Author Topic: Be in a stock photo they said, what's the worst that could happen? (Read 4824 times)

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2013, 05:54 »

Poor cropping on the feet imo, and how big are those feet anyway?

Is that sensitive use? Is that allowed?

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2013, 06:03 »

I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.

Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2013, 06:44 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 05, 2013, 06:03

I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.

Yeah, maybe; but not so good if it's a friend or family member (such as I always read here of people using) who has a different job.
Although there's a credit to the tog/agency, it doesn't actually say 'posed by model', which I'm sure at one time at least was mandatory. I guess that has changed. People I know outwith stock circles have no idea what stock is, so wouldn't interpret the credit as meaning that was a model / stock photo.

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2013, 07:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 05, 2013, 06:03

I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.

Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men

The Guardian is posting these sorts of articles precisely to drive the mostly Mike Giggler-esque comments which account for much of their traffic. It is all about advertising. They are also peppering the online edition with increasingly deliberately inflammatory articles headlined so as to attract controversy and therefore comment attention (e.g. opinion pieces written by commentators and correspondents with relatively hardline political and social opinions which are likely to divide and upset the readers).

It's all about the comments.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2013, 07:45 »

Quote from: bhr on November 05, 2013, 07:05

Quote from: gostwyck on November 05, 2013, 06:03
I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.

Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men

The Guardian is posting these sorts of articles precisely to drive the mostly Mike Giggler-esque comments which account for much of their traffic. It is all about advertising. They are also peppering the online edition with increasingly deliberately inflammatory articles headlined so as to attract controversy and therefore comment attention (e.g. opinion pieces written by commentators and correspondents with relatively hardline political and social opinions which are likely to divide and upset the readers).

It's all about the comments.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that although I'm pretty sure that the agony aunt 'letter' was either sent in as a joke or simply made up by Guardian staff.

I wonder if that's why Amazon does nothing to discourage spoof (but often hilarious) reviews like those for 'Tuscan Whole Milk, 128 fl oz' for example, amongst many others?

http://www.amazon.com/Tuscan-Whole-Milk-Gallon-128/product-reviews/B00032G1S0/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2013, 09:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 05, 2013, 07:45

I wonder if that's why Amazon does nothing to discourage spoof (but often hilarious) reviews like those for 'Tuscan Whole Milk, 128 fl oz' for example, amongst many others?

I'd never seen any, but I'd never thought of buying a gallon of milk on Amazon.
Interesting: "Used & New from: $9.99".
I guess the 'used' version already 'passed through'.
That 'takes the p*ss' to a whole new level.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2013, 16:03 »

... or the colorful reviews of this Hasselblad camera

bunhill · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2013, 16:07 »

another thing to look out for on eBay and Amazon is the thing which costs, say, 1000x more than it should. I have seen this a few times but do not have a current link.

I am fairly certain, or assume, that is down to some sort of money laundering or other funny accounting practice.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2013, 17:01 »

Quote from: bhr on November 05, 2013, 16:07

another thing to look out for on eBay and Amazon is the thing which costs, say, 1000x more than it should. I have seen this a few times but do not have a current link.

I am fairly certain, or assume, that is down to some sort of money laundering or other funny accounting practice.

That's an interesting thought. I had assumed they were trawling for idiots or had mis-typed the price. On ebay yesterday, I saw 30.5m reels of Fomapan 100 film (for loading film casettes) offered at $800, when the true price is about $55.

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2013, 17:03 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 05, 2013, 17:01

Quote from: bhr on November 05, 2013, 16:07
another thing to look out for on eBay and Amazon is the thing which costs, say, 1000x more than it should. I have seen this a few times but do not have a current link.

I am fairly certain, or assume, that is down to some sort of money laundering or other funny accounting practice.

That's an interesting thought. I had assumed they were trawling for idiots or had mis-typed the price. On ebay yesterday, I saw 30.5m reels of Fomapan 100 film (for loading film casettes) offered at $800, when the true price is about $55.

Yep money laundering would be my guess. Especially on something obscure and technical like that. Easy to obscure in the accounting.

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2013, 21:27 »

Quote from: bhr on November 05, 2013, 07:05

Quote from: gostwyck on November 05, 2013, 06:03
I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.

Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men

The Guardian is posting these sorts of articles precisely to drive the mostly Mike Giggler-esque comments which account for much of their traffic. It is all about advertising. They are also peppering the online edition with increasingly deliberately inflammatory articles headlined so as to attract controversy and therefore comment attention (e.g. opinion pieces written by commentators and correspondents with relatively hardline political and social opinions which are likely to divide and upset the readers).

It's all about the comments.

Just like every other mass media "news source".

bunhill · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2013, 05:58 »

First the original item: I fantasise about group sex with old, obese men + comments. And now an item about the item: I do NOT like sex with old, obese men: the perils of being a stock-shot model + comments.

+ lots of Twitter action

Re: the second article - someone remind me please ... what is the name of that thing where a thing is the thing about itself in a way which is more than just self referential ?

Quote from: stockastic on November 05, 2013, 21:27

Just like every other mass media "news source".

Yep. It's not a criticism I was making or intending although I can see it might seem like that. It's their craft and skill I am observing - their ability to engage their audience.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Be in a stock photo they said, what's the worst that could happen? (Read 4824 times)

Smudgechris

Ron

gostwyck

ShadySue

bunhill

gostwyck

ShadySue

leaf

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

stockastic

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors