pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Being sued by model in federal court, please read!  (Read 31165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: January 31, 2015, 10:37 »
0
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.

Thanks, Susan, that could be it, the title being ""Is your pharmacist killing you?".
I googled for that published article, but couldn't find it anymore.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 15:24 by LesPalenik »


« Reply #176 on: February 02, 2015, 19:30 »
+4
:)
Hi guys, I know many of you were curious about the similar case in Europe. I'm glad to say that today we got good news from our lawyer: we won the case. The international character of the case did not hinder the Netherlands process being possible.

So here is just briefly on what grounds we won (in my own words):
1. Model failed to prove images were bought from stock agency; judge agrees they could be stolen from her own social/modeling profiles, from her computer or from publications elsewhere.
2. Even if they were licensed, still the agency's license was breached by end-users, which is not photographer's fault. Photographer handled correct selling images through a platform with a clear prohibition of damaging use.

I'm still a bit in shock, in a good way this time! This is a huge relief after 2 years of unfair game, full of peculiar details showing true colors of lawyer practices and some people we let into our life and work.

I sincerely hope that my American colleague will win his case on the same obvious grounds as we did and can continue to be a providing father and a professional.

A digital online record of my case should be available shortly I assume, it's not there yet, but those of you interested can simply send me a private message by that time  :)

So happy to hear this!!! Good for you Katya!

« Reply #177 on: February 03, 2015, 00:50 »
0
Thank you! You got PM :)

« Reply #178 on: February 03, 2015, 12:55 »
+7
you all should just shuttie.
cause you are gona make him loose this case faster with your ignorant self serving defensiveness.

It doesn't serve me in the slightest to side with the photographer (I'm not a photographer), and yet I'm highly inclined to think that the model is in the wrong here.

Are there holes in most model releases? Sure. I've said it before in this thread that if I were a photographer, I'd come up with a more comprehensive release and have models hold that signed release in front of them while I snap a photo of them. But that doesn't absolve this particular model of responsibility for her own actions in agreeing to a shoot like this, and not being realistic about the modern risks of putting any images online anywhere.
 

« Reply #179 on: February 04, 2015, 08:26 »
0
Bit off topic, but there's another article about the dangerous business of modelling for stock here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11387719/Erectile-dysfunction-and-the-dangers-of-stock-photo-modelling.html

« Reply #180 on: February 04, 2015, 08:33 »
+5
"Gibbs was thrilled to see himself featured in an advertisement for PayPal at the top of eBay, despite a twinge of regret that he would not even see a portion of the fee the photo agency would have been paid for the use of the image. "

Lol, here's your nickel.

If you shoot an image of a man looking upset on the edge of a bed with a frustrated woman behind, you should expect it to be used for articles about situations that that image could represent.

ShadySue

« Reply #181 on: February 04, 2015, 08:51 »
0
"Gibbs was thrilled to see himself featured in an advertisement for PayPal at the top of eBay, despite a twinge of regret that he would not even see a portion of the fee the photo agency would have been paid for the use of the image. "

Lol, here's your nickel.

If you shoot an image of a man looking upset on the edge of a bed with a frustrated woman behind, you should expect it to be used for articles about situations that that image could represent.


I notice that the pic was licensed from Alamy, who require that models should sign releases allowing 'sensitive use'. It's then up to the tog to spell out what they might be (though I'm sure no-one can think of every possible use).
"In our contributor contract we ask that all model releases from our photographers cover sensitive uses"
http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/12/ive-signed-model-release-rights
Contract 4.6 "4.6 Where you have indicated that a Model release, Property release or any other release of a third party right including without limitation any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property right, is available. the release must (a) be legally binding and (b) (except as otherwise notified to Alamy via the website or, with the agreement of Alamy, via email) authorise all uses of the Images anywhere in the world including without limitation uses in relation to sensitive issues; you must make the release(s) available to Alamy if so requested. "

ShadySue

« Reply #182 on: February 04, 2015, 08:53 »
0
"Gibbs was thrilled to see himself featured in an advertisement for PayPal at the top of eBay, despite a twinge of regret that he would not even see a portion of the fee the photo agency would have been paid for the use of the image. "
Lol, here's your nickel.

