MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: model might try to sue me  (Read 35521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2013, 07:02 »
0
You said yourself she got her gig thanks to your pictures. Don't be shy, ask for a share!

 8) 8) 8)


« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2013, 07:21 »
0
So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.

I am not a lawyer but my ( limited) understanding of Canadian contract law ( don't know about other countries) the important thing  is the being paid part of this sentence.  For the contract to be valid she has to have received something of value in exchange for the images....Is TFP equal value for a glamour shoot? 

« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2013, 07:44 »
0
So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.

I am not a lawyer but my ( limited) understanding of Canadian contract law ( don't know about other countries) the important thing  is the being paid part of this sentence.  For the contract to be valid she has to have received something of value in exchange for the images....Is TFP equal value for a glamour shoot?

Not in the US, if compensation is not mentioned in the contract, none has to be paid. But I doubt any model would work all day without some from of payout. So prints or access to the JPEGs could be considered something of value. A model release is a form of contract too, it is also a release of your rights to allow the photographer or who ever is commissioning the photographic session to use the photographs in a commercial or editorial use.

When I used to shoot weddings, my contract stated that had the right to use their likeness in my portfolio or in advertising my services. It did state that no third party could use the photographs. The contract also stated that they did not have any photo rights or ownership of the images.

« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2013, 07:53 »
+2
To me looks like the main reason that she wants her image remove, is her new contract with the model agencie, and the devaluation of her image.

If she have her image at her FB you can process her for distributing your image without your consent :D

« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2013, 09:26 »
0
So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.

I am not a lawyer but my ( limited) understanding of Canadian contract law ( don't know about other countries) the important thing  is the being paid part of this sentence.  For the contract to be valid she has to have received something of value in exchange for the images....Is TFP equal value for a glamour shoot?

Not in the US, if compensation is not mentioned in the contract, none has to be paid. But I doubt any model would work all day without some from of payout. So prints or access to the JPEGs could be considered something of value. A model release is a form of contract too, it is also a release of your rights to allow the photographer or who ever is commissioning the photographic session to use the photographs in a commercial or editorial use.

When I used to shoot weddings, my contract stated that had the right to use their likeness in my portfolio or in advertising my services. It did state that no third party could use the photographs. The contract also stated that they did not have any photo rights or ownership of the images.

I have texts, and paypal records proving I paid her. I actually paid her through her old agency, she even confirmed she got the payment via text and email.

Tror

« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2013, 09:48 »
+3
So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.

I am not a lawyer but my ( limited) understanding of Canadian contract law ( don't know about other countries) the important thing  is the being paid part of this sentence.  For the contract to be valid she has to have received something of value in exchange for the images....Is TFP equal value for a glamour shoot?

Not in the US, if compensation is not mentioned in the contract, none has to be paid. But I doubt any model would work all day without some from of payout. So prints or access to the JPEGs could be considered something of value. A model release is a form of contract too, it is also a release of your rights to allow the photographer or who ever is commissioning the photographic session to use the photographs in a commercial or editorial use.

When I used to shoot weddings, my contract stated that had the right to use their likeness in my portfolio or in advertising my services. It did state that no third party could use the photographs. The contract also stated that they did not have any photo rights or ownership of the images.

I have texts, and paypal records proving I paid her. I actually paid her through her old agency, she even confirmed she got the payment via text and email.

I honestly don`t think you have to be afraid of anything. You may take into consideration simply deleting the image for the peace of mind and/or talking to her...

« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2013, 09:58 »
+1
As someone who has been in a similar situation, I would like to express my support and full understanding of your concerns. It is not fun at all. I've had a situation with a model who's been giving me kisses before and after shoots for years, until I very suddenly received a letter from her lawyer with an amount request you'd laugh at (think like a million euros, just less). It gave me a heart condition and a huge disappointment in what I do and in people I work with.

What I can say we've learnt from contacting various law firms (Europe, so please note it's not a final word of law for you at all):
1. The one at fault is a publisher, not a photographer, and not an agency. A publisher should have verified what use is allowed and what use is prohibited.
2. A Model Release covers you pretty well.
3. Fact that the image is for free on the internet (like FB or piracy sites) covers you well.

On a question of "delete or not delete photos", I'd say it depends. If the images make your livelihood and you don't want a line of other models demanding the same joke from you after this lady succeeded, I'd advise you not to delete anything until you hear it from a judge.

I consider the discussion on glamour photography safety pretty laughable. Adult model doing things at her will (i.e. going as far as she wants for professional free images)  is not your problem at all, unless you had a gun to her head. You said yourself she got her gig thanks to your pictures. Don't be shy, ask for a share!

Thanks for your advice. taking her images down will not destroy my livelihood or anything, but it would probably impact my sales 20% for a while, which is not good. Also I paid her $185 for the two hour shoot, so she did get compensated. I think what I am going to do is give her the courtesy of being given opportunity to buy the rights to the images. If her and her company are THAT concerned about it I do not see the problem.  As for her glamour photography, that is exclusively what she used to shoot and has shot the same or even more risque pictures before and after my shoot with her on a regular basis, so did not think it was going to be an issue with her. She also gets upset when she sees her image used without her people crediting her. She is basically living in a different universe when it comes to this stuff. 

OM

« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2013, 19:44 »
0
As someone who has been in a similar situation, I would like to express my support and full understanding of your concerns. It is not fun at all. I've had a situation with a model who's been giving me kisses before and after shoots for years, until I very suddenly received a letter from her lawyer with an amount request you'd laugh at (think like a million euros, just less). It gave me a heart condition and a huge disappointment in what I do and in people I work with.

What I can say we've learnt from contacting various law firms (Europe, so please note it's not a final word of law for you at all):
1. The one at fault is a publisher, not a photographer, and not an agency. A publisher should have verified what use is allowed and what use is prohibited.
2. A Model Release covers you pretty well.
3. Fact that the image is for free on the internet (like FB or piracy sites) covers you well.

On a question of "delete or not delete photos", I'd say it depends. If the images make your livelihood and you don't want a line of other models demanding the same joke from you after this lady succeeded, I'd advise you not to delete anything until you hear it from a judge.

I consider the discussion on glamour photography safety pretty laughable. Adult model doing things at her will (i.e. going as far as she wants for professional free images)  is not your problem at all, unless you had a gun to her head. You said yourself she got her gig thanks to your pictures. Don't be shy, ask for a share!

Thanks for your advice. taking her images down will not destroy my livelihood or anything, but it would probably impact my sales 20% for a while, which is not good. Also I paid her $185 for the two hour shoot, so she did get compensated. I think what I am going to do is give her the courtesy of being given opportunity to buy the rights to the images. If her and her company are THAT concerned about it I do not see the problem.  As for her glamour photography, that is exclusively what she used to shoot and has shot the same or even more risque pictures before and after my shoot with her on a regular basis, so did not think it was going to be an issue with her. She also gets upset when she sees her image used without her people crediting her. She is basically living in a different universe when it comes to this stuff.

It's also a crazy chicken and egg situation. Had you not taken such good photo's of her, she wouldn't have been so proud of herself and your shots to place them on FB and wherever else she placed them which is most likely from where ( or via via) they were misappropriated/pirated.

All the talk of 'soft-porn' and "what do you expect from such shots?" Come on people, this is 2013. If you want porn/soft or otherwise, you know where to get it and this is nowhere near it.
As for the model, she is no doubt fits someone's 'psycho' girlfriend bill and attempting to sue the photographer that made her into a semi-celeb is just errr.....well...psycho. (Bet she has a load of photo's from crappy photogs that she doesn't dare show to anyone and she won't be suing them!) LOL.

She entered into a contract for which she was well paid, professionally photographed and signed a release. You worked professionally, delivering photo's that she also regarded as good enough to use for her own advertising/vanity purposes. You took the shots for a professional purpose knowing that they would get you more views on your stock sites (that don't accept anything 'improper' or license for  'improper' purposes). Quod erat demonstrandum. Both parties are part of a winning deal and there's no case to answer IMHO (not a lawyer).

BTW great portfolio, Joshua.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2013, 20:19 »
+3
@OP, in case you didn't notice, she's using the photo as her main MM photo, and you can click on it there and get an 800 x 595 image, unprotected.

@OM: do a GIS reverse search on the pic and see the uses which are being made of the image. Exactly what I'd expect.

Here's a book cover:
http://www.amazon.com/PASSION-FOR-Babysitter-Stories-ebook/dp/B00C5V36BC/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_2

and another:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Group-Sex-Stories-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B00CL5MZQ4
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 20:22 by ShadySue »

OM

« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2013, 20:35 »
0
@OP, in case you didn't notice, she's using the photo as her main MM photo, and you can click on it there and get an 800 x 595 image, unprotected.

@OM: do a GIS reverse search on the pic and see the uses which are being made of the image. Exactly what I'd expect.

Here's a book cover:
http://www.amazon.com/PASSION-FOR-Babysitter-Stories-ebook/dp/B00C5V36BC/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_2

and another:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Group-Sex-Stories-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B00CL5MZQ4


Who's abusing who here? What is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?
Surely if the photo on a cover was obtained improperly the copyright holder can issue a take down on Amazon? A trifle damaging for sales?

calcaneus10

« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2013, 20:59 »
0
Bottom line:  she has no case in any court of law in the universe.  The model release form covers you for everything. 

Only reason to remove her images is if she were to slander your name, making it difficult to get more models.  Otherwise, no need to change anything.

« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2013, 21:11 »
+1

Who's abusing who here? What is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?
Surely if the photo on a cover was obtained improperly the copyright holder can issue a take down on Amazon? A trifle damaging for sales?

A book cover is a SL under most agencies' license agreements, unless the book sells a certain amount of copies. Please, no one contact Amazon about an author who probably didn't do anything wrong.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2013, 06:57 »
0

Who's abusing who here? What is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?
Surely if the photo on a cover was obtained improperly the copyright holder can issue a take down on Amazon? A trifle damaging for sales?

A book cover is a SL under most agencies' license agreements, unless the book sells a certain amount of copies. Please, no one contact Amazon about an author who probably didn't do anything wrong.

No-one was suggesting contacting Amazon. I'd think this use would need a Premium Licence for 'sensitive use' if bought from SS - but I suspect this would be breaching their ToS.
I was illustrating the 'sort of use' this photo would get, which OM seemed to think unlikely. Other than one slightly bizarre advert, the in-uses I saw were either like these book covers, escort agencies or sex toys. These would seem to be prohibited by SS's terms of use; but my point is still, what else could the image be used for?

Nevertheless, as I said above, the OP dripped up the facts about this issue. He even said at one point, "...I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore", which implied at that point that the original shoot had been TFP, but later we find she was well paid.

In any case, I now definitely don't think the OP has anything to worry about re being sued; but IANAL and definitely not a US lawyer.

Ron

« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2013, 07:27 »
0
Thats one messed up acronym right there. IANAL

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2013, 07:39 »
0
Thats one messed up acronym right there. IANAL
LOL  8)

« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2013, 09:07 »
0

Who's abusing who here? What is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?
Surely if the photo on a cover was obtained improperly the copyright holder can issue a take down on Amazon? A trifle damaging for sales?

A book cover is a SL under most agencies' license agreements, unless the book sells a certain amount of copies. Please, no one contact Amazon about an author who probably didn't do anything wrong.

No-one was suggesting contacting Amazon. I'd think this use would need a Premium Licence for 'sensitive use' if bought from SS - but I suspect this would be breaching their ToS.
I was illustrating the 'sort of use' this photo would get, which OM seemed to think unlikely. Other than one slightly bizarre advert, the in-uses I saw were either like these book covers, escort agencies or sex toys. These would seem to be prohibited by SS's terms of use; but my point is still, what else could the image be used for?

Nevertheless, as I said above, the OP dripped up the facts about this issue. He even said at one point, "...I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore", which implied at that point that the original shoot had been TFP, but later we find she was well paid.

In any case, I now definitely don't think the OP has anything to worry about re being sued; but IANAL and definitely not a US lawyer.

Sorry for not laying out all the details first, I just did not want to wrote a giant 1st post. As for the images, I was going to take them down if she could help me out a little. I really don't feel it is fair to make me take down the images, especially ones I paid her well for, and get absolutely nothing in return. I thought asking her to do a shoot would work out well for both of us. She could use them for her portfolio, it would possibly but not completely replace the images she had me take down, I was willing to make that compromise, and it would not of cost her anything, except 2 hours of her time. Basically her attitude is worrying, she thinks I am trying to get TFP shoots out of her for nothing, she is getting me to take the images down, and the alternative is asking her if she wants to buy the rights to the images, which will definitely cost her more then 2 hours of her time.

« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2013, 09:10 »
0
@OP, in case you didn't notice, she's using the photo as her main MM photo, and you can click on it there and get an 800 x 595 image, unprotected.

@OM: do a GIS reverse search on the pic and see the uses which are being made of the image. Exactly what I'd expect.

Here's a book cover:
http://www.amazon.com/PASSION-FOR-Babysitter-Stories-ebook/dp/B00C5V36BC/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_2

and another:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Group-Sex-Stories-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B00CL5MZQ4


*, I am pretty sure whether SS can license an image for a book cover is not the biggest problem here. Even under sensitive use, it really clearly says images cannot be used in anything sexual or pornographic, and this definitely qualifies for it. I am going to contact shutterstock about this and see what they think.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2013, 09:14 »
0
To get her off your back, you might offer to take them down if she pays you back the money you paid her. But point out to her that the pic can be easily lifted from her MM profile.

BTW, you're still assuming the 'in uses' all came from SS - is there a reason you think they didn't come from the other agencies, or were lifted from Fb, MM, or from a site which licensed them?

« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2013, 09:42 »
0
To get her off your back, you might offer to take them down if she pays you back the money you paid her. But point out to her that the pic can be easily lifted from her MM profile.

BTW, you're still assuming the 'in uses' all came from SS - is there a reason you think they didn't come from the other agencies, or were lifted from Fb, MM, or from a site which licensed them?


Really it could of came from anywhere, just take a look at this


http://allpolus.com/cliparts/raster/318337-stock-photo-attractive-brunette-woman.html

http://lightpic.net/photo-stock/40351-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.html

http://xtragfx.com/stockimages/1341515-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.html

http://www.gfx4you.com/30090-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.html

I downloaded these and sure enough, they are all full 39mp resolution original images these guys got somewhere. Probably by buying from a stock site. Looks like some pirates bought, or used credit card fraud to take these images and distribute them. This is a major problem, and makes taking my images down pretty pointless. Anyone could be using those images because of those pirates.

I looked at the TOS on the othersites beside SS I have my images of her uploaded, none of them would allow it to be used like that. The majority of the sales of her image was on SS though.  Also the other sites I had it on, it either never sold there, or I uploaded it there in the last few weeks. Its really down to fotolia and shutterstock. Although I have never gotten an EL for her image. Furthermore, there is the fact she has the images on her facebook and model mayhem account free for anyone to download, although not in 39mp, but still easily high enough to grab for something. I even found my images of her being sold on deviant art, this guy was taking stock images and claiming he was the photographer who took them, I am currently working to get those taken down too.

Basically its one hell of a popular image, its been seen and liked probably thousands of times on her facebook, its been pirated and stolen to every corner of the internet. Whether I take them down is really irrelevant at this point, and despite its popularity on SS I doubt any abuse came about from it being there asides from people buying the full resolution image to give away.  Basically I don't think someone looking to find a cover for their erotic novel went to SS and legitimately bought it. Nevertheless I contacted the relevant agencies and I'll see what I can find out.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 09:57 by bpepz »

« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2013, 15:41 »
0
OM asked "what is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?"

That alone needed answering.

Now that we're talking about "sensitive use," stock images have been used on erotica by large, small, and self-publishers for ages. It would be a huge, earth-shattering thing if agencies didn't allow their images on it.

These two books in the thread are not at all unique. I think it would be a good idea for people in the stock industry to see how images get used in publishing, especially in the ebook era.

I'll tell you one thing: romantic couples like this are in HUGE demand.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-sexy-couple-image18410848

http://www.amazon.com/On-Dublin-Street-ebook/dp/B009PC2MW8/ref=tmm_kin_title_0


Book covers keep reusing the same images because there are so few suitable ones.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 17:33 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2013, 16:39 »
0
Basically I don't think someone looking to find a cover for their erotic novel went to SS and legitimately bought it.

Authors and publishers do in fact go to SS and the like to legitimately license images for their erotica.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 16:52 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2013, 16:55 »
0
Huffington post uses many images that could be considered erotic

« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2013, 15:41 »
+1
Something I think microstock photographers should be aware of:

Amazon apparently has been cracking down on erotic books with certain kinds of covers (among other things).

This is causing writers and publishers to use "tamer" images, such as stuff that's more "fashion" or "glamour" rather than outright raunchy.

This could lead to a lot of surprises among photographers and models who didn't think their image would be used in such a way.

Just thought you should know.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 15:49 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #73 on: October 07, 2013, 17:36 »
0
My opinion for what it's worth. Take the pictures down. Model Released or not, you are a photographer that makes money selling images. That means you are a business. A business can not go to court without being represented by a lawyer in the USA. Even if you win, you will lose. Lawyers are expensive and will need a retainer on the first legal papers filed by her. If a model ever asked me to take down their pictures, they would come off my site and I would assure them I did everything I could to help them. Good for her if she made it big...Maybe you helped her with your images. Good karma on your part will go a long way for you. There are plenty of other models out there and if she has a new cosmetic contract, do everything you can to help her and you will see, it will come back to you 10 fold.

« Reply #74 on: October 07, 2013, 18:32 »
0
For $160 USD I'll give you the same advise all lawyers give - STAY OUT OF COURT! Even if you're in the right going to court can be financially devastating.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
8811 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
5 Replies
4893 Views
Last post April 03, 2009, 16:30
by travismanley
9 Replies
4520 Views
Last post August 01, 2011, 19:28
by wiser
12 Replies
9321 Views
Last post October 31, 2011, 07:53
by Sean Locke Photography
27 Replies
8383 Views
Last post July 08, 2019, 01:59
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors