pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Attach a fake Model Release?  (Read 13265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 24, 2009, 14:48 »
0
I wonder what happens if anyone attach at stock sites a fake model releases, I mean, a fake signature and fake data


« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2009, 15:03 »
0
 :o

« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2009, 15:04 »
0
If someone were to do that and get caught they'd likely have their account closed. It's fraud.

« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2009, 15:09 »
0
The release is partly to protect the photographer from being sued by the model (or someone claiming to be the model) for selling their image for commercial use.

« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2009, 15:20 »
0
I wonder what happens if anyone attach at stock sites a fake model releases, I mean, a fake signature and fake data

It is forgery and fraud, a criminal offence, you go to jail. On any site they would close your account and you would lose all earned income, plus the site may sue you for their loss.

Don't even think about it!

-Larry

« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2009, 15:26 »
0
Why do you ask something like this? Do you want to try? :D

« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2009, 16:11 »
0
Why do you ask something like this? Do you want to try? :D

Maybe friend does.  Friends always want to do wrong things...  ;)

« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2009, 16:31 »
0
That is a very BAD idea    :o

« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2009, 16:44 »
0
Actually that's an interesting question. My first guess is that it would never matter unless a legal issue came up regarding use of the image. I can't believe that anyone is actually contacting people in stock photos and asking if they signed the release.   Of course if the person in the photo saw the image being used somewhere, and was unhappy about that, and hadn't signed a release, and an apology alone wasn't enough, you'd be toast.




« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 18:18 »
0
To avoid another hijacked thread, I don't think it is recommended that one should do that.  Then again, you can do whatever you want.  You know the consequences.  But perhaps it isn't a good idea to publicly announce it.

It may be fraud but I don't see jail as an issue unless your country has a habit of incarcerating everyone for anything

« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2009, 19:03 »
0
I think it's a very bad idea. It is also a very bad idea to ask about it in a public forum. I would like to think that this was a more of a provocation rather than a real question.

« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2009, 21:21 »
0
I love microstockers!

You run businesses making imaginary profit, calculate break-even points using imaginary formulas, then declare your hobby expenses and family vacations as legitimate business expenses under imaginary government rules.

If you feel that faking a model release is "wrong", why can't you imagine just one more time that it isn't?

I LOVE microstockers!

And Wilddingo we LOVE you.  I hope you are having a great day.

« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2009, 00:21 »
0
An interesting question. Although now the first thing that came to mind for myself is why do this? This is just a whole can of worms and any serious photographer micro, macro whatever couldn't possibly be this nuts, a newbie maybe this naive to think this is ok but cant really see it either. So that only leaves me thinking of one real last possibility..........stolen images! How / why else would anyone be wanting to submit images with forged releases! Really there is no way to check to see if the person in the image is the same as the release, even with a release with a copy of a government issued id!

Paranoid maybe but it makes sense!

« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2009, 05:19 »
0
NO, I'm NOT planning to do that  ;D if I do, I wouldn't put it on a public forum  ;D
It's simpley I felt quriosity about put this topic over the table and know people's opinion  ;D Years ago I red in a internet forum a person stealing pictures of people on public places and faking model releases, but it was years ago  ;D Just wanted to askask stockers 2 cents ;)

traveler1116

« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2009, 05:46 »
0
NO, I'm NOT planning to do that  ;D if I do, I wouldn't put it on a public forum  ;D
It's simpley I felt quriosity about put this topic over the table and know people's opinion  ;D Years ago I red in a internet forum a person stealing pictures of people on public places and faking model releases, but it was years ago  ;D Just wanted to askask stockers 2 cents ;)

Sounds like a great way to get sued.

« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2009, 08:58 »
0
It's the same thing as stealing someone's images and re-uploading them as your own.

You will get away with it for while. Sooner or later you'll get caught.

People steal images and fake releases all the time. It's just a matter of getting caught.

The agencies will kick you out and under your name don't even bother to try it again with them.

But heck, in certain, less regulated countries copyright laws don't exist or are not enforced so people can go bonkers ripping others off without fearing consequences by the law enforcers or the agencies because chances are high that you don't live in the same country as they have their headquarters. Sad but true.

« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2009, 10:41 »
0
Maybe friend does.  Friends always want to do wrong things...

ROFLMAO!  :D

I suppose one could get away with it for a time as long as the model didn't find out their image was all over the place. Me? I would be so paranoid...I would never even try it.


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2009, 13:18 »
0
Can't imagine why anyone would try faking a model release and risk account closure, lawsuits, or worse.  It would be a really, really stupid thing to do.

If you can't get a model release then you don't have the model's permission to use their image.  Simple.   Legally and ethically it is just WRONG!

« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2009, 13:35 »
0
Can't imagine why anyone would try faking a model release and risk account closure, lawsuits, or worse.  It would be a really, really stupid thing to do.

If you can't get a model release then you don't have the model's permission to use their image.  Simple.   Legally and ethically it is just WRONG!

Lisa,
you know exactly that there are people out there doing it. The same way they steal our images and re-upload them as theirs.

It happened to many of us and it's absolutely no question of ethics or whether it is legal or not because the people who do this don't care about that.

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2009, 13:40 »
0

Lisa,
you know exactly that there are people out there doing it. The same way they steal our images and re-upload them as theirs.


I must be quite naive, because I really hadn't thought about that.  I can see your point though - if you steal images of people and reupload as your own obviously you would have to fake a release to have them accepted. 

OTOH pretty much all the stolen images I have seen uploaded to microstock have been either vectors or photos that don't have people in them. 

I will admit that I don't spend a lot of time or energy on following the progress of the thieves though.  Are a lot of them uploading "model released" stuff?

« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2009, 14:14 »
0
Lisa,
you know exactly that there are people out there doing it. The same way they steal our images and re-upload them as theirs.

I must be quite naive, because I really hadn't thought about that.  I can see your point though - if you steal images of people and reupload as your own obviously you would have to fake a release to have them accepted. 

OTOH pretty much all the stolen images I have seen uploaded to microstock have been either vectors or photos that don't have people in them. 

I will admit that I don't spend a lot of time or energy on following the progress of the thieves though.  Are a lot of them uploading "model released" stuff?

I've heard that it's happening - I doubt anyone can give you numbers...

But seriously when you read all the posts about what kind of images are being ripped off you wonder why would they take those images? If you rip off a best seller then it will shortly rise to the most popular list right next to the "original" once there it won't last long until someone wonders how 2 people can submit the same image.

Furthermore I've seen one of my images being offered unaltered on a few agencies by no less than 3 contributors and gee they all came from Eastern European countries. Try to enforce them laws over there. Don't even bother - it's just upsetting.

Once you see people do this why would you be surprised to hear that they also fake releases???

« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2009, 14:17 »
0
I think stolen images is not the only situation where one would use fake MR's.

Suppose you are shooting nature shots and there's this guy walking his dog and you take a shot that turns out great.  The guy is hardly (or not) recognizable, but afterwards, the photo turns out to be really good stock material. 

I have such a picture.  It was refused by half of the sites because I don't have a signed release.  Blur the face?  That would ruin de shot.  Fake an MR ? 

Before you start thinking I did that :  no, my man-with-dog shot was not good enough to do all the trouble of faking an MR (and beside that, I'm too chicken to do it).  But isn't this a situation where one could be tempted ?

« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2009, 14:32 »
0
Well, tempted or not, it's wrong and illegal.

It could cause a lot of very big problems for the photographer, the agency and the company or person who used the image.

A lot of damage can be caused by that.

Whatever the reason is why someone would feel the need to fake a MR - it's going to jeopardize your career.

« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2009, 14:35 »
0
May be not only the career of the one who faked the MR.
If just a few cases are found out ... how will buyers react?

« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2009, 14:38 »
0
In your situation, Anyka, I can see your point.

I think all the sites take the model release thing a little bit too far. Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people. I don't care if they can identify themselves by their clothing or their dog. Unless their clothes are handmade by them and their dog is the only one of it's kind in the world, there are a million other people with those same clothes and same dog.

I would say a good % of images that are submitted with unrecognizable people were taken in public places. If somebody doesn't want their clothes or their dog to be photographed, then they should stay in their house. That being said, it is still the sites' requirement and I would not jeopardize my sales by doing anything against the rules.

I AM totally with the model release requirement though if their face is showing.

« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2009, 14:50 »
0
In your situation, Anyka, I can see your point.

I think all the sites take the model release thing a little bit too far. Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people. I don't care if they can identify themselves by their clothing or their dog. Unless their clothes are handmade by them and their dog is the only one of it's kind in the world, there are a million other people with those same clothes and same dog.

I would say a good % of images that are submitted with unrecognizable people were taken in public places. If somebody doesn't want their clothes or their dog to be photographed, then they should stay in their house. That being said, it is still the sites' requirement and I would not jeopardize my sales by doing anything against the rules.

I AM totally with the model release requirement though if their face is showing.

Oooooh,
I think you're leaning yourself bit far out of the window with this statement...

To say 
Quote
Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people
is flat out wrong.