On the other hand,
This is a big reason why I shoot wildlife.
The difference between  $100 and $10.000/ month revenue from stock photography are the models  ;)
Reply #11 above.


« Reply #183 on: February 04, 2015, 09:08 »
+2
That doesn't mean that sale got more than $.25 or whatever.  We all know volume of small sales is what makes the till go up.

« Reply #184 on: February 04, 2015, 12:06 »
+3
People who are easily embarrassed should not model for stock.  If you get a model who's real worried about how its gonna be used, send em on their way.

« Reply #185 on: February 04, 2015, 12:13 »
0
all in all, the biggest shock is that in this modern world of so many years of advertising, there are still some people who thinks that everything you see on TV or advertising is real.
They don't think that way when they see Tom Cruise as a spy , or Nicole as a street-walker or whoever as Jack the Ripper. No one says, OMG you know that Johnny Depp is a serial killer or a drug addict or a pusher (Blow).
The problem is not the model, it's the public. A public that still thinks that Arf is a real life size dog and not a hand puppet, and that all that blue screen work and CG is truly real .
The problem is we wean a society that believes everything is not just play acting, but for real.
This is what happens when you bring a child up never to be able to relate to the real people, but more to a computer screen or a touch screen or a smart phone.
How many times do you see people walking in the street with their face in the smartphone instead of walking with their face forward looking at you and other passers-by??? Even in the supermarket they don't notice you , and you have to literally push your way pass them as they block the path with their cart or just walk on the pavement side by side never thinking about moving aside to let people go by.
And they don't even know how to say "excuse me" or smile.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 12:16 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #186 on: February 04, 2015, 12:21 »
+2
I don't know about that.  The young people i know are a lot more savvy and skeptical than the older ones.  My parents and grandparents generations are the ones who believe advertising and don't understand photoshop or green screen.  They are the ones most targetted by scammers. 

You think a millennial is going to send their bank info to a Nigerian prince?  Nope, its your granny you gotta worry about.

ShadySue

« Reply #187 on: February 04, 2015, 17:13 »
0
I think that round here most people would assume that someone who is in an advert has agreed to be in the specific advert, as would be the case from model agencies, and probably imagine the model personally approved of the ad with their image. Most have the same dislike/distrust of ads as I have, and know about photoshop, but don't know anything about stock and how it's used, misused and abused.

« Reply #188 on: February 05, 2015, 12:46 »
0
Poor baby photographer is being sued  :'(


.......


 I spend lot of time to explain to every single model all the aspects of image use, AND ALSO despite all of this - potential misuse.  yes, i don't forget to say that one of bad misusing scenarios is for example to have images at porn sites. in the same way as it is possible with photos on social media for example, regarding the fact that microstock is quite clear - no porn.


  what is your proposal for me in this potential scenario? is it  " poor li'l me? " 
would i be innocent in your opinion? where did i make mistake? what else should i do?
  can i have your sugesstion?   of course, except "cabbage/carrot" suggestion.

« Reply #189 on: February 05, 2015, 12:58 »
+2
Poor baby photographer is being sued  :'(


.......


 I spend lot of time to explain to every single model all the aspects of image use, AND ALSO despite all of this - potential misuse.  yes, i don't forget to say that one of bad misusing scenarios is for example to have images at porn sites. in the same way as it is possible with photos on social media for example, regarding the fact that microstock is quite clear - no porn.


  what is your proposal for me in this potential scenario? is it  " poor li'l me? " 
would i be innocent in your opinion? where did i make mistake? what else should i do?
  can i have your sugesstion?   of course, except "cabbage/carrot" suggestion.

Don't expect any useful ideas from Ouchie.  Pretty obvious he's just here to insult people.

« Reply #190 on: February 05, 2015, 13:59 »
+4
I spend lot of time to explain to every single model all the aspects of image use, AND ALSO despite all of this - potential misuse...

Sadly I think that even though you're doing right by your models to educate them on how the stock image business work (and sometimes works negatively), unless it's in writing you're probably open to a potential lawsuit as well. All a model has to say is, "He didn't tell me that," or "It wasn't made clear to me," and it's your word against theirs.

Has anyone developed their own model release? Obviously the standard ones from the agencies aren't detailed enough to protect photographers. Why not have an agency release along with a special release that the model signs and asserts that they understand that images end up on the Internet, we have no control over who uses the Internet and downloads images, etc.

How sad is it that photographers have to be the ones to explain the Internet to models? Because ultimately that's what this boils down to. On the web, anything can be taken by anyone and used for whatever good or bad purposes they want. When did it get to be the responsibility of the photographer to educate models on how the Internet works?

« Reply #191 on: February 05, 2015, 15:08 »
+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!!!"

Quote from: ouchie
Ok im sorry--it just pisses me off. we talk like adults then one person comes and namecalls or makes a snide remark. and i get carried away and do the same. sorry for that, i wont name call again.

Talk like adult, you don't. Look in the mirror.


« Reply #192 on: February 05, 2015, 16:11 »
+4
How sad is it that photographers have to be the ones to explain the Internet to models? Because ultimately that's what this boils down to. On the web, anything can be taken by anyone and used for whatever good or bad purposes they want. When did it get to be the responsibility of the photographer to educate models on how the Internet works?

I'd like to add something to the discussion :)

As far as I understood from my lawyer, here where I live it boils down to a simple "who did what" question. We can romanticize and dramatize lots of things, fantasize about huge responsibilities and even bigger expectations, but this approach won't get us near justice. What does is the understanding of "who did what" and establishing if it was within or outside the law. For as long as we stretch photographer's professional ethics to a nanny's job with prosecutor's powers, models will keep on trying to sue wrong people. "Explaining Internet" happens (otherwise should for sure) at school.

It's also worth noting that my model (what a wonderful exhibit) used to have "less favorable" publications in past, which did not hold her from continuing to shoot stock. In the end it didn't even matter, because all the judge needed to know was "whether photographer was allowed to place images on stock agency, or was it a big surprise to a model".

So believe me when I say the issue here is not models' dementia about how Internet works or what MR means.

« Reply #193 on: February 06, 2015, 00:19 »
+4
:)
Hi guys, I know many of you were curious about the similar case in Europe. I'm glad to say that today we got good news from our lawyer: we won the case. The international character of the case did not hinder the Netherlands process being possible.

So here is just briefly on what grounds we won (in my own words):
1. Model failed to prove images were bought from stock agency; judge agrees they could be stolen from her own social/modeling profiles, from her computer or from publications elsewhere.
2. Even if they were licensed, still the agency's license was breached by end-users, which is not photographer's fault. Photographer handled correct selling images through a platform with a clear prohibition of damaging use.

I'm still a bit in shock, in a good way this time! This is a huge relief after 2 years of unfair game, full of peculiar details showing true colors of lawyer practices and some people we let into our life and work.

I sincerely hope that my American colleague will win his case on the same obvious grounds as we did and can continue to be a providing father and a professional.

A digital online record of my case should be available shortly I assume, it's not there yet, but those of you interested can simply send me a private message by that time  :)

So happy to hear this!!! Good for you Katya!
I am so glad there was a favourable outcome! Well done!

« Reply #194 on: February 06, 2015, 15:50 »
+1
Thank you Wendy!  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2813 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 02:00
by Microbius
23 Replies
4009 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 14:45
by ShadySue
6 Replies
3249 Views
Last post March 24, 2013, 17:30
by Batman
3 Replies
2097 Views
Last post February 10, 2017, 10:23
by brookephotostudio
55 Replies
8498 Views
Last post May 02, 2019, 04:41
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results