MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock model used in homosexual pride campaign  (Read 26392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: June 28, 2015, 16:56 »
0


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2015, 17:04 »
0

But when the media publish a lawsuit against this usage, he could just as likely have trouble for seeming to be a homophobe.

I understand you completely.

I'm trying to find some logic here.  Not your, you are very helpful, but laws in general. What if that person have a wife and kids? It is very delicate issue. I know he isn't a homophobe, but that doesn't mean that he need to be all over some big European town falsely  presented as gay person if he isn't. This is also one "what if", but what if his wife divorced him because of that... we still don't live in ideal world that sexual or any other orientation doesn't matter.

Now I'm just thinking out loud...

There was also an iS case when a model was used to illustrate an editorial article about 'escorts'. She wasn't a full time model, but an educator, and the publication was widespread in her home city. IMO, it should have had 'posed by model', but I certainly didn't read about any good outcome for her. Why she was part-time modelling I have no idea. There are so many apparently-legitimate usages that could make you a source or ridicule amoung your students and their parents.

« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2015, 17:05 »
0
What happened in Turkey?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390


Disaster.

It would be very bad if my model is living in Turkey. This is of course human right in Turkey problem at first place, but it could lead to stock models problems from countries like that.




« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2015, 17:12 »
0

There was also an iS case when a model was used to illustrate an editorial article about 'escorts'. She wasn't a full time model, but an educator, and the publication was widespread in her home city. IMO, it should have had 'posed by model', but I certainly didn't read about any good outcome for her. Why she was part-time modelling I have no idea. There are so many apparently-legitimate usages that could make you a source or ridicule amoung your students and their parents.

That's also a case for a lawyer if there wasn't text explaining it is only "posed by model" or "for illustrative purpose". Ok. no more internet for me today. Thank you and good night! :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2015, 17:16 »
0
What happened in Turkey?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390


Disaster.

It would be very bad if my model is living in Turkey. This is of course human right in Turkey problem at first place, but it could lead to stock models problems from countries like that.


It's one of several "what if's" that a photographer of stock models needs to consider very carefully.

« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2015, 18:12 »
+2
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.

Good point!   Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personl feelings may be.

Horrifying about what happened in Turkey.  I hope we in the Western world are not expected to live our lives according to the biases of repressive regimes.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 18:23 by PixelBytes »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2015, 18:19 »
0
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
They would if it was purchased from iS and used without a disclaimer, or from DT without written permission.

« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2015, 18:27 »
+2
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.

Good point!   Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.

it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking

but back to the original point - there is definitely a caveat when dealing with models in rf microstock,

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2015, 18:42 »
+1
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.

Good point!   Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.

it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking

but back to the original point - there is definitely a caveat when dealing with models in rf microstock,
You can't legislate against opinion, but you can legislate against acting on certain opinions. In fact, that's what the Law is. One may think it's OK to steal, but one is in trouble if they actually do it.

« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2015, 20:05 »
+2
i think the model knows from the beginning when he became one, that he is going to be portrayed as different things. he is a model and would he object to being show eg...
-drinking beer?  (many or most models i know don't drink alcohol)
- eating meat  eg. at a barbeque ( most models  too, i know , are vegan)
- partying and dancing like an alpha male (many are introverted)

it's much like being an actor. tom cruise is portrayed as a SS , ...gestapo, not shutterstock..
others are portrayed as a psychopath , pedophile, etc..
we all know, most of them are not .

it goes with the territory. if you're not able to take this, then be an accountant or
flip burgers.

« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2015, 22:41 »
+1
Where do you draw the line? In some countries you will be thrown in jail or killed for being gay. So it really is a human rights case. Just look at what happened in turkey today.

In the exact same way to what black people had to or still have to suffer. There will also be white models, when if their face is altered in photoshop to look black, will consider this an insult and worry what their friends and family will think.

Somebody else will get insulted if the designer adds a turban or a beard and he looks like a follower of a different religion.

But this is the thing with stock, you really dont know what will happen.

What happened in Turkey?

Political and religion orientations are all against terms of use in all agencies.. Sexual is not in all agencies, only Dreamstime, and IStock demand text "Illustrative purpose only" or something like that.

Turkey? the way the government attacked the pride demonstrations? It is front page news here. Blatant human rights abuse and this just after the US finally fully legalized gay marriage in all their states. Can you imagine you are heterosexual and your government declares loving your wife or husband illegal? Or white people that forbid their children to marry a black man or woman? I really admire my friends from the LGBT community how they stand up for their rights.

