MicrostockGroup

Hi
I think that I find abusive, fake or mislead usage of images which I think it is not allowed in ANY Terms Of Service of ANY photo agency.
Word is about Scam HYIP Ponzi scheme sites which are by definition see more about what I mean on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyip
--------------------------------------------------------------

Typically this "sites" have life span from 1 to 6 months depends on false claiming percent of profit with cheap Ponzi scam script behind site and only one hidden man/creature wanabee admin by himself, but from potential naive "investor" victim point of view it looks that they are Serious investment or bank company.
Few examples with this Scam Ponzi sites with same peoples/photo models I think its from MonkeyBusiness port:
http://www.hugmoney.com/
http://fund-energy.com/
http://www.quest4dollar.com/

Ill post images below because after few months this sites will take money and run away and close site without any trace and money.
First problem is that I think that is the abusive usage of images eg false representing other peoples (photo models).
Victims from this "investment" sites could conclude that photo models are CEOs or real successfull people to whom they give "invest" money, and second is that this kind of sites are Scam for wanebee "investors".
In the darkest scenario I even cant think what can some victim do to this photo models after loosing they money if they met and recognize them somehow on the street.
Problem is not about same models on different sites, blogs etc, Microstock is all about it. Problem is that there are hunderds or thousands this kind of scam sites opened and closed daily with other models too.

How to fight with this kind of abusive usage of photo models images? 

Model aare like actors. Nobody is going to think that Robert De Niro is a gangster or a boxer becauses he has played some, or that Tm Cruise is a psyco. Model play a role for a while, that's all.

I understand what you are saying, but I view models in advertisements and now on websites as "not real people". Like the analogy above with Robert DeNiro. I don't associate the sleazy business with the model that is being used. The model, to me, is the messenger and you don't shoot the messenger.

The license for the image contains some basic language about how a photo can and can't be used:

(from istockphoto, as an example)
Pornographic, obscene or libelous works
Use that depicts personal endorsement by model
Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer.

If the model or photographer feels that their image is being used in one of the above situations, then a complaint/lawsuit, etc. can be filed.

But basically, it's a lot like all the sites that have stolen our images and are giving them away or reselling them...we do the best we can to keep the thieves at bay, and hope that at some point it won't be futile.

Don't be so sure. There are millions of really dumb people out there, and not so many people who know anything about modeling. I keep telling people that I sell images on internet, and they always ask: "why? what kind of images? what for? who is buying images?" And when I say that all images in magazines are actually bought from websites like those where I sell images, everyone seems surprised.
People mostly think that images in printed media are actually taken especially for that printed media.... like for catalogs etc.
We here "live" in microstock world everyday, and for us it's hard to believe that people actually don't have an idea what "microstock" is. I can easily imagine some angry Russian or Serbian, or Bosnian, or whichever guy, who meets on the street "fake CEO" of a fake company, and attacks him.
I'm telling this because I live in a society where all kinds of organized criminal simply flourish.
In nineties we had several fake banks, that offered great interest rate for people who want to put foreign currencies in them. They all appeared at the same time, and people put millions of dollars in them. In few weeks, they disappeared with money, and put the money in banks in Cyprus, Switzerland etc.
People were simply robbed completely.
My neighbor used to work in one of those banks. She said they were told to putt all money in big bags, and to move them to another bank. She said, no one actually counted how much money there is....
After it, she build a big nice house, and now she happily lives there with her family. And she was just a simple teller in the bank.

The probability is very small for some model to be attacked, and I believe it could really happen only on the street, if someone who was robbed recognize a model.
Images those criminals use are not bought on microstock sites. They are downloaded from pirated websites.

lol and lol

I see this all the time with my images.  I believe it is a violation of licensing terms, but it happens so much it hardly seems worth the effort pursuing it unless there is some other violation too (like sensitive use). 

I totally agree, in theory, that we should follow up on every example of possible misuse.  Unfortunately in practical terms that is very difficult for a one person, low budget operation to accomplish.  If I were to follow up on every example of stretching the license I would not have any time leftover to take or upload pictures.  Not to mention the one time I did pursue misuse it cost me over $1100 in legal fees.

Frankly, it should be the agency's job to enforce their own licensing terms.  This is, theoretically, why they get 60 - 80% of the money from our work.... 

I don't see that as an abuse either, but it is nevertheless bas business to me. Once you find out that Dr.Smith doesn't exist, how can you trust anythng from the site?

click_click,

Here in Brazil there are many ads that show "real names", like a toothpaste showing a name and "dentist" below it. It does imply that the person in it is a real dentist. He probably isn't, and I never saw this type of advert you mention (which is probably a requirement there). Again, it's not because the guy is a dentist (if he is) that I will buy the toothpaste, but I'm sure this "reality" affects many viewers.