MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock model used in homosexual pride campaign  (Read 26396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2015, 04:45 »
+6
Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)

It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used.

Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising".

If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.


« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2015, 04:56 »
+1
Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)

It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used.

Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising".

If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.

You should really read first who started to insult here without any evidences (I was referring him as a troll because he acted that he know my conversation with my models), and not everybody is pointing that I am wrong and what is most important it looks like agencies are also sharing my thought that this is kind of sensitive usage of an image.

You cannot close your eyes that some of agencies has this particular usage restricted. (Dreamstime). So looks like there is something there. Not everybody living in Berlin. My model definitely isn't. As i said before, world unfortunately is not perfect place and you all know that.

I am talking with agencies legal teams now so this topic can be closed. I only thought that someone had similar experience but I guess I was wrong.

I still do believe that sexuality topics (fetishes or orientations) are personal, intimate and sensitive especially if someone have a wife or family.


« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2015, 05:14 »
+3
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would  profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.

« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2015, 05:21 »
+1
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would  profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.

I couldn't say this better. This is only thing and all I want to say. Thank you.


« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2015, 05:45 »
+1
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2015, 05:54 »
+1
In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
Haters will always hate, and possibly attack, anyone who is different. There have been homophobic attacks in the UK, but also people are attacked for being old/special needs/well-off/red-haired/a different race or religion from the attacker/female/whatever.

The point is that some agencies don't allow any suggestion of sexual orientation/or need a disclaimer for same, but others do. The fact that even one of the agencies holding images of the model allows it without a disclaimer means that effectively that the photographer, on behalf of the model, has accepted that usage.

You may find your model has a case against you for submitting to agencies which allow a usage he doesn't like, but that depends on the release he signed.

I've found the licence agreement for 123RF (by googling, I failed to find it from the site) and it says:
You may not
"under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, offensive, political, racist, ethnically or culturally offensive, obscene or indecent, sexually explicit, immoral, defamatory, intrusive of privacy or illegal materials; or in a manner which endorses violence or acts of terrorism, is discriminatory towards race, gender, religion, faith or sexual orientation, or which purports to endorse products or services carrying sensitive mental/health connotations"
which, unless your usage was sexually explicit would almost certainly allow the use in the context mentioned in the OP, though we haven't actually seen the usage.
Now, you could try to argue that some cultures are unaccepting of homosexuality, but you could also argue likewise that some cultures are unaccepting of eating pork. And as we have established, German culture in general is not  so offended.
And in fact, it could be argued that your putative legal attack on the buyer would be 'discriminatory towards sexual orientation'.
The OP chose to submit there, under these conditions; I can't see that they have a legal leg to stand on.

Your only hope is that the file wasn't bought, but stolen. Then you can have a different, and less controversial, legal case.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 06:01 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2015, 05:59 »
+3
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.
I still think that this is the best answer on this thread.
If that doesn't work, one of our TV presenters once said, "I'm gay for professional reasons" (though in his case, it was a joke as he'd been 'out' for many years).

« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2015, 06:00 »
0
In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
Haters will alway hate and possibly attack anyone who is different. There have been homophobic attacks in the UK, but also people are attacked for being old/special needs/well-off/red-haired/a different race or religion from the attacker/female/whatever.

The point is that some agencies don't allow any suggestion of sexual orientation/or need a disclaimer for same, but others do. The fact that even one of the agencies holding images of the model allows it without a disclaimer means that effectively that the photographer, on behalf of the model, has accepted that usage.

I've found the licence agreement for 123RF (by googling, I failed to find it from the site) and it says:
You may not
"under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, offensive, political, racist, ethnically or culturally offensive, obscene or indecent, sexually explicit, immoral, defamatory, intrusive of privacy or illegal materials; or in a manner which endorses violence or acts of terrorism, is discriminatory towards race, gender, religion, faith or sexual orientation, or which purports to endorse products or services carrying sensitive mental/health connotations"
which, unless your usage was sexually explicit would almost certainly allow the use in the context mentioned in the OP, though we haven't actually seen the usage.
Now, you could try to argue that some cultures are unaccepting of homosexuality, but you could also argue likewise that some cultures are unaccepting of eating pork. And as we have established, German culture in general is not  so offended.
And in fact, it could be argued that your putative legal attack on the buyer would be 'discriminatory towards sexual orientation'.
The OP chose to submit there, under these conditions; I can't see that they have a legal leg to stand on.

Your only hope is that the file wasn't bought, but stolen. Then you can have a different, and less controversial, legal case.

Even we have different opinion you were most helpful on this topic and I appreciate that.

« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2015, 06:09 »
+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.
I still think that this is the best answer on this thread.
If that doesn't work, one of our TV presenters once said, "I'm gay for professional reasons" (though in his case, it was a joke as he'd been 'out' for many years).

Yes, it could be that I agree, of course unfortunately it could be other way around because we are not all in well developed countries and if that happens (example: lose future project from some company because of that) that would be a completely different case where he would be discriminated about falsely presented sexual orientation.

We can forget about this case from now on, let assume we all sorted everything out, but this topics is something to talk about. Wives or husbands of models can look it differently, and that's why I stand behind my words that his kind of usage is sensitive.

« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2015, 16:01 »
0
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would  profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.

We are talking about selling RF here.  The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used.  If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.

