Author Topic: Are You Allowed To Imply A Model Is Gay? ATTN: Yuri (Read 12921 times)

Allen · « **on:** January 15, 2009, 13:33 »

I found this magazine http://issuu.com/wesbenn/docs/gaytimesmag , with one of Yuri's models. It is a gay magazine and Yuri's model is on the cover. Some people would take offense at this and others wouldn't.

What's your view if you seen one of your models in a gay/lesbian magazine?

mantonino · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:35 »

Gotta admit - wouldn't be pleased if that were my photo. That being said, we lose control once we upload so....

cdwheatley · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:39 »

I bet the magazine asked for permission. To many potential lawsuits every month.

I had the "Florida gay rodeo association" lol.. contact me to use a image of mine from istock. they wanted to be sure all parties involved were ok with usage.

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:41 »

Might be Yuri's model, but is it his photo?

null · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:46 »

If an actor plays Hamlet, does that imply he is Hamlet? Modeling is about acting and impersonating. I never shot a real businessman but my port is full of "businessmen". I always tell my models that they can be used to promote anything. A vegetarian can be used in an ad for meat. I shot an atheist boy recently as "Muslim girl with headscarf". If they have second thoughts about the job, that's fine, but then I don't want them.

You could argue about slanderous use, but as Obama said that race is not an issue, you can as well argue that sexual orientation is not an issue. If I'm right, this is 2009.

vonkara · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:47 »

I would not care if I was the model. Only 12 years old think being gay is bad. At least I hope it's the case in the 21th century

Allen · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:50 »

Quote from: Vonkara on January 15, 2009, 13:47

I would not care if I was the model. Only 12 years old think being gay is bad. At least I hope it's the case in the 21th century

I wouldn't care if I was the model either... but then again I do know a lot of people that are still very homophobic. (Sorry if that's not politically correct.)

mantonino · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: Vonkara on January 15, 2009, 13:47

I would not care if I was the model. Only 12 years old think being gay is bad. At least I hope it's the case in the 21th century

Slander is an untruth that could hurt someone's reputation. Whether YOU are homophobic or not (and most people aren't now - which is good), it could hurt the model's reputation for sure. Maybe not with you. But with others, as dragon_fang said "a lot of people are still very homophobic."

Personally don't care - maybe the model IS gay or maybe they asked.

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:54 »

Yes I know that. But these people are not my friends LOL. I even don't care if they exist. Speeching for myself. It could be different for this guy

bittersweet · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2009, 13:57 »

Quote from: Vonkara on January 15, 2009, 13:54

It could be different for this guy

...or his wife ... or his kids???

Would they be "homophobic" to see him there? Hmm... I'm not sure if that is the word I'd use.

null · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:11 »

Quote from: mantonino on January 15, 2009, 13:53

Personally don't care - maybe the model IS gay or maybe they asked.

Well it's not about what some people might think, but about what the model thinks. I figure that was the question originally. But nevertheless, sexual orientation is not as neutral an issue as vegetarian/meateater, and then there is the crazy American legal system that allows trillions for the most exotic "damages". So it would be wise indeed to ask the model beforehand.

I have a very strict clause in my generic MRF that the use of the Photographs is beyond discussion. I don't mention slanderous or sensitive use in it at all. The Photographs and their use are beyond our control. I tell that the models beforehand.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:18 »

This guy on the cover of the magazine is an adult and I am sure photographer told him that his photo can appear everywhere. So.... it's too late to think about his reputation. He signed the MR, he wanted to appear somewhere. He didn't signed MR to appear only in magazines "for girls" like Cosmopolitan

and I am sure this won't ruin his reputation. I live in small city and people here are very conservative. But I still think, girls would look at this guy even with more interests after this... they would be more curious...just to check if it's true

vonkara · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:18 »

deleted... Yea the guy signed the model release. That means a lot. Weird sometimes that I can't make people sign a release in the small village I live in actually. But I can have hundred when I'm in Montreal if I really wanted it. Are they affraid of life. Meaningless I know

null · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:19 »

Quote from: whatalife on January 15, 2009, 13:57

...or his wife ... or his kids??? Would they be "homophobic" to see him there?

If his wife or his kids, or "homophobes" for that matter, see him in the GayTimes, I think they have some explanations to do first

Homophobes are mostly closeted gays in a state of denial. Straights just don't care.

Pixart · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:58 »

LOL, I have to be the most prejudice one here because my first thought was "Anyone who is that good looking HAS to be gay anyway." I think I spent too many years working in theatre and film where everyone was presumed gay until otherwise stated... now I live in quite a red-neck part of the world and I haven't met one openly gay person in the 6 years that I've been here. Not to mention, the theatre here sucks.

