, but I'm fairly sure that a photography studio including my image in their gallery or portfolio page is leaning ever so slightly towards suggesting that they were responsible for producing the image.

I think with a roofing contractor, as a customer I'd be happy to accept the roof in the photo was just for illustration purposes.

« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2015, 02:13 »
+2
Years ago my wedding image was in wide usage on other photographers galleries as their work. I contacted stocks and they said it's forbidden to use my work as their. They can use it on their site, yes, but not like they are authors, they have no right to say they did this work. You can take steps in that case and earn some money for breaking the law ;) For sure your image must be deleted from that galleries if you wish so.

« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2015, 06:39 »
0
Do you mean scenelinestudios from Germany ? They make there living from Groupon deals for like 19.99 Euro per photoshoot where the customer gets 1 crappy looking image not even retouched, the rest cost extra.

« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2015, 12:07 »
0
Do you mean scenelinestudios from Germany ? They make there living from Groupon deals for like 19.99 Euro per photoshoot where the customer gets 1 crappy looking image not even retouched, the rest cost extra.

no, it wasn't them

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2015, 12:30 »
0
I think a photo business deals on Groupon are illustrated with the same set of images. At least I've seen the same set of pics (wedding and portrait) on the Groupon deal for at least two wedding togs as well as  a tog offering photo walks in Glasgow.  With the 'for illustration only' disclaimer,  at least latterly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
7386 Views
Last post December 08, 2007, 19:48
by stokfoto
Extended Licensing?

Started by traveler1116 Cutcaster

9 Replies
5526 Views
Last post November 04, 2008, 19:42
by johngriffin
6 Replies
3341 Views
Last post November 11, 2010, 06:58
by rubyroo
61 Replies
25881 Views
Last post March 24, 2017, 13:58
by dpimborough
7 Replies
2905 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 10:47
by niktol

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors