MicrostockGroup

haha great quote, and well stated by John Kelly

ROFLMAO!! 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.