As for talking with the compliance depts of the agencies, if you are indie your wasting your time.  I have had REAL undeniable misuses and the agencies did jack all.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 16:04 by PixelBytes »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2015, 16:12 »
0
We are talking about selling RF here.  The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used.  If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.
Which RM companies contact you to pre-approve any use?

Also, which companies allow you to place files which have already sold as RF as RM? For just general RM sales, with no exclusivity, it's possible; but I'm sure I've heard that quite a few won't allow it.

As mentioned above, the model should join a pukka agency to get the right to go forward for only the jobs he's happy with, and give up stock modelling.

« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2015, 21:25 »
0
We are talking about selling RF here.  The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used.  If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.
Which RM companies contact you to pre-approve any use?

Also, which companies allow you to place files which have already sold as RF as RM? For just general RM sales, with no exclusivity, it's possible; but I'm sure I've heard that quite a few won't allow it.

As mentioned above, the model should join a pukka agency to get the right to go forward for only the jobs he's happy with, and give up stock modelling.

The OP suggested he and the model should get to preapprove usages.  That's never been the case with RF.  Thats why I recommend selling RM.  You get more control over which usages are allowed.  Unless you know something about RM that I don't.   If so, you explain where I got it wrong?

« Reply #87 on: July 01, 2015, 03:06 »
+4
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you.

So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this. It doesn't matter where you or your model live or what you both think. It only matters what the contract of the specific agency the image was licensed through would state, and how the laws in the country of the image user is. If you can't live with that, stock isn't right for you.

And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not. Not that macrostock agencies have less lenient terms but at least the chances are much smaller that some hobbyist blogger or party organizer is going to use my model images.

But as you keep arguing your case without the ability to distinguish between your personal opinion and reliable legal terms... I guess this won't be your last post here.

« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2015, 03:28 »
0

So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this.

And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not.

You are telling me to stop being stock photographer (or at least microstock) and then you are acting like insulted child when I pointed out the truth that you mostly shoot object and yourself (on your microstock portfolios), and not only that, you in some way confirmed my opinion when you said that you stopped uploading model photos to microstock because of issues like that, so there is something there. You could be helpful roughly explaining some your cases but you decided to quote the part I was arguing with someone who tried to insult me.

I'm not talking about my case anymore, just replying to you.

« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2015, 06:44 »
+2
Don't know why everyone is bashing at panicAttack.

The situation described can be deeply offensive/defamatory for the model.

« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2015, 08:57 »
+2
model should be aware that photographer don't know for what his image will be used for.
Let's call this "Business Risk"..i don't think he can start any legal action vs you

if you don't like to risk "your" face/image you don't choose to work as a model...

« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2015, 09:13 »
+2
Most likely depends where the image was licensed from.  iStock says this is prohibited:  "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."

« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2015, 09:53 »
+1
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)

Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.

After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.




« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2015, 10:00 »
+2
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)

Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.

After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."

Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2015, 10:17 »
0
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)

Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.

After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."

Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.
Those terms are effective 29 July.

Anyway, sending a DMCA to a client that potentially have bought the image is just plain stupid.

« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2015, 11:06 »
+2
Don't know why everyone is bashing at panicAttack.

The situation described can be deeply offensive/defamatory for the model.

You don't understand the situation any more than him.  Here's the simplest answer I can say...

What is deeply offensive to the model does not qualify as defammatory in the legal sense.  The personal likes, dislikes, biases, etc. Of the model are irrelevant to whether there was misuse of the image.

The usage described would not qualify as LEGALLY defammatory in most countries liberal enough to have  Pride celebration. 

Edit.  Below is the first time adult entertainment context was mentioned.  That is definitely sensitive use.  You buried the lead mate.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 11:24 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2015, 11:08 »
0
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)

Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.

After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."

Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.

I did contact SS but it looks like that has nothing with them. They finally answered my emails and we are communicating now.

I am in contact with them and we are friendly communicating about that (real problem doesn't have anything with orientation, but connotation with adult entertainment, because they are using terms like "sexy bitches" "go-go parties", ).

« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2015, 11:11 »
0
To tye OP, glad the situation wzs ressolved to you and your models satisfaction.   You got lucky that it turned out to be a simple copyright violation.

Personally, I would still remove images of that model from my port. If he's so picky and sensitive this won't be the last problem he makes for you.

« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2015, 11:22 »
0
Thanks.

After I searched their site it looks like adult entertainment club parties site, it's not site about homosexual rights and equality I was assuming first. That usage would be legal on agency they bought the image.

So, I was wrong in some way, but I friendly advised them not to use microstock images when putting text like "Sexy bitches" "go-go party" because it could lead them into a legal trouble.

On site where the image was downloaded that usage isn't allowed.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2015, 11:25 »
+2
Thanks.

After I searched their site it looks like adult entertainment club parties site, it's not site about homosexual rights and equality I was assuming first. That usage would be legal on agency they bought the image.

So, I was wrong in some way, but I friendly advised them not to use microstock images when putting text like "Sexy bitches" "go-go party" because it could lead them into a legal trouble.

On site where the image was downloaded that usage isn't allowed.

You really need to be careful going after people like you did, as it turns out you were completely misjudging the situation.

If I were you I would stop working with that model and in the future research properly before going after buyers.


 

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
19331 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 14:06
by cathyslife
2 Replies
3556 Views
Last post January 08, 2016, 10:51
by Artist

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors