Author Topic: Stock image legs amputated for diabetes ad...NYT now looking for Getty model (Read 3665 times)

leaf · « **Reply #50 on:** January 31, 2012, 00:55 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 25, 2012, 17:44

I liked this quote;

“Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors,” said John Kelly, a health department spokesman. “We might stop using actors in our ads if the food industry stops using actors in theirs.”

haha great quote, and well stated by John Kelly

clickinchic · « **Reply #51 on:** January 31, 2012, 09:12 »

It's not going away....this story's got legs.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beyond-shocked-model-in-photoshopped-ny-health-department-ad-depicting-amputation-speaks-out/

lisafx · « **Reply #52 on:** January 31, 2012, 17:00 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 30, 2012, 19:05

He signed it __ therefore he didn't have a leg to stand on.

ROFLMAO!!

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #53 on:** January 31, 2012, 19:52 »

I've was following this story elsewhere for a bit at the beginning, but its just such crap all around. The photographer definitely knew who the guys was and lied about it. It should simply be labeled as an illustration and left at that - isn't that what stock photography is all about... using images as source material??? All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

What's this saying to amputees, by the way? The model's disgust seems to say a lot.... although one look tells me he could've been depicted in MUCH more unflattering terms. Maybe surrounded by a mound of cheesburgers? Sitting on a crushed treadmill?

Zeus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:27 »

I think the model better shake a leg if he wants to get a leg up on Getty's lawyers. Personally I think they'll walk all over him.

ShadySue · « **Reply #55 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:34 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 19:52

All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

holgs · « **Reply #56 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:34 »

Really the whole story is just odd - someone uses photoshop as part of an advertising campaign? I'm shocked!

Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this? If he's a busy commercial photographer then he probably can't remember, and isn't going to go digging around in his file in response to a question that's probably over the phone. They don't go and call all the attractive people who act in McDonalds advertising to see if they really eat McCrapburgers do they? Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

Why should the standards be different just because someone is promoting a health issue, rather than trying to sell children sugar?

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #57 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:37 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:34

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 19:52
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big * deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"? Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #58 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:40 »

Quote from: holgs on January 31, 2012, 20:34

Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this?

He shouldn't, but he shouldn't lie either. Simply saying "I'm not willing to share the model's name." would be a truthful answer. He makes himself look bad by saying he didn't know who the guy was. I've shot thousands of models going back a decade and can pull a release for every single one within a couple minutes. Anyone who can't do the same should re-examine their organizational skills and business policy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:47 »

Quote from: holgs on January 31, 2012, 20:34

Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00046304.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/photoshopped-julia-roberts-advert-banned-in-uk

holgs · « **Reply #60 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:53 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 20:40

Quote from: holgs on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this?

He shouldn't, but he shouldn't lie either. Simply saying "I'm not willing to share the model's name." would be a truthful answer. He makes himself look bad by saying he didn't know who the guy was. I've shot thousands of models going back a decade and can pull a release for every single one within a couple minutes. Anyone who can't do the same should re-examine their organizational skills and business policy.

Well to be honest if someone asked me if I knew the name of a model I'd shot 2 years ago, and I didn't know, and I was wanting to be polite, that's exactly how I'd answer. Maybe his answer was "I don't know, I'd have to look it up, but I couldn't tell you even if I did look it up". I wouldn't necessarily trust everything I read from a journalist as being a 100% account of events. Probably I wouldn't be quite so polite - its none of their business.

holgs · « **Reply #61 on:** January 31, 2012, 20:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:47

Quote from: holgs on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing

Its different when you're selling a product and claiming that it has that result. They don't apply that standard with food or beverage advertising.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** January 31, 2012, 21:04 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 20:37

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 19:52
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"? Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** January 31, 2012, 21:40 »

The nice thing about this story is that the $500 model fee would have paid for enough fresh salads to last several months __ which is probably what the young chap spent it on! Another happy ending.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #64 on:** February 01, 2012, 01:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:47

Quote from: holgs on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00046304.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/photoshopped-julia-roberts-advert-banned-in-uk

It was pretty extreme retouching: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/58821
Even so, the basis of the objection to that advert is at least as ridiculous and misleading as the advert itself. The 700 people who objected to the PS work around her eyes are indicating that they believe that "Olay is the secret" to whatever the appearance of her eyes actually is, as long as there isn't any retouching. Does anyone really believe that celebs/models genuinely prefer whatever they endorse? If so, why don't they announce it before they get their fat cheques from manufacturers?

gaja · « **Reply #65 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:17 »

I sure won't hire that model - complaining about contracts and making trouble.

ShadySue · « **Reply #66 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:56 »

Quote from: gaja on February 01, 2012, 17:17

I sure won't hire that model - complaining about contracts and making trouble.

Clearly he was put up to it by the paper, and may even have been misquoted. Or words 'put into his mouth'. You know how it goes.

gillian · « **Reply #67 on:** February 02, 2012, 05:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 21:04

Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 20:37
Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 19:52
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"? Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.

lol. you really want to start telling people they might end up as the face of a new hemorrhoid product?

ShadySue · « **Reply #68 on:** February 02, 2012, 06:20 »

Quote from: vannphoto on February 02, 2012, 05:27

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 21:04
Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 20:37
Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2012, 20:34
Quote from: blackwaterimages on January 31, 2012, 19:52
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"? Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.

lol. you really want to start telling people they might end up as the face of a new hemorrhoid product?

Everyone I've ever asked has refused and fall about laughing when I mention the slight possibility of Viagra ads or "They could photoshop you in any way they want" and wonder, as I do, why anyone would agree to that.
If I didn't tell them and they end up used like that, only the lawyers would get rich, and I'd get poor, arguing about whether "you should have carefully read the release and thought about the implications before you signed" really fulfils the notion of "fully-informed consent". And even then, it's your word against theirs, and only the lawyers would get rich arguing that out.