Yes, many agencies have provisions against sensitive use in their contracts. But like all contracts, they are worth the money you have for the international lawyers to enforce them. Otherwise, it is a piece of paper. Unfortunately.

Sue might be right, if you uploaded to different places, it might be a problem in court if just one of them allows this kind of usage.

Youll have to ask your lawyer, I really hope things work out.

« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2015, 03:12 »
+2
I received positive response for Shutterstock about this and I'm glad because of it.

For few guys who reply in this topic, it's not about his personal opinion about anyone. Sexuality orientation is intimate and personal thing, even if he was a homosexual person, portraying someone as some kind of icon of any sexual orientation (even heterosexual) is at least for sensitive case licence (which I have never and will never make an options for photos with models).

For one comparing it with acting. completely different thing, actors agreed to act as for example particularly gestapo in some project and even there they are credited as actors before or after the movie. 





ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #62 on: June 29, 2015, 03:30 »
0
.
pA beat me to it, and was more concise!

« Reply #63 on: June 29, 2015, 04:03 »
+2
This is not about gay people this is about the rights of a model. Law is failing its purpose here.

This is an interesting case. This is an indicator of how low value our photos and we have.
I think you can do nothing in this case even though I think you are 100% right and this should be handled as a sesitive case. Not because of law and not because of equal human rights but because of public oppinion. If anyone wants to change public oppinion or fight for a good case it is good but it should be his/her own decision. OWN.
Questionable uses should be handled very seriously by the stock agencies otherwise we will not have models after a while.... or only models who now find their participation in this industry as one of the biggest mistakes of their lifes.
For questionable uses everyone should use the model agencies and a not-simplified (more expensive) image licencing model not microstock. This is the concept what should be communicated and even forced by the agencies... but the industry is going to the opposite direction.

« Reply #64 on: June 29, 2015, 04:26 »
0
NitorPhoto, I absolutely agree.

It's not about sexual orientation, it's about right of a person (model) in the first place. Not only low values of a photos, but low values of a real people who are stock models.

Reading between the lines here it looks like some people here want to say if someone poses for model they are stripped of all their rights or even dignity. It's perfectly fine if someone is even portrait as a pedophile (without any explanation of illustrative purposes only), and what is most scary that those are coming from stock photographers.

I am pretty sure this will be better controlled as laws (and embedding/jpeg technology) advance in next five or ten years, and "wild west" of internet times would be over.

memakephoto

« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2015, 07:56 »
+3
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?

And who could blame them?

This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.

Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.

« Reply #66 on: June 29, 2015, 08:28 »
+1
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?

And who could blame them?

This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.

Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.

You completely missed whole point here.

I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.

In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.

Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.

If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.

We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.

edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 08:50 by panicAttack »

« Reply #67 on: June 29, 2015, 11:13 »
+2
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.

Good point!   Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.

it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking


Well, yes and no.  If someone likes chicken and someone else likes beef, they are both entitled to their opinion.  If one persons belief is that another person should be killed, jailed, or attacked for who they are, be it skin color, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever then no, I don't  think we should just agree to disagree. 

A couple centuries ago a black person was believed by many in the US to be 3/5 of a person.  Were the people who decide that entitled to their beliefs?

« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2015, 11:55 »
0

Well, yes and no.  If someone likes chicken and someone else likes beef, they are both entitled to their opinion.  If one persons belief is that another person should be killed, jailed, or attacked for who they are, be it skin color, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever then no, I don't  think we should just agree to disagree. 


This is what I am talking about, you put in same context skin color, religion and sexual orientation, because there are delicate and sensitive topics.

memakephoto

« Reply #69 on: June 29, 2015, 12:23 »
+2
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?

And who could blame them?

This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.

Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.

You completely missed whole point here.

I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.

In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.

Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.

If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.

We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.

No you missed the point. If you had done your job your model, an obvious amateur, would not be surprised or bothered by the use of their image. If you find a model, explain the situation of how their image may be used and they have even the slightest apprehension,,, FIND ANOTHER MODEL. Easily offended people that want to somehow pre-approve the use of their image have no place in microstock. It has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or straight guys being deemed homosexual which you seem fixated on. That's not the point. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it. There are many things that images could be used for that might offend a model. These people should expect that, be prepared for it and accept it or they should not be modeling.

You also, mentioned consulting a lawyer a couple of times in this thread. I didn't bring it up. We as contributors should, if we have any sense, try to protect the industry we work in. Allowing models to even think about litigation for images that are legally licensed and used within the terms and conditions of the agency is a bad bad idea. Buyers will go else where if they are at risk of being sued by some offended model when they have followed the rules.

