Stock model used in homosexual pride campaign

[panicAttack]

Greetings and excuse my English

My straight male stock model has been used in one Berlin gay pride event.

I don't have anything against anyone, but for young straight male it is very sensitive case when using on those kind of campaign.

I am selling stock on 5 agencies, SS, IS, dreamstime, fotolia and 123rf.

I don't sell my images as sensitive use.

I am thinking about getting a lawyer from Germany, if anyone know someone who is good and experienced in those kid of thing?

What can be done about all this?

Thank you.

[Semmick Photo]

Its not defamatory so I dont think there is case.

[panicAttack]

Its not defamatory so I dont think there is case.

Looks like it is for him and that matters.

I will try to contact some lawyers from Germany to see what can be done, if anyone have experience I would like to know about it.

Thank you

[Semmick Photo]

PanicAttack, fitting username.    dont lets this upset you too much

[panicAttack]

Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.

And what if he already had some bad experience about that?

As i said before, as young straight male he could have some problems if anything with some anti-gay people because he is planning to live in Germany and his photo were used all over that place.

My username has nothing to do with that.

[Semmick Photo]

Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.

And what if he already had some bad experience about that?

As i said before, as young straight male he could have some problems if anything with some anti-gay people because he is planning to live in Germany and his photo were used all over that place.

He shouldnt be a model if he is concerned about how his image is used in public. Especially a stock photo model.

Again, its not about his feelings or where he wants to live. If the photo is not used in a defamatory way, I dont think there is a case. But by all means, getting legal advice is never a bad thing to do. Just make sure you have the contract ready you signed with the agency where the image was purchased.

[ShadySue]

It was your duty to explain to your model that misuses are possible, and you can't do anything to prevent it, and neither can the agent/distributor.

You'd need to know where the file was purchased from, as the wording of each is different.

iS:
"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."
More detailed in the Content Licence Agreement:
"If any Content featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement adjacent to the Content that indicates that: (i) the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Content, if any, is a model, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself;"
(Who is this 'reasonable person'?)
But the phrase re sexual preference would seem to trump that, presuming the actual image doesn't "clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter".

SS (licensing terms link on photo page) "Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities. "
The usage you mention, just by discription, would seem to be OK by SS's standard terms, unless the 'reasonable person' would find it 'offensive', which is unlikely in law nowadays, now that equal rights are being espoused by more and more western countries.

DT - that use would be forbidden without DT's written permission:
Sensitive Subjects
Any license granted by Dreamstime shall not constitute a representation that a Media is compatible for use with any other material. You are solely responsible for the use of any Media in combination with any other material, and you agree not to use Media with sensitive topics without Dreamstime`s separate written agreement. Such sensitive topics include, but are not limited to: models with mental or physical health issues, social issues, sexual activity, sexual orientation or related, substance abuse, crime or other subjects that can be considered to be offensive or unflattering to any of the models included in the image.

FT:
" use the Work in a way that places any person in the photo in a bad light or depicts them in a way that they may find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to:
    the use of Works in pornography;
    tobacco ads;
    ads for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, including escort or similar services;
    political endorsements;
    uses that are defamatory, or otherwise contain unlawful, offensive or immoral content. "
Seems like your use would be OK.
But "depicts them in a way that they may find offensive" seems like a very strange clause. A money-grabbing model could claim that they'd find just about any use offensive.
However, the Fotolia MR states:
"Release and Indemnity .
            The Model hereby releases and indemnifies the Photographer, and the Photographer's agents and representatives, licensees and sublicensees, assigns, heirs and successors, from and against all claims, expenses (including attorney fees) or other liability arising from and against any and all uses of the Photographs, including, without limitation, any claims or actions based on libel or slander or other defamation, right of privacy or �false light�, right of publicity, or blurring or distortion or alteration whether or not intentional.
The Model and Photographer each hereby warrant that he or she has read this Agreement prior to execution, and is fully familiar with the contents of this Agreement. "

I've totally failed to discover 123RF's terms and conditions apart from the technical restrictions (size on web, number of prints etc etc). However their MR reads: "For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant Photographer the irrevocable right and permission, throughout the world, in connection with the photographs you have taken of me on the Production Date above, or in which I may be mincluded with others, the following : (a) the right to use and re-use, in any legal manner at all, said photographs, in whole or in part, modified or altered, either by themselves or in conjunction with other photographs, in any medium or form of distribution, and for any legal purposes whatsoever, including without limitation, all promotional and advertising uses, and other trade purposes, and (b) the right to copyright said photographs in your name. I waive the right to inspect or approve any use thereof.
I hereby forever release and discharge Photographer from any and all claims, actions and demands arising out of or in connection with the use of said photographs, including without limitation, any and all claims for invasion of privacy and libel. This release shall inure to the benefit of the assigns, licensees and legal representatives of Photographer, as well as the party(ies) for whom Photographer took said photographs."

(OT: Interesting point: Some of the agencies list as misuses sexual orientation, which must surely also restrict implication (out of photo context) that a particular model is heterosexual.)

As the usage is allowed on at least one, or arguably two or three of the agencies (can anyone find 123RF's terms?), a smart lawyer would argue that you have allowed the image to be used in that way on these agencies, so you have little right to complain even if it was purchased from an agency which forbids it.

[Copidosoma]

I guess it is a good thing that you explained to him before he signed the model release that you have very little to no control over where these images will be used. Sure, everyone wants their image to be plastered all over the next Lamborghini ad but that isn't how things work.

I suspect that he should be considering whether he really wants to be a model any more now that he realizes it isn't all glam and parties.

Grab a lawyer, sure. He will help you get your $0.38 back. I'm sure if you told him you were offended by his hourly rates and felt it was taking advantage of you he would have some choice words for you.

[ShadySue]

Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.

Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.

[panicAttack]

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.

I'm sure he would be.

I am here to ask, so it's okay for all of you to have your own opinion and thank you for that. If religious, political and other orientation are not allowed by terms of use, those things can be even worst experience for the model. Not talking about his opinion about gay people, it doesn't matter, I neither have anything against anyone, but for young person it is possible to have some bad experience regarding other modeling jobs and this is falsely represented person (against SS terms of use).

Not to mention that my job will suffer financial damage if he or his friends I already shoot would not model for me anymore because of that.

[ShadySue]

... for young person it is possible to have some bad experience regarding other modeling jobs and this is falsely represented person (against SS terms of use).

Why do you think it's against SS terms of use? I couldn't see that there.
Besides, the SS MR says, "I hereby release, discharge, and agree to hold harmless the Photographer, the Photographer�s heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under the Photographer�s authority or those for whom he/she is acting, from any liability by virtue of any use of the Content or any changes or alterations made thereto."

Besides, what if the model was used in the aforementioned Lamborghini ad but hates Lamborghinis? Would that be misrepresentation?

Most of the agencies' T&C forbid use which suggests a model uses or endorses a product, but what would a model be in an advert for without suggesting their approval. The alterative would be an advert saying basically:
"Here is a photo of a randomly-chosen handsome model"
"Here is a photo of our product"
"Our product is good"

[panicAttack]

Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.

I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.

Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.

[ShadySue]

Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.

I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.

Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.

Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.

Are you sure your young model is even bothered about this? Some of of my (late middle-aged, heterosexual) FB friends yesterday joined some campaign I didn't know about involving overlaying a rainbow flag over their main FB photo to celebrate Gay Pride and equal rights.

[disorderly]

Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.

Waste of time to mention that.  Keywords don't serve to restrict how an image may be used; they are only provided as a way for an agency's search mechanism to guide a client to images they may want to license.  You're grasping at straws.

[panicAttack]

Grab a lawyer, sure. He will help you get your $0.38 back.

this is not about image theft.

[ShadySue]

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.

+100
Because for sure dragging this through a court would damage his reputation irrevokably with anyone but homophobic groups. Who else would then want him representing their product.

[Shelma1]

Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.

I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.

Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.

Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.

Are you sure your young model is even bothered about this? Some of of my (late middle-aged, heterosexual) FB friends yesterday joined some campaign I didn't know about involving overlaying a rainbow flag over their main FB photo to celebrate Gay Pride and equal rights.

Historic Supreme Court decision in the U.S. this week, saying individual states cannot make gay marriage illegal. Huge celebrations and everyone's doing the FB rainbow thing. Now we're only a couple of decades behind the rest of the modern world.

[panicAttack]

Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.

I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.

Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.

Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.

If I can't do anything legally I can't spend all or any of my money.

The thing I am talking about is "reasonable person would find offensive" part.

btw. this is not that picture, but would reasonable person can find offensive this?

https://www.facebook.com/events/797229950373460/

[ShadySue]

I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-person.html

I honestly don't think your model should be modelling. I wouldn't be a stock model, and neither would anyone I know. Clearly some can, but they need to know what they're getting into. The few local-ish people on MM who put Stock on their profile (most don't) seem to think they'll be contacted to approve any use. 

[panicAttack]

I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".

If his images are used all over the web for many sites (fashion, fitness, webshop... etc) he didn't find any of that offensive. Maybe there is something offensive if his sexual orientation are being falsely presented. It is some kind of personal or intimately thing.

[ShadySue]

I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".

If his images are used all over the web for many sites (fashion, fitness, webshop... etc) he didn't find any of that offensive. Maybe there is something offensive if his sexual orientation are being falsely presented.

What if his head was put onto some fashion he deemed offensive, e.g. totally contrary to the image he puts out? What if he was advertising some product/campaign he disapproves of, particularly if he actively campaigns against it in real life? (He could of course officially decry the advert saying how much he disapproves of it, but again, his worth as a stock model would sink.)
Seems like it's best for stock models not to have strong opinions about anything.

[Semmick Photo]

Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.

Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.

Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?