Freedom · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2009, 14:58 »

If the model is gay and consents to be open, "gay" and "homosexual" are likely to be in the keywords. That's how I handle it.

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2009, 15:11 »

A couple of years ago, a couple of well-known female photographers at istock happened to have posed for some photos together at an istock event. They are just friends and most definitely not gay (married -to men- with children, etc). There were no suggestions to the contrary in the title, description, or keywords of the image. One of these images was downloaded and used on a GLBT dating website and on their banner ad.

When this was discovered, these women were less than thrilled, and istock got involved and the photos were removed on the grounds that it was in violation of the licensing agreement.

Appearing on the cover of a gay magazine is a bit different than appearing in an ad, and unless they did get special permission from the model, or there was some artist's statement saying that this model would be fine with that type of usage, I'd say that they've stepped into dangerous territory.

gostwyck · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2009, 15:19 »

Just because they've put the image on the cover (or within) the magazine does not automatically imply that the model is gay. All it implies is that gay men are likely to find the model attractive.

Celebrities and sportstars (like the footballer David Beckam for example) often become 'gay icons' and I'd assume would be featured in gay magazines without any suggestion that they are gay.

I think any agency would struggle to take any action against such a use and would risk being accused of being homophobic if they attempted to.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2009, 15:25 »

I used to have a very comprehensive release that covered all sensitive use issues like this. But most agencies and micros need a different release. I could never really figure this out. I get the occasional call from trad agencies regarding sensitive issues, most recently a model was to be used to depict a cancer surviver, but I would not allow such a use through a micro it I had a say in the matter. However I know I don't always have a say.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2009, 15:42 »

I am surprised that simply being used on a gay magazine or website can be construed as "sensitive use" according to istock's legal department. Does that mean that someone being portrayed as hispanic, or jewish, or republican, or whatever if they aren't is also sensitive use if the model objects?

My daughter has dark curly hair and has been mistaken for hispanic so many times that I finally just started adding the keyword. My senior models were used to advertise a Jewish retirement home, despite the fact that he is actually an ordained minister. No big deal. Why should there be some special exception made if a model is used in a gay publication?

There is a big difference between a legal "sensitive use" and simply people's personal preferences and prejudices. What the models think really shouldn't be legally relevant if they have signed a comprehensive model release. I know the sites licenses have exceptions for "sensitive uses" but my model release doesn't.

If we have been honest with our models and made sure they understand the release then the rest is pretty much out of our hands unless there is clearcut abuse, which this obviously isn't.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2009, 15:49 »

I agree that the model is just eye candy for the cover, and the magazine is probably within most licenses to use it as such. No endorsements or implications by a reasonable person.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2009, 16:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 15, 2009, 15:42

I am surprised that simply being used on a gay magazine or website can be construed as "sensitive use" according to istock's legal department. Does that mean that someone being portrayed as hispanic, or jewish, or republican, or whatever if they aren't is also sensitive use if the model objects?

Trouble is its usually the lawyers and courts who end up deciding, not reasonable people.

goldenangel · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2009, 16:31 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 15, 2009, 15:42

I am surprised that simply being used on a gay magazine or website can be construed as "sensitive use" according to istock's legal department. Does that mean that someone being portrayed as hispanic, or jewish, or republican, or whatever if they aren't is also sensitive use if the model objects?

I totally agree. Who's going to define what "sensitive" is. Perhaps appearing in a religious, or a "racial minority" specific magazine can be offensive to someone? I'm sure many people get offended with many different things. I sincerely hope that being gay, or Hispanic, or ... makes no difference i many people's minds. For those for whom it still does, it's their problem and they should deal with it.

The model signed the MR, which means he agreed to the terms of it. I see no issue there.

araminta · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2009, 16:39 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 15, 2009, 13:41

Might be Yuri's model, but is it his photo?

It is

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/people/1594813-young-male-underwear-model.php?id=1594813

Tuilay · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2009, 16:42 »

Quote from: mantonino on January 15, 2009, 13:35

Gotta admit - wouldn't be pleased if that were my photo. That being said, we lose control once we upload so....

I think that says it all. A model is more like an actor. You play a part, even if it may or may not be your lifestyle.
Remember nobody thought the late Rock Hudson , the actor that made ladies (ask your granny, ha!ha!) swoon in the old days, was gay. It was not relevant , and was at that time, none of anybody's business.
How about a model who portray a burnt victim, or a drug addict? Does that mean they are ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are You Allowed To Imply A Model Is Gay? ATTN: Yuri (Read 12921 times)

Allen

mantonino

cdwheatley

Pixart

null

vonkara

Allen

mantonino

vonkara

bittersweet

null

Dreamframer

vonkara

null

Pixart

Freedom

bittersweet

gostwyck

PeterChigmaroff

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

PeterChigmaroff

goldenangel

araminta

Tuilay

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors