pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Being sued by model in federal court, please read!  (Read 31915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: January 30, 2015, 11:53 »
-23
@Joshua
Here is my wish for you:
1: I hope that you get enough money from your campaign to overcome that lawsuit without any damage
2: I hope that the model will win the lawsuit!
Why??
Because this will open the doors for a lot of similar lawsuits and this will hopefully smash this rotten and crook "business" called microstock down so that these miserable exploiters never will stand up.

Lets burn down the house!
Kick the bucket, microstock!

PS: If you flirt with butchers you shouldnt be surprised to end up slaughtered


« Reply #151 on: January 30, 2015, 13:18 »
+9
What does this have to do with micro stock? A photographer is being sued for the end use of an image, which he has no control over. The model is suing the companies that used the image illegally, that is the proper course of action, but there is no evidence that the photographer sold the image directly to the companies that are misusing her image. The photographer is also outraged at the misuse of the image so the model and photographer should be a team in the lawsuits not antagonists. The model suing the photographer is wrong, period. This woman instantly loses sympathy by her avarice.

« Reply #152 on: January 30, 2015, 13:19 »
+15
I don't consider it my mission to bring education and information to masses. However, it seems like we have a couple of people here that have trouble understanding what's going on. So I'll give them a benefit of the doubt and assume they are not posting what they do just to try to be disruptive, but are genuinely convinced in what they are saying. So here is my attempt to bring some rational thinking back here:

To Axel Lauer: The issue here has nothing to do with microstock. Images bought from Getty and Corbis in the past with both RF has RM licenses have been similarly misused and corresponding lawsuits have been filed againts photographers, agencies, and the end user. There is absolutely nothing new here and nothing specific to microstock. If you doubt my words, please do your own search, in our wonderful era of the internet the information is at your fingertips.

To anonymous person hiding behind the username of "Ouchie": You seem to be claiming the photographer here has put the model at risk. My comment earlier about you not being familiar with a model release was related to the fact that the model release explicitly states that they images can not be used in the industry that model didn't want to be associated with. The license for the image also explicitly states the same. The photographer made sure he stuck to his end of the deal by submitting the images to the agency(s) with appropriate license limitations. I find it hard to believe that you are seriously stating that the photographer ruined the model's career. When you buy a car, does it say in your sale agreement that the car can be stolen by criminals who can potentially rob the bank? Who gets arrested in that case - the criminals or the car manufacturer? Taking photographer to court for image misused by people who broke the license agreement is as absurd as suing a car manufacturer for the bank robbery. Sure, I can understand how upset the model must be. But you'd also be upset if your car got stolen. Criminals exist, and we have a justice system to deal with them. In this case, people who misused the image are criminals. The photographer didn't break any laws or contractual obligations.

Now, if both of you going to continue posting "microstock sucks" and "you microstockers deserve all this crap" that would be a proof that you're not interested in any constructive discussions. In which case on the "ignore" list you go.

« Reply #153 on: January 30, 2015, 13:22 »
-16
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

Hey, i just looked at your portfolio and it made me............. "LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

You seem to be anonymous and haven't provided any links to your portfolio. Please don't make comments about someone else's portfolio when you are hiding behind anonymity - that is pathetic.

yea right, i will give you my address, ss#, and tax details.

Get real just cause u dum dosent mean i am.

plus what u wana see a bunch of cabbages?!

« Reply #154 on: January 30, 2015, 13:47 »
-14
I don't consider it my mission to bring education and information to masses. However, it seems like we have a couple of people here that have trouble understanding what's going on. So I'll give them a benefit of the doubt and assume they are not posting what they do just to try to be disruptive, but are genuinely convinced in what they are saying. So here is my attempt to bring some rational thinking back here:

To Axel Lauer: The issue here has nothing to do with microstock. Images bought from Getty and Corbis in the past with both RF has RM licenses have been similarly misused and corresponding lawsuits have been filed againts photographers, agencies, and the end user. There is absolutely nothing new here and nothing specific to microstock. If you doubt my words, please do your own search, in our wonderful era of the internet the information is at your fingertips.

To anonymous person hiding behind the username of "Ouchie": You seem to be claiming the photographer here has put the model at risk. My comment earlier about you not being familiar with a model release was related to the fact that the model release explicitly states that they images can not be used in the industry that model didn't want to be associated with. The license for the image also explicitly states the same. The photographer made sure he stuck to his end of the deal by submitting the images to the agency(s) with appropriate license limitations. I find it hard to believe that you are seriously stating that the photographer ruined the model's career. When you buy a car, does it say in your sale agreement that the car can be stolen by criminals who can potentially rob the bank? Who gets arrested in that case - the criminals or the car manufacturer? Taking photographer to court for image misused by people who broke the license agreement is as absurd as suing a car manufacturer for the bank robbery. Sure, I can understand how upset the model must be. But you'd also be upset if your car got stolen. Criminals exist, and we have a justice system to deal with them. In this case, people who misused the image are criminals. The photographer didn't break any laws or contractual obligations.

Now, if both of you going to continue posting "microstock sucks" and "you microstockers deserve all this crap" that would be a proof that you're not interested in any constructive discussions. In which case on the "ignore" list you go.

HOW in the heck do you know what model release this photog used? Post a copy if you have his release, and we can go from there. fyi"when i say model release om referring to a generic copy.

regarding not giving links and my personal info out....well not everyone is a fame hound and some people like anonymity. plus what is who i am to do with this? my port? what u want to see may crappy port of cabbages? please, I'm not claiming to be anything special in photography. just ppl made innuendos to my skill and i responded in like fashion. they tried to piss me off and i did the same.
i looked at your port and like you pics, even if VERY microstocky. but hey that sells! and looking at your port i would also be concerned in the out come of this case, cause you have some pics that could be used in the pron industry, and you'd be in the same boat begging for $$ for help with the legal fees.
Dude just needs to settle this case, cut his losses and move on.
P.S. i know you (all) are severely biased cause well lets face it, your bread is buttered on one side, and you just don't want to scrap of the butter ;). so you fight when someone gives yo the other view point.

and i never said "microstock sucks" i am one of you but i can be objective.

ShadySue

« Reply #155 on: January 30, 2015, 14:05 »
+10
HOW in the heck do you know what model release this photog used? Post a copy if you have his release, and we can go from there.

I was pretty certain you'd just stuck your oar in without reading this thread.
You have proved it beyond doubt.
The model release is here:
http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf
Referenced in reply #96 above.

Troll identified.

« Reply #156 on: January 30, 2015, 14:05 »
+12
HOW in the heck do you know what model release this photog used? Post a copy if you have his release, and we can go from there. fyi"when i say model release om referring to a generic copy.

Because it was posted earlier in this thread, nitwit.  Research it yourself.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #157 on: January 30, 2015, 14:20 »
0

Troll identified.
I promise, its not me !  ;)

« Reply #158 on: January 30, 2015, 14:22 »
+4

i looked at your port and like you pics, even if VERY microstocky.

Thank you Ouchie, but don't you think it makes a lot of sense to sell "microstocky" images through microstock agencies?... I think it does. I sell my images though many different venues and to various publications, and the style of the images I submit depends on where they are intended to go. It works well for me.
Regarding "all of us" here defending the photographer, being "upset" and failing to see the "other side" - didn't I just address it my long post above? You're implying that all of us here are scared because we have model shots in our portfolio, and that's the only reason we take this photographers' side. How about you be nice and read through my reasoning - does it make any sense to you?

« Reply #159 on: January 30, 2015, 16:31 »
+1
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

Hey, i just looked at your portfolio and it made me............. "LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

Just reading your posts gives me an OUCHIE!

It gives me a big YAAAAAAAWN!  So ez to come in posting how the duscussions are one sided, but then the other 'side' ouchie adds is just insulting everybody.  .Like I said.  Yaaaaaawn.

« Reply #160 on: January 30, 2015, 18:18 »
0
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

Hey, i just looked at your portfolio and it made me............. "LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

Just reading your posts gives me an OUCHIE!

It gives me a big YAAAAAAAWN!  So ez to come in posting how the duscussions are one sided, but then the other 'side' ouchie adds is just insulting everybody.  .Like I said.  Yaaaaaawn.

No. It is me only. I don't speak for everyone.

« Reply #161 on: January 30, 2015, 18:35 »
-10

i looked at your port and like you pics, even if VERY microstocky.

Thank you Ouchie, but don't you think it makes a lot of sense to sell "microstocky" images through microstock agencies?... I think it does. I sell my images though many different venues and to various publications, and the style of the images I submit depends on where they are intended to go. It works well for me.
Regarding "all of us" here defending the photographer, being "upset" and failing to see the "other side" - didn't I just address it my long post above? You're implying that all of us here are scared because we have model shots in our portfolio, and that's the only reason we take this photographers' side. How about you be nice and read through my reasoning - does it make any sense to you?

talk abt reading and comprehending! get it out of your mind that im a troll. i do the exact same thing you all are, i sell on microstock. the only diff is i will say what is on my mind and will not care abt all the pitchfork wheeling hillbillies coming after me. but it is tiering and i just want read the contract and then post one more time. i already know talking to you all is like talking to a brick wall.  well sorry, didn't mean to disrespect the brick wall, at least they serve a purpose.

« Reply #162 on: January 30, 2015, 18:57 »
-9
quickly read the release.

almost the same as a universal release. exactly what i expected! shows how ignorant most are on here.

ergo, not enough detail.
where in there does he advise that the type of photos he took might or prob will be used in the adult sex industry?

and before u say "oh what does he have to list every possible use?"
i say no he doesent, BUT he should disclose to the model that these types of photos we are making makes them much more desirable and likely to be used in the porn industry. if for no other reason other then as a courtesy.
 
all it says is a blanket statement that she cant sue him.

I signed a similar contract when i went sky diving.

Pooie, meaningless, they (skydiving) get sued all the time when someone gets hurt. same thing for pre nups.

you all should just shuttie.
cause you are gona make him loose this case faster with your ignorant self serving defensiveness.


« Reply #163 on: January 30, 2015, 20:37 »
+13
This is only the second time I have used the useful 'ignore' feature of the site...

« Reply #164 on: January 30, 2015, 21:43 »
+2
Ignore is bliss. All forums should have that option.

I hope he wins his case, it is crazy that people do adult themed sessions and then are surprised if they show up in adult related websites. Images get stolen every day on the internet, if you dont want your images to be used in that context, you really cant show them anywhere online. That is the only way to prevent image theft and abuse.


« Reply #165 on: January 30, 2015, 23:07 »
+7
This is only the second time I have used the useful 'ignore' feature of the site...

Thanks for reminding me it is there.  Its been so long since anybody went completely mad in here I haven't needed it til now.

« Reply #166 on: January 31, 2015, 00:43 »
+1
Quote
Those who focus on the model and whether she was posing in lingerie or not, are missing the point totally.
There is a bigger issue here.
The thing in question here is whether a photographer can be held responsible for what an end user is doing with his/her photos.
If the end user is breaching a TOS, how the h*ll can the photographer be responsible.
If you think that this only concerns photographers who shoots lingerie you are way off.
This concerns everyone who shoots people for stock.
Regular portraits of "regular" girls, grandmothers and even kids are being misused everyday and if the model should win this case, this industry will have to change drastically on many levels.

Indeed!
Several years ago, a national magazine (I don't remember which one) ran a story about about some shady pharmacy practices and to embellish their article, they used a stock photo of an elderly pharmacist in a white coat with a title "Would you trust this man?" or something along those lines.  I don't remember all the details, but for the pharmacist it was a personal and business disaster. As far as as I know, the magazine claimed a legal usage of the photo.


« Reply #167 on: January 31, 2015, 01:59 »
+3
Elenathewise, congrats!
Any news/update from Joshua's case?

« Reply #168 on: January 31, 2015, 04:25 »
0
Ignore is bliss. All forums should have that option.

I hope he wins his case, it is crazy that people do adult themed sessions and then are surprised if they show up in adult related websites. Images get stolen every day on the internet, if you dont want your images to be used in that context, you really cant show them anywhere online. That is the only way to prevent image theft and abuse.
Not only! It's so easy to take photo or scan printed media and make image available to internet! Everyone can do this these days..

Gino

« Reply #169 on: January 31, 2015, 05:25 »
+5
HOW in the heck do you know what model release this photog used? Post a copy if you have his release, and we can go from there.

I was pretty certain you'd just stuck your oar in without reading this thread.
You have proved it beyond doubt.
The model release is here:
http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf
Referenced in reply #96 above.

Troll identified.


realy you thought id sit and read all this drivvle from you ppl! i have been oh here for a while and know you all, anything/comment that goes against you all and your wallets, out come the pitch forks and torches.
and your mama is a Troll.


I agree. Having another opinion ($club or positive about stock agencies) does not always have a positive outcome here. BUT. There is a difference in having another opinion and just not being realistic. I do not mean to offense you. But even you must see that this photographer did nothing wrong?

Photographer to hot girl: I shoot stock and sell them ONLINE. Do you agree?
Hot girl to photographer: YES

It REALLY is as simple as that!

I mean... look at the shoot! How dumb can she be? These images are HOT! And she knows! Did she live onder a rock not knowing what selling ONLINE means?

I feel for this guy. I really hope he wins. I just cannot believe why she is trying to destroy him like this. Because that is what she is doing.

I Googled her yesterday and there is an article about this situation in my country. I could not believe what I read there. It said that the model had an agreement to do a shoot with a photographer but they agreed it would not be sold to porn websites. After the shoot the photographer sold the images to porn sites and Playboy. It says it as simple as that. If I would not know any better I would think this guy is dirty. NOT one word about it being stock photography! And the story goes on only about her side and that she now has a porn star reputation without signing for that and how it destroys her life and the risks models take these days blablabla...

This girl is evil and has no feelings. I think she even likes all the publicity she is getting just to get more attention. If she is lucky Playboy will really ask here for a shoot. I bet she won't turn it down.

« Reply #170 on: January 31, 2015, 06:43 »
+6
I hope all it is is that the lawyer has suggested that she initially include everyone possible in the case. It's pretty obvious the photographer has no case to answer. It's difficult to know what she is thinking given some of the other photos she has put out there that are just as "revealing" and in a similar vein. The only difference is that the photo in the case is better quality so worth stealing. As far as I can tell the photographer has only slipped up by being better than her previous photographers!

I would say that she is right to sue the end users using the images outside the permitted license, or even just stealing the images without licensing them. This could even lead to a positive outcome for us by forcing the agencies to take infringements more seriously. It's about time all the agencies got together and came up with a universal licensing system where every download had a reference number which encoded where the image was purchased, by who and under what license. This could be embedded in the images and the licence prohibit its removal.

ShadySue

« Reply #171 on: January 31, 2015, 06:57 »
0
It's about time all the agencies got together and came up with a universal licensing system where every download had a reference number which encoded where the image was purchased, by who and under what license. This could be embedded in the images and the licence prohibit its removal.
This is highly desirable.
However, there is plenty of evidence to show that even genuine buyers either don't read or don't heed the T&C. Clear example iS's T&C state that any editorial use must credit iStock and the photographer. Well over half of my editorial found in-uses have no credit line. 
Then even if the buyer obeyed the rule, why would a thief bother? They don't even bother about a licence.
 OK plenty thieves even leave the watermark on view, but the smarter ones will find ways of removing it. Even unwittingly. Way back, it was pointed out to me that my iS submissions had no EXIF, and it turned out that for no good reason, at some point in my workflow then, I was 'copy'ing and that just stripped the EXIF, without any intention on my part.

But probably if they wanted to, they could find a method which would be more difficult to remove.
Weren't Getty supposed to have something like this which they were embedding in files and then supposed to be trawling the net all the time to discover misuses? Or was that just an urban myth?

ShadySue

« Reply #172 on: January 31, 2015, 07:02 »
0
Quote
Several years ago, a national magazine (I don't remember which one) ran a story about about some shady pharmacy practices and to embellish their article, they used a stock photo of an elderly pharmacist in a white coat with a title "Would you trust this man?" or something along those lines.  I don't remember all the details, but for the pharmacist it was a personal and business disaster. As far as as I know, the magazine claimed a legal usage of the photo.

Could you be thinking of this?:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/model-release-question-for-doctorsdds-photo-sessions/msg316441/#msg316441
I'm always astounded at the number of 'family and friends' who seem to be willing to model (and togs that are willing to use them), knowing the types of legal usages which are permitted, far less abuses. I'm presuming that many of these people have (or hope to have) real jobs, or are known in communities, where any number of legitimate uses could backfire on them. Weird.

« Reply #173 on: January 31, 2015, 08:11 »
+2
This is highly desirable.
However, there is plenty of evidence to show that even genuine buyers either don't read or don't heed the T&C. Clear example iS's T&C state that any editorial use must credit iStock and the photographer. Well over half of my editorial found in-uses have no credit line. 
Then even if the buyer obeyed the rule, why would a thief bother? They don't even bother about a licence.
 OK plenty thieves even leave the watermark on view, but the smarter ones will find ways of removing it. Even unwittingly. Way back, it was pointed out to me that my iS submissions had no EXIF, and it turned out that for no good reason, at some point in my workflow then, I was 'copy'ing and that just stripped the EXIF, without any intention on my part.

But probably if they wanted to, they could find a method which would be more difficult to remove.
Weren't Getty supposed to have something like this which they were embedding in files and then supposed to be trawling the net all the time to discover misuses? Or was that just an urban myth?

It wouldn't be hard to remove, but when it wasn't there you would know there are questions to be answered. If it was removed by mistake the buyer can tell you what the number was as it would show on their receipt email or in there user data on the site where the image was licensed. Most thieves wouldn't look at the embedded data (just like most buyers), so it would provide a way to trace back where images were "leaking" from the agencies.

« Reply #174 on: January 31, 2015, 10:13 »
+2
Exif data would be useless, as most of these uses involve compositing several things together into a fresh file.  Not just posting the original image online.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2906 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 02:00
by Microbius
23 Replies
4225 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 14:45
by ShadySue
6 Replies
3458 Views
Last post March 24, 2013, 17:30
by Batman
3 Replies
2258 Views
Last post February 10, 2017, 10:23
by brookephotostudio
55 Replies
9494 Views
Last post May 02, 2019, 04:41
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results