This is the reason why people who have tattoos, piercings, missing limbs or other visual disabilities still require a release because they can be identified.
It has nothing to do with their face.

Quick story (from Alamy): An image of a dog lifting its hind leg to pee on to a priest who was holding a sermon outdoors was on of these cases. The image only showed the lower part of the priest's robe and the dog. No faces, no tattoos, no tag on the dog with its name on it - NOTHING. Yet the priest won the case in court because he knew who it was and that he would have never approved this image to be used commercially.

See this is the issue, it's not about people becoming paranoid in public when they are being photographed. Heck, take pictures of people outdoors all day long. But when it comes down to promoting animal testing or other "hot" topics you have to realize that some people don't want to be commercially "used".

As a street photographer you have the right to display the images as you reflect the world as it is. No problem there.

But you have to be careful using other peoples' bodies (LOL - without their consent) for commercial usage. It's not just because of the face!

alias

« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2009, 15:19 »
0
A potential partial temporary solution to the problem of people stealing images, faking MRs and any other stuff which undermines the business as a whole would be to require photographers and illustrators to hold a minimum balance on their accounts of, say, a few thousand $. Hence effectively delaying payments over a few weeks or months.

I'm sure it would also make sense to require people to nominate a proper bank account and the royalties transferred directly.


« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2009, 15:25 »
0
A potential partial temporary solution to the problem of people stealing images, faking MRs and any other stuff which undermines the business as a whole would be to require photographers and illustrators to hold a minimum balance on their accounts of, say, a few thousand $. Hence effectively delaying payments over a few weeks or months.

I'm sure it would also make sense to require people to nominate a proper bank account and the royalties transferred directly.

Sign me up, but I guess only a few people would go with that.

Something along those lines would definitely deter those idiots who try to trick the system.

« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2009, 20:46 »
0
I can guarantee 100% that many people are using fake model releases - I am a frequent traveler to very remote and underdeveloped countries and take loads of photos of people -  typically I provide a donation or something to eat in exchange for photgraphing them but most of the people I photograph cannot read, write, have no fixed address, no phone etc. Many are nomadic. Now, even if I did manage to follow the model release rules re phone numbers and addresess (impossible but supposing) ... we are talking about people who would have no idea what they were being asked to sign never mind the fact that they cannot read or write ... and the language barriers? Impossible ... Yet for all the reasons that make getting a model release impossible also makes it largely impossible that a fake a release will be found out ... there are no computers, no internet, etc etc ...  no contact with the outside world ... and even if by some miracle they did discover their photo being used, they would have no concept of their rights anyway.   

But I have seen people who have also travelled to some of these regions upload supposedly model released images of these same people that I know from experience cannot possibly have signed a valid release ... in fact I see it all the time ...
 

« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2009, 12:59 »
0
hoi ha,

I also know a lot of people who do that.  Approach a local, chat, take some photos, leave some money or a gift in exchange, then he thinks he "own" rights because the people let him photograph them.

In those cases, it's very simple: people should not sell these images for commercial purposes.  I know people who sell the same type of images as RF editorial in SP, and I also do not agree with this because in fact you have no control about how the images will be used, and they can be used out of context.

Any site should be suspicious of MRs signed by people in the circumstances you cited, but indeed many sites carry them (they are even at IS's Vetta).

« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2009, 03:51 »
0
Dude! this question has been brought into DT blogs  ;D

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2009/09/29/model-releases-are-real-realy-_art30504

« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2009, 10:07 »
0
great...sammy is wilddingo and god knows who else.  seriously, can we either not ban IPs or stop people from re-joining a million times under different names.

Do people not have better things to do?

« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2009, 10:52 »
0
 Hi All,

 We don't shoot a frame till the model release is signed and a photo of the model holding the release has been taken. This is added to our archives and guarantees we will not be sued down the road. Easy to do and totally covers you. Along with a witness to the signing of the release and your safe as can be.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2009, 14:12 »
0
Hi All,

 We don't shoot a frame till the model release is signed and a photo of the model holding the release has been taken. This is added to our archives and guarantees we will not be sued down the road. Easy to do and totally covers you. Along with a witness to the signing of the release and your safe as can be.

Best,
Jonathan

Amen, you only gotta do it right once.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
7116 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
3 Replies
1451 Views
Last post January 08, 2013, 04:24
by leaf
4 Replies
2545 Views
Last post February 22, 2015, 12:52
by LouisPhotos
4 Replies
2757 Views
Last post June 28, 2016, 12:39
by PhotoLA
18 Replies
2473 Views
Last post January 19, 2018, 10:18
by eva.night

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results