I maintain my advice to you but I go even further. You should close your accounts and take up knitting. There's far less chance of anyone being offended that way.

Quote
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
No, just an actual professional working with actual professionals.

« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2015, 12:45 »
0
i think although everyone is correct and no one is incorrect in such a topic.
the point i am making with my posting is not whether the model is right or wrong .
the point i make is that even if you go to court on this issue, you will spend a lot of money
to win . or you will lose, depending on the argument.
the points i made will be part of the lawyer's case to the model. if i , a layman , can hit
the model on these points, i am sure, the lawyer or judge will hit the model with far stronger
points as to whether he understand the situation of being a model.

you are right, in some way , to say an actor chose to agree to play a part.
the agency also will have the right to say, it is you..the photographer to inform the model
that in some way, esp stock photography, there is very little control over the usage, other
that what is stipulated in the model release. still, that is still debatable as to what those words
construe.

if you had perharps selected in ss for example, that your images will not be used for "sensitive" usage...
that might work in favour of the model. but still, it does not mean you will win the case.

as i said, we can go on and on to push our own subjective views on this.
but until you chose to defend your model with retaining a lawyer, it is moot.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2015, 13:04 »
+1
Here's a hopefully-hypothetical thought and not a pretty one. What if a terrorist group used a stock model picture and claimed they were a recruit to their cause. Where would your agency or lawyer be then? And that would be far, far worse for the model than being in a Pride campaign.
Still, I guess they could steal any picture from the web, it wouldn't have to be a stock model.

« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2015, 13:33 »
0
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?

And who could blame them?

This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.

Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.

You completely missed whole point here.

I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.

In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.

Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.

If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.

We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.

No you missed the point. If you had done your job your model, an obvious amateur, would not be surprised or bothered by the use of their image. If you find a model, explain the situation of how their image may be used and they have even the slightest apprehension,,, FIND ANOTHER MODEL. Easily offended people that want to somehow pre-approve the use of their image have no place in microstock. It has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or straight guys being deemed homosexual which you seem fixated on. That's not the point. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it. There are many things that images could be used for that might offend a model. These people should expect that, be prepared for it and accept it or they should not be modeling.

You also, mentioned consulting a lawyer a couple of times in this thread. I didn't bring it up. We as contributors should, if we have any sense, try to protect the industry we work in. Allowing models to even think about litigation for images that are legally licensed and used within the terms and conditions of the agency is a bad bad idea. Buyers will go else where if they are at risk of being sued by some offended model when they have followed the rules.



Quote
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
No, just an actual professional working with actual professionals.

Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)

And sorry to let you down, you are not professional, just internet troll, but anyway I'll try to explain, not for you as you are trolling, but for others.

If it is fine by agency terms of us, that's the end. end of discussion.

Fixated with gay? I'm explaining my situation here. No fixation. As I already said same things go to BDSM/straight anything that sexual related, but this is not what happened so I don't talk about that. If I wanted those I would enjoy selling sensitive usage like you probably do, and that's fine to me.

Why is there a problem consulting a lawyer about anything if I want his opinion? Is that same as to sue someone? You are just lost.

We need to protect ourselves, industry is well protected.

Quote
I maintain my advice to you but I go even further. You should close your accounts and take up knitting. There's far less chance of anyone being offended that way.

You sound like someone who is very afraid of other microstock photographers. This is not the way to cope with competition. Just try to be a better photographer.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2015, 13:49 »
+1
It's not about sexual orientation, it's about right of a person (model) in the first place. Not only low values of a photos, but low values of a real people who are stock models.
After seeing some of what iS deems 'acceptable use' (I don't follow similar threads elsewhere), I think a stock model must need to be a totally values-free zone, and be careful never to acquire any in later life.

Interesting that you and he wouldn't object to BDSM. Each to his own; but that's a sexual preference that many people wouldn't want to be associated with.

« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2015, 13:56 »
0
After seeing some of what iS deems 'acceptable use' (I don't follow similar threads elsewhere), I think a stock model must need to be a totally values-free zone, and be careful never to acquire any in later life.

Interesting that you and he wouldn't object to BDSM. Each to his own; but that's a sexual preference that many people wouldn't want to be associated with.

I didn't say we wouldn't, I said that would be the same problem as this is.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3722 Views
Last post September 24, 2009, 21:35
by madelaide
12 Replies
6680 Views
Last post April 07, 2013, 17:25
by heywoody
0 Replies
1465 Views
Last post January 31, 2015, 10:08
by Sean Locke Photography
49 Replies
19328 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 14:06
by cathyslife
2 Replies
3555 Views
Last post January 08, 2016, 10:51
by Artist

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors