MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: bpepz on January 07, 2015, 22:44
-
-------------------------UPDATE!!!!---------------
Case has been withdrawn!
-
This is a big reason why I shoot wildlife.
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
-
You should join together and fight the real reason this happened - Stock companies ignoring stolen imagery!
-
Donated. Good luck Josh!
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
Yes, that should be straightforward, there is clearly no case to answer.
-
For the future, it will probably be necessary to supplement the MR. It must be signed, the photographer can not be held responsible for the misuse of images. Will donate today.
-
Try to contact Cindy Cohen, she is a great IP lawyer and her organization can help you for free. Link: https://www.eff.org/about/staff (https://www.eff.org/about/staff)
Cindy Cohn is the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well as its General Counsel. She is responsible for overseeing the EFF's overall legal strategy and supervising EFF's fourteen staff attorneys. Ms. Cohn first became involved with the EFF in 1993, when the EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. Outside the Courts, Ms. Cohn has testified before Congress, been featured in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and elsewhere for her work on digital rights and has traveled onto the Internet with Stephen Colbert.
The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America in 2013, noting: "f Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn." She was also named in 2006 for "rushing to the barricades wherever freedom and civil liberties are at stake online." In 2007 the National Law Journal named her one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in America. In 2010 Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California awarded her its Intellectual Property Vanguard Award and in 2012 the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists awarded her the James Madison Freedom of Information Award.
[email protected]
+1 415 436 9333 x108
PGP Key
Read Cindy Cohn's extended bio
-
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
-
This is a big reason why I shoot wildlife.
Same here. Litigation Lottery not for me.
-
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
What she is doing is raking in every single person - even imaginary tarts in Dubai - who has had anything to do with the pictures. She should have no case against the photographer and the agencies, but she probably has a case against the US sex clubs etc that have used the image.
-
This is a big reason why I shoot wildlife.
The difference between $100 and $10.000/ month revenue from stock photography are the models ;)
-
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
What she is doing is raking in every single person - even imaginary tarts in Dubai - who has had anything to do with the pictures. She should have no case against the photographer and the agencies, but she probably has a case against the US sex clubs etc that have used the image.
Absolutely, the end user is the only one responsible.
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
I have looked and looked and looked, no one would do it pro bono.
-
Try to contact Cindy Cohen, she is a great IP lawyer and her organization can help you for free. Link: https://www.eff.org/about/staff (https://www.eff.org/about/staff)
Cindy Cohn is the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well as its General Counsel. She is responsible for overseeing the EFF's overall legal strategy and supervising EFF's fourteen staff attorneys. Ms. Cohn first became involved with the EFF in 1993, when the EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. Outside the Courts, Ms. Cohn has testified before Congress, been featured in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and elsewhere for her work on digital rights and has traveled onto the Internet with Stephen Colbert.
The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America in 2013, noting: "f Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn." She was also named in 2006 for "rushing to the barricades wherever freedom and civil liberties are at stake online." In 2007 the National Law Journal named her one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in America. In 2010 Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California awarded her its Intellectual Property Vanguard Award and in 2012 the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists awarded her the James Madison Freedom of Information Award.
[email protected]
+1 415 436 9333 x108
PGP Key
Read Cindy Cohn's extended bio
Thanks for the recommendation, as of now though I am using lawyer Nancy E. Wolff, you guys have probably heard of her before, she does a lot of work related to stock photography and was recommend by some people at Getty, also , Shutterstock seems to like her.
-
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
I had insurance but they found a way not to cover it. As far as dismissing immediately, that would be the best case scenario, but there is little guarantee that is going to happen before the judge has more information, because as far as they know, the only thing they have is the plaintiffs information. I can't just say "well, she is not correct" there is a whole discovery process and stuff like depositions to do, which will be incredible expensive, easily tens of thousands at least, I have already spent a huge amount of money and not much has even happened yet. This is a very information laden case, just having to explain and cross reference everything cost a lot of money. Because of the number of defendants and other factors, something as simple as watching the docket and other routine stuff has been costly, not to mention research, countless emails and phone calls, I am billed for every second of this. On top of all of this, the plaintiffs lawyer appears to be doing this case for free for her, I could be wrong but that is what it appears to be from my perspective. In my opinion, he may think somehow he will make big money off of this.
The case started out in the northern district of Ohio and the reason it took so long for much to happen is because it took a while for them to serve me. I have a lawyer in Ohio I retained here in ohio and just very recently the case had a change of venue to the southern district of new york, luckily my lawyer in Ohio can practice in New York. I also hired Nancy Wolff because of her experience and knowledge about the stock industry. There was a pre-trial conference on the 6th. the case is starting to really heat up.
-
Hey Josh, I have donated $10 USD. I am a little strapped for cash until payday but I figured I wanted to help anyway. Good luck mate, I hope you get a chance to file a counter claim for damages once you get aqcuited by the judge.
-
For the future, it will probably be necessary to supplement the MR. It must be signed, the photographer can not be held responsible for the misuse of images. Will donate today.
Thank you man! As far as the supplemental to the MR, that is something I am going to look into after the case is hopefully over. If by a miracle there is money left over I am planning on using to it develop a supplemental release everyone can use.
-
Hey Josh, I have donated $10 USD. I am a little strapped for cash until payday but I figured I wanted to help anyway. Good luck mate, I hope you get a chance to file a counter claim for damages once you get aqcuited by the judge.
Thank you for your donation!!!
As far as counter claims for damages, it apparently is not so simple. I guess anything alleged in the legal complaint by a plaintiff, even if it is untrue has some kind of legal privilege to protect them for defamation and stuff like that. Do a Google search for "legal complaint privilege" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Also, it is extremely unlikely I will ever get the costs reimbursed even if I win. The reason for this is the case would have to be deemed frivolous, however, the common sense definition and the legal definition of frivolous are two completely different things. Judges are extremely unlikely to rule a case frivolous even in pretty extreme scenarios, it is actually very rare for it to happen in a civil case, so I was pretty depressed when I learned this.
-
Donated. Best of luck...being dragged through court svcks.
-
Donated. Best of luck...being dragged through court svcks.
Thank you!
-
Donated. Good luck Josh!
Thank you!
-
Donated.
-
Do you have a PayPAL-Account? I don't like spread my card-nr. out in the world, and donate easy and sure via Paypal would be a solution.
-
Do you have a PayPAL-Account? I don't like spread my card-nr. out in the world, and donate easy and sure via Paypal would be a solution.
I do have a paypal setup just for this
[email protected]
-
I had insurance but they found a way not to cover it.
I would pay your lawyer to look into that. Insurance is there for unexpected lawsuits, not just for tripping on a cable or something.
I've modified the Stocksy release to say this, so things are clear:
"For Consideration herein acknowledged as received, and by signing this release, I hereby give the Photographer / Filmmaker and Assigns my permission to license the Content including my likeness and to use the Content in any Media for any purpose while using best efforts to prevent pornographic or defamatory use. However, I recognize the liability for any misuse of the content lies with the end user of the content and not the Photographer. Uses may include, among others, advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service."
-
Donated.
ALL photographers with people in their portfolio should contribute to this cause to whatever extent they can. This is really important.
-
Do you have a PayPAL-Account? I don't like spread my card-nr. out in the world, and donate easy and sure via Paypal would be a solution.
I do have a paypal setup just for this
[email protected]
You should get in touch with PayPal and let them flag the account as charity, it will give you lower fees to pay on donations received.
-
I had insurance but they found a way not to cover it.
I would pay your lawyer to look into that. Insurance is there for unexpected lawsuits, not just for tripping on a cable or something.
I've modified the Stocksy release to say this, so things are clear:
"For Consideration herein acknowledged as received, and by signing this release, I hereby give the Photographer / Filmmaker and Assigns my permission to license the Content including my likeness and to use the Content in any Media for any purpose while using best efforts to prevent pornographic or defamatory use. However, I recognize the liability for any misuse of the content lies with the end user of the content and not the Photographer. Uses may include, among others, advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service."
I am going to add that to all new releases I am asking models to sign going forward
-
Donated.
ALL photographers with people in their portfolio should contribute to this cause to whatever extent they can. This is really important.
My family and I say thanks!
As far as the lawsuit, the lawyers I have talked to said, there really has not been any cases like this that they know of that are in public record, so it is very important this is won in the photographer's favor.
Many people in the legal system are not really up to date on how images are sold online these days. When I was searching for a copyright and IP lawyer , some of them charge $800 an hour who have never heard of Paypal or Getty images. Luckily my Lawyers are very competent.
-
donated. Good luck!
-
What reason did your insurance company find to refuse you cover..?
-
What reason did your insurance company find to refuse you cover..?
Well, there seemed to be several reasons. How I remember it, basically they said because the case was alleging fraud, they could not help me out, even though the fraud is only alleged, and I do not agree that I committed any fraud, they said it was not going to happen. Also, because I paid the model, it means she was not a client or something and the insurance would not help for that. I think their insurance model is only thinking about photographers doing weddings and such, and rarely deals with photographers who actually pay models.
I sort of looked into getting a lawyer try to help me get them to cover it, but that could costs tens of thousands of dollars and take several years, and still not work out. I don't have the time or money to take that chance.
-
Just donated! We have to win this case! We barely get by on our income and something like this will kill our profession! Good luck and hope you/we win!
-
To put this half million dollars into our terms- at $.36 per image one would need to sell 1,388,889 images to cover this amount! So for me that would take over 30 years :-[
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
+1
Anyone should win that case defending alone just with facts from the text. If he looses best lawyer in the world wont help him because the case is fixed which I doubt in this case.
The guy should only think how he should pump his defending expenses and get the refund after the case from the person who sued him
-
To put this half million dollars into our terms- at $.36 per image one would need to sell 1,388,889 images to cover this amount! So for me that would take over 30 years :-[
Just wondering if you made a typo? At 3800 downloads per month, you probably arent on the 0.36c tier.
-
To put this half million dollars into our terms- at $.36 per image one would need to sell 1,388,889 images to cover this amount! So for me that would take over 30 years :-[
Just wondering if you made a typo? At 3800 downloads per month, you probably arent on the 0.36c tier.
.38c so only 28 years. Just shows you how bad this lawsuit is to us! If she wins a lot of us will have to change what we shot- the industry will change as whole...
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
+1
Anyone should win that case defending alone just with facts from the text. If he looses best lawyer in the world wont help him because the case is fixed which I doubt in this case.
The guy should only think how he should pump his defending expenses and get the refund after the case from the person who sued him
All the lawyers I talked to said a refund even if I win the case is extremely unlikely, it just is not something that happens that much in civil cases, even in ridiculous ones like mine. The legal definition of frivolous and the common sense one are two different things, and judges are extremely reluctant to rule any case frivolous in even some pretty extreme cases. I also asked about if I did lose, could I file bankruptcy since I have n chance of ever paying $500,000, I guess even in that situation, because case is alleging a fraud element, I can't even file for bankruptcy, this is scary as hell.
I am confident I will be able to win the case, but only if I get enough money to get through it. Going through the process of discovery and depositions will cost a gigantic amount of money because of the huge amount of hours it takes. When you are paying many hundreds of dollars an hour, this adds up really fast even for something that is simple, it is pretty frightening.
-
sorry double posted
-
sorry double posted
-
To put this half million dollars into our terms- at $.36 per image one would need to sell 1,388,889 images to cover this amount! So for me that would take over 30 years :-[
Just wondering if you made a typo? At 3800 downloads per month, you probably arent on the 0.36c tier.
.38c so only 28 years. Just shows you how bad this lawsuit is to us! If she wins a lot of us will have to change what we shot- the industry will change as whole...
I figured you would be on 38 cent. Good work, 3900 dls per month is something only I can dream of.
-
Nancy Wolff is an excellent choice. She is very knowledgable. I have hired Nancy to make training presentations to licensing staff at more than one stock company. She knows the ins and outs of model related problems and you will find her to be fair (no padded bills) and reasonable. There are many cases in the past of similar situations and Nancy is aware of them.
If I were an attorney, I'd go for a summary judgement right out of the gate...but then I'm not.
-
Nancy Wolff is an excellent choice. She is very knowledgable. I have hired Nancy to make training presentations to licensing staff at more than one stock company. She knows the ins and outs of model related problems and you will find her to be fair (no padded bills) and reasonable. There are many cases in the past of similar situations and Nancy is aware of them.
If I were an attorney, I'd go for a summary judgement right out of the gate...but then I'm not.
I am very lucky to have her on the case. It is only because the case was moved to new york was I even able to hire her.
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
+1
Anyone should win that case defending alone just with facts from the text. If he looses best lawyer in the world wont help him because the case is fixed which I doubt in this case.
The guy should only think how he should pump his defending expenses and get the refund after the case from the person who sued him
All the lawyers I talked to said a refund even if I win the case is extremely unlikely, it just is not something that happens that much in civil cases, even in ridiculous ones like mine. The legal definition of frivolous and the common sense one are two different things, and judges are extremely reluctant to rule any case frivolous in even some pretty extreme cases. I also asked about if I did lose, could I file bankruptcy since I have n chance of ever paying $500,000, I guess even in that situation, because case is alleging a fraud element, I can't even file for bankruptcy, this is scary as hell.
I am confident I will be able to win the case, but only if I get enough money to get through it. Going through the process of discovery and depositions will cost a gigantic amount of money because of the huge amount of hours it takes. When you are paying many hundreds of dollars an hour, this adds up really fast even for something that is simple, it is pretty frightening.
I openly dislike lawyers, I had 5 court cases in my life, 2 with lawyers witch I lost and 3 by representing my legal person of which I won 2 and settled in last on but that was my plan.
Anyways
If they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported. She was an experienced lingerie and implied nude model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel. I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography. During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works. I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service.. Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.
If he had all that in written on that piece of paper that she signed he would be unbreakable in the case, but I think even like this way he cannot loose, but it highly depends on that model release and its content.
Obviously that contract or model release that people call it should be considered more seriously and photographers should not use first template of same that find on google but some legally unbreakable one which every average notary should be able to write if not the photographer alone with minimal research and fully protect them self.
-
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
+1
Anyone should win that case defending alone just with facts from the text. If he looses best lawyer in the world wont help him because the case is fixed which I doubt in this case.
The guy should only think how he should pump his defending expenses and get the refund after the case from the person who sued him
All the lawyers I talked to said a refund even if I win the case is extremely unlikely, it just is not something that happens that much in civil cases, even in ridiculous ones like mine. The legal definition of frivolous and the common sense one are two different things, and judges are extremely reluctant to rule any case frivolous in even some pretty extreme cases. I also asked about if I did lose, could I file bankruptcy since I have n chance of ever paying $500,000, I guess even in that situation, because case is alleging a fraud element, I can't even file for bankruptcy, this is scary as hell.
I am confident I will be able to win the case, but only if I get enough money to get through it. Going through the process of discovery and depositions will cost a gigantic amount of money because of the huge amount of hours it takes. When you are paying many hundreds of dollars an hour, this adds up really fast even for something that is simple, it is pretty frightening.
I openly dislike lawyers, I had 5 court cases in my life, 2 with lawyers witch I lost and 3 by representing my legal person of which I won 2 and settled in last on but that was my plan.
Anyways
If they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported. She was an experienced lingerie and implied nude model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel. I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography. During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works. I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service.. Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.
If he had all that in written on that piece of paper that she signed he would be unbreakable in the case, but I think even like this way he cannot loose, but it highly depends on that model release and its content.
Obviously that contract or model release that people call it should be considered more seriously and photographers should not use first template of same that find on google but some legally unbreakable one which every average notary should be able to write if not the photographer alone with minimal research and fully protect them self.
The language of the release seems to be sufficient, that is not in question. The plaintiff is trying to get around it by saying I fraudulently induced her to sign it, which I did not.
-
The language of the release seems to be sufficient, that is not in question. The plaintiff is trying to get around it by saying I fraudulently induced her to sign it, which I did not
Ok, thats her right.
On which base will she try to prove that, because she has to clearly prove that and that's the main question of the case.
Your whiteness importance will go into second plan because she will probably claim that you 2 work together and represent same side.
Secondly, whats her agent point of view, if photographer gets him on his side or even on neutral that only should win the case.
If I was the photographer I would seriously research and consider pulling accusation of breaking a legal contract and request coverage of all expenses that came as a result of that.
Then there is a possibility of requesting refund of all losses because photographer reputation has been ruined with that case and newspapers articles representing one side only.
Maybe she will quit and settle on nothing when she know shell have to pay big time if she looses this one and there are strong chances she will.
-
The language of the release seems to be sufficient, that is not in question. The plaintiff is trying to get around it by saying I fraudulently induced her to sign it, which I did not
Ok, thats her right.
On which base will she try to prove that, because she has to clearly prove that and that's the main question of the case.
Your whiteness importance will go into second plan because she will probably claim that you 2 work together and represent same side.
Secondly, whats her agent point of view, if photographer gets him on his side or even on neutral that only should win the case.
If I was the photographer I would seriously research and consider pulling accusation of breaking a legal contract and request coverage of all expenses that came as a result of that.
Then there is a possibility of requesting refund of all losses because photographer reputation has been ruined with that case and newspapers articles representing one side only.
Maybe she will quit and settle on nothing when she know shell have to pay big time if she looses this one and there are strong chances she will.
I think she ditched her agent months before the lawsuit and nothing about her agent was ever brought up in court. She is claiming I never paid her as well, I have paypal receipts and facebook messages proving this. She probably does not want to bring up her old agent because she would end up having to admit I actually did pay her, and she was informed the images would be used for stock photography, which she is claiming she was never told.
As far as her agent and all, this is purely speculation on my part. I am not clear why her relationship with her agent seemed to drift apart.
-
The language of the release seems to be sufficient, that is not in question. The plaintiff is trying to get around it by saying I fraudulently induced her to sign it, which I did not
Ok, thats her right.
On which base will she try to prove that, because she has to clearly prove that and that's the main question of the case.
Your whiteness importance will go into second plan because she will probably claim that you 2 work together and represent same side.
Secondly, whats her agent point of view, if photographer gets him on his side or even on neutral that only should win the case.
If I was the photographer I would seriously research and consider pulling accusation of breaking a legal contract and request coverage of all expenses that came as a result of that.
Then there is a possibility of requesting refund of all losses because photographer reputation has been ruined with that case and newspapers articles representing one side only.
Maybe she will quit and settle on nothing when she know shell have to pay big time if she looses this one and there are strong chances she will.
I think she ditched her agent months before the lawsuit and nothing about her agent was ever brought up in court. She is claiming I never paid her as well, I have paypal receipts and facebook messages proving this. She probably does not want to bring up her old agent because she would end up having to admit I actually did pay her, and she was informed the images would be used for stock photography, which she is claiming she was never told.
If its not to late I would call the man asap
-
The language of the release seems to be sufficient, that is not in question. The plaintiff is trying to get around it by saying I fraudulently induced her to sign it, which I did not
Ok, thats her right.
On which base will she try to prove that, because she has to clearly prove that and that's the main question of the case.
Your whiteness importance will go into second plan because she will probably claim that you 2 work together and represent same side.
Secondly, whats her agent point of view, if photographer gets him on his side or even on neutral that only should win the case.
If I was the photographer I would seriously research and consider pulling accusation of breaking a legal contract and request coverage of all expenses that came as a result of that.
Then there is a possibility of requesting refund of all losses because photographer reputation has been ruined with that case and newspapers articles representing one side only.
Maybe she will quit and settle on nothing when she know shell have to pay big time if she looses this one and there are strong chances she will.
I think she ditched her agent months before the lawsuit and nothing about her agent was ever brought up in court. She is claiming I never paid her as well, I have paypal receipts and facebook messages proving this. She probably does not want to bring up her old agent because she would end up having to admit I actually did pay her, and she was informed the images would be used for stock photography, which she is claiming she was never told.
If its not to late I would call the man asap
Its actually a woman but that is probably a good idea.
-
Donated.
I'm not even a photographer and I think it's important for all artists to support this. It is so important on so many levels that Josh beats this lawsuit. The precedent this could set if the model wins is frightening.
That said, I'm also still a big proponent of a more bullet-proof model release. I said in another thread about this that I think you guys need to come up with something more substantial for when working with models. I don't remember who came up with the idea but I really like the practice of having a model stand and hold a signed release and snapping a shot of them. I also think there should be some sort of secondary release signed, one that specifically and clearly states that the model understands these images will be distributed online and the photographer cannot be held responsible for what people do with the images, even when those uses violate license terms.
-
I think the release wording is a holdover from non-stock days, where the photographer controlled what happened to the images. Obviously, there's no way to guarantee anything now, but the model release doesn't say that.
-
Donated, hope it will help you!
-
[youtube][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w#ws[/url])
[/youtube]
Hello fellow stock photographers. I wanted to let you guys know about a lawsuit going on that many of you seem to be vaguely aware of. I think the whole industry could be at risk if things dont go well.
I am being sued in federal court for hundreds of thousands of dollars by a model I worked with in January 2013. This is a model that I paid, and who signed a release allowing me to sell her images through stock photo agencies. Why I am I being sued? It revolves around images that got misused or were just outright stolen and the model is blaming me for it. My case has unfortunately received national attention in the New York Post, the daily mail and Fox News, none of which have bothered to explain my side of the story.
If they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported. She was an experienced lingerie and implied nude model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel. I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography. During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works. I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service.. Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.
I said nothing more and I didn't lie. I did NOT promise her that her images would not be misused - it is impossible in our right-click-save-as days. She saw the images before signing the model release, was happy with them and posted them herself on her Facebook page.
Another misconception is that our arrangement was TFP or Trade for Portfolio use. I paid her via her agent through Paypal and have all the records of it, even providing her gas money to travel to Columbus.
If the court rules in her favor, it could create a dangerous incentive for other models to do the same and try to hold photographers liable for things that are out of our control.
That's why I need your help. The case is in New York now and Im facing a huge financial burden to protect myself and our industry in general. Knowledgeable copyright lawyers cost are incredibly expensive. I want to defend myself to the extent I can given my funding to discourage models in the future from bringing forth similar actions. I'll be grateful for any amount you can spare, and promise I'll make a good use of it and keep you all updated on how it goes as much as I am allowed.
To donate, please follow the link below to my gofundme page
[url]http://www.gofundme.com/resnicklegalfund[/url] ([url]http://www.gofundme.com/resnicklegalfund[/url])
However they do take out 7.9% in fees and a additional 30 cents per donation, so
alternatively, you can also donate directly via paypal to [email protected]
Below is a link to the case number and the original complaint so you can verify this on your own.
1:2014cv01070 Forni vs Resnick
[url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=158088341&z=4ce11824[/url] ([url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=158088341&z=4ce11824[/url])
Here is my question. Most lawsuits like this will only go after deep pockets. Do you the photographer have lots of wealth. If not this lawsuit is a big question mark. It is almost impossible to find a lawyer to take a case from a model unless the photographer has deep pockets or some kind of outside funds. You the photographer can lose but if you have no money they can't put you in jail for this. As my grandma said you can't get blood out of a turnip. Good luck, it sounds like a big waste of everyone's time.
-
I believe the photographer is not the only defendant.
-
What reason did your insurance company find to refuse you cover..?
Well, there seemed to be several reasons. How I remember it, basically they said because the case was alleging fraud, they could not help me out, even though the fraud is only alleged, and I do not agree that I committed any fraud, they said it was not going to happen. Also, because I paid the model, it means she was not a client or something and the insurance would not help for that. I think their insurance model is only thinking about photographers doing weddings and such, and rarely deals with photographers who actually pay models.
I sort of looked into getting a lawyer try to help me get them to cover it, but that could costs tens of thousands of dollars and take several years, and still not work out. I don't have the time or money to take that chance.
Wow. Shows you what this kind of insurance is good for. Taking your money, that's all.
-
[youtube][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w#ws[/url])
[/youtube]
Hello fellow stock photographers. I wanted to let you guys know about a lawsuit going on that many of you seem to be vaguely aware of. I think the whole industry could be at risk if things dont go well.
I am being sued in federal court for hundreds of thousands of dollars by a model I worked with in January 2013. This is a model that I paid, and who signed a release allowing me to sell her images through stock photo agencies. Why I am I being sued? It revolves around images that got misused or were just outright stolen and the model is blaming me for it. My case has unfortunately received national attention in the New York Post, the daily mail and Fox News, none of which have bothered to explain my side of the story.
If they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported. She was an experienced lingerie and implied nude model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel. I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography. During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works. I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service.. Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.
I said nothing more and I didn't lie. I did NOT promise her that her images would not be misused - it is impossible in our right-click-save-as days. She saw the images before signing the model release, was happy with them and posted them herself on her Facebook page.
Another misconception is that our arrangement was TFP or Trade for Portfolio use. I paid her via her agent through Paypal and have all the records of it, even providing her gas money to travel to Columbus.
If the court rules in her favor, it could create a dangerous incentive for other models to do the same and try to hold photographers liable for things that are out of our control.
That's why I need your help. The case is in New York now and Im facing a huge financial burden to protect myself and our industry in general. Knowledgeable copyright lawyers cost are incredibly expensive. I want to defend myself to the extent I can given my funding to discourage models in the future from bringing forth similar actions. I'll be grateful for any amount you can spare, and promise I'll make a good use of it and keep you all updated on how it goes as much as I am allowed.
To donate, please follow the link below to my gofundme page
[url]http://www.gofundme.com/resnicklegalfund[/url] ([url]http://www.gofundme.com/resnicklegalfund[/url])
However they do take out 7.9% in fees and a additional 30 cents per donation, so
alternatively, you can also donate directly via paypal to [email protected]
Below is a link to the case number and the original complaint so you can verify this on your own.
1:2014cv01070 Forni vs Resnick
[url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=158088341&z=4ce11824[/url] ([url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=158088341&z=4ce11824[/url])
Here is my question. Most lawsuits like this will only go after deep pockets. Do you the photographer have lots of wealth. If not this lawsuit is a big question mark. It is almost impossible to find a lawyer to take a case from a model unless the photographer has deep pockets or some kind of outside funds. You the photographer can lose but if you have no money they can't put you in jail for this. As my grandma said you can't get blood out of a turnip. Good luck, it sounds like a big waste of everyone's time.
I tihnk the plaintiff's lawyer needs me to lose so he can go after the people with big pockets, or atleast that seems to make the most sense in my opinion. However, it is possible they still try to get everything they can from me anyway. I am very very far from being wealthy, but they can always garnish my income, sort of like paying child support or something.
This would still hold true even in this situation, but I am starting to get a little worried the plaintiff's lawyer truly believes I made millions or some large figure like that from the images and I am hiding it or something. I think he will be extremely disappointed to find out that was not the case.
-
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on places I can contact who can hopefully get my story more attention? Maybe I should go post on the forum on shutterstock?
-
Maybe PetePixel or PDN
-
If you have not done it already, ask all the agencies that represents your work if they will be willing to donate. Explain the principal nature of the case and ask for a phone call with the higher-ups in the different agencies. I would not bet on it, but a phone call and asking directly would certainly increase your chances.
good luck!
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
-
Maybe PetePixel or PDN
Yes, PDN is good place if you want more serious attention. And BJP, too.
-
Hey Joshua, we spoke a little in your other topic. I'm also being sued on very similar grounds in Holland.
I donated what I could, and the PayPal window wouldn't let me finish my message, so here again: I wish you much strength and luck and good wise people around you, and I'm pretty confident you and I will win. She cannot prove you personally sold images to adult sites. She cannot prove you're a millionaire (how ridiculous, you have all sales statements don't you!). She only has to lose, I'm afraid. Our model was warned and didn't listen. She went after our house, but only managed to get my bank account blocked. While I have 2 little children and mortgage.
Our cases on both sides of the ocean are very important for the industry and even for overall justice in creative world where people (even most professional and experienced) do many things based on trust and common sense. Let's see what those are worth. I believe your model is wrong: YOU trusted her when going into professional relationship. She signed a clear paper stating you MAY sell images, and she was very okay with getting nice publications from stock and getting jobs thanks to your labor. She broke your trust and she is the one fraud. She caused you emotional suffering and huge financial impact. I personally got heart and sight problems after our case began... Well, it is still to be seen if we may continue this "hazardous jobs" as photographers )))) , what they seem to be... but for now we should keep fighting against the ridiculousness of the situation.
I'll keep you posted when we hear from our judge. It shouldn't be long now.
-
Donated, good luck to you!
-
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on places I can contact who can hopefully get my story more attention? Maybe I should go post on the forum on shutterstock?
I will put something on my blog tonight, not that it gets much attention but a lot of small bits could mount up to something bigger.
-
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on places I can contact who can hopefully get my story more attention? Maybe I should go post on the forum on shutterstock?
Adweek?
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew they didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.
So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.
-
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.
That's exactly what it's all about! Ridiculous. In these cases it is to be proven at very least that a photographer actually helped someone to mis-use images. Like, for example sold with a note "please make a porn-book-cover, would look nice". And even then, the publisher is ultimate responsible because he didn't check with a model.
-
My guess is that she's suing the photog because he's the only person she has an agreement with. It may be baseless, but it doesn't stop someone from suing you anyway, and then you're stuck paying lawyers to defend yourself.
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew thay didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.
So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.
So far, as far as I know she has no proof anything even came from shutterstock. Everything they have is in the complaint, and the only evidence they presented was the model release she signed I think.
As far as sensitive use, the sensitive use TOS specifically mentions you cannot use the images for pornographic or defamatory purposes. The old TOS even mentions escort sites and such, but now it is even broader, so that was not a problem.
There could be something I am missing, maybe there is a document or exhibit with the complaint I missed but that is how I see it with my current understanding.
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew thay didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.
So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.
So far, as far as I know she has no proof anything even came from shutterstock. Everything they have is in the complaint, and the only evidence they presented was the model release she signed I think.
As far as sensitive use, the sensitive use TOS specifically mentions you cannot use the images for pornographic or defamatory purposes. The old TOS even mentions escort sites and such, but now it is even broader, so that was not a problem.
That's even more insane.
That would be like, in my pencil example, they went after any random shop which sold pencils.
I don't understand US Law, I can't see why that is getting any credence whatsoever.
(But sometimes cases come up here which are bizarre and the ruling goes a surprising way).
Best wishes.
-
Who pays her lawyers if she loses? Wont she go banktrupt when she loses the case as well then?
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew thay didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.
So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.
So far, as far as I know she has no proof anything even came from shutterstock. Everything they have is in the complaint, and the only evidence they presented was the model release she signed I think.
As far as sensitive use, the sensitive use TOS specifically mentions you cannot use the images for pornographic or defamatory purposes. The old TOS even mentions escort sites and such, but now it is even broader, so that was not a problem.
That's even more insane.
That would be like, in my pencil example, they went after any random shop which sold pencils.
I don't understand US Law, I can't see why that is getting any credence whatsoever.
(But sometimes cases come up here which are bizarre and the ruling goes a surprising way).
Best wishes.
I think the problem is, as far as the judge knows, the only facts out there are what is in the plaintiffs complaint. Otherwise I am not sure how they are supposed to make a ruling unless they see ample information from both sides. however, getting to the point of presenting my side of the story could potentially be a long and extremely expensive process.
-
Who pays her lawyers if she loses? Wont she go banktrupt when she loses the case as well then?
I am guessing it could be her lawyer is doing it for free or reduced cost in the hopes he can get money from the case, at least in my personal opinion it seems to be.
-
Hopefully the case will be dismissed, since there's no way she can prove where the images came from, and indeed they could have been stolen off her own Facebook page. She herself made them available for free on the internet (from my understanding of the situation).
Unfortunately it takes a long time and a lot of legal fees answering and disproving baseless accusations.
-
BTW - who signed her model release as a witness?
-
BTW - who signed her model release as a witness?
Doug heater, who was someone was assisting me during the shoot to help with holding lights and stuff. It is right in the model release so anyone can look this up.
-
My guess is they are suing everyone and hoping for settlement money from the big players. They know they cannot get blood from a stone (i.e. money settlement from photog) but have to sue him to go after the biggies. That is the only way I could see a lawyer taking this case on a contingency basis. Hoping for a decent nuisance settlement to make them go away ( with a non-discolosure). Photog unfortunately is at ground zero for this. What a f-cked situation.
-
Is this her lawyer?
http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/ (http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/)
-
I think she will lose. She cannot provide hard facts to prove the claims she makes. The opposite. The protoq can provide prove that she is at least "not telling the entire truth" (e.g. paypal transactions). After she lost the case the situation will be clearer for us photoqs.
Nevertheless it shows again that Agencies should give up the "anything goes" mentality and start enforcing their TOS a bit more strictly. They have responsibilities to their suppliers not only in a moral way. They want us to give them our material and produce for them, so they should stand up for us and enforce the rules they outline themselves (their client agreement).
For us photoqs it means to take more care about the wording of the releases, our relationship to Model, with whom we work and as well with which agencies we work. I stopped uploading critical material to Agencies who do not enforce their TOS or limit critical material to RM agencies.
-
Is this her lawyer?
[url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url] ([url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url])
lol yes that is her lawyer.
Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.
-
Is this her lawyer?
[url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url] ([url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url])
Lol yes that is her lawyer.
Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.
Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.
-
Is this her lawyer?
[url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url] ([url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url])
Lol yes that is her lawyer.
Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.
Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.
I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.
However, that may not even be the case. There could easily be some kind of information I am unaware of that could explain why she is claiming that and some of the other stuff. I can only go off of my personal recollection, the witness, my documentation, and what was said in the the complaint. maybe there was an error in communicating exactly what happened or some sort of over simplification when the complaint was made, who knows. Either way, I am eager to find out what they think happened and why.
I am keeping my mind open
-
Is this her lawyer?
[url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url] ([url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url])
Lol yes that is her lawyer.
Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.
Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.
I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.
At the very least, he hasn't employed 'due diligence'. I thought these 'no win, no fee' sharks only took on 'dead cert' cases.
-
Is this her lawyer?
[url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url] ([url]http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/[/url])
Lol yes that is her lawyer.
Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.
Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.
I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.
At the very least, he hasn't employed 'due diligence'. I thought these 'no win, no fee' sharks only took on 'dead cert' cases.
Well, like I said it seems he truly believes what she says. I keep hoping this is all a big misunderstanding. I do not know what the model is thinking here, because her version of events are very different then mine. Maybe there is some sort of information gap I am unaware of that explains her behavior that would account for this. I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt and think the best of them before jumping to conclusions. That is why I wish we could of worked something out instead of going straight to a giant lawsuit. Having images misused would be upsetting to anyone, I would be upset too, but I would hope she comes to understand that was not something I wanted to happen to her, and despite this lawsuit I still wish her all the best.
-
That lawyer cant even spell correctly
COUNT IV
THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY - BEACH OF TOS AGREEMENT
(all Defendants)
-
Shutterstock, being named in this lawsuit, has a policy of indemnifying their images with protections up to $10,000 should a lawsuit arise out of the use of an image. It's a policy aimed at customers, but I wonder if it also applies to contributors.
I'd contact Shutterstock and speak directly with someone there. That $10k would come in handy in your legal battle. Maybe they're willing to help.
-
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...
Playboy, Barnes and Noble, Uproxx, Clearchannel, Euclid Media, and the Love Store all have been dismissed from the suit. Did they settle with the model? A recent letter from one of the Shutterstock lawyers makes me think so.
Forni has settled with and dismissed many Defendants, some of which may need to be repleaded into the case as indispensable (or potentially indispensable) parties.
The letter (which I got on PACER, so I can't link it) also says:
Forni and Shutterstock have discussed potential settlement, without reaching agreement.
What would it mean if Shutterstock just settles with Forni?
-
Maybe those big players just flexed their muscles and laughed it off and told her to scram or she would get crushed in court? However, the links to the books on Amazon are gone. They were taken down. Doesnt mean much by the way. But would these big companies let themselves get bullied by a model who has no case whatsoever?
-
Well, she does have a case against entities who stole or used the images in violation of TOS, I would think. Playboy and Amazon may have decided to agree not to sell books or place ads that feature images that violate TOS. Possibly SS exerted pressure on them too? Who knows.
-
Reading some of these news stories, it's amazing how totally incorrect they are!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws (https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws)
Sorry they have such incompetent reporters that they can't take a few minutes to find out how stock works.
-
Sorry for both Katje and Josh. Josh, I am not a lawyer or expert with US laws, but in general I hear lawyers will tell clients to not comment publicly in a ongoing court case. I hope you are not causing trouble for yourself posting so many details. Who knows if they can twist your words against you?
I will donate to you and hope many others do the same.
-
Sorry for both Katje and Josh. Josh, I am not a lawyer or expert with US laws, but in general I hear lawyers will tell clients to not comment publicly in a ongoing court case. I hope you are not causing trouble for yourself posting so many details. Who knows if they can twist your words against you?
I will donate to you and hope many others do the same.
Thanks for wanting to donate!
As far as my comments, I am only really saying stuff that was already talked about with the plaintiffs lawyer, stuff that was in the complaint already, or stuff I mention in my crowd funding statement, and lastly some of my own purely personal feelings and theoretical speculations which could very well change as the case goes forward and are not meant to be taken as fact.
I am hoping as the case progresses all the facts will come out and all speculation will be cleared away.
-
Reading some of these news stories, it's amazing how totally incorrect they are!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws (https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws)
Sorry they have such incompetent reporters that they can't take a few minutes to find out how stock works.
Incompetent reporters currently cause much more... like wars. It's new kind of criminals. Luckily, these articles are not really useful as exhibits in court.
The word "he promised" in the times of Internet sounds amazing. My Release with model does exclude pornographic use (what my model's case is built upon btw), although no "promise" was ever in place. Release does not include wording like "photographer guarantees". Who can guarantee what?! Release is in line with License: no defamatory use. Publishers are to respect it. Photographer is to assure images are sold with correct license. He is not to assure or guarantee end-users respect it. That's what prosecutors are for. A stolen car that's been bona fide locked is not a responsibility of a car's owner, but is a case for police to handle.
-
She says on her Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/nikkie.nicole.18)that : "When I photograph I always think of two words- sexy and classy. It's what defines our femininity as women. I choose to show enough sexy but leave enough mystery for the viewer. I can firmly say I have never been ashamed of any photograph I've taken, and proudly so".
She has never been afraid to show skin and to post her photos to internet. She is a professional glamour model.
(http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/nikkie-forni-browns-fan-8.jpg)
(http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/nikkie-forni-browns-fan-10.jpg)
(https://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/nikkie-forni-browns-fan-2.png?w=402&h=609)
The problem is that these photos the photographer took ended up on porn sites and been used for erotic and pornographic books. But that could have been the case with any of her photos posted on Facebook or the internet.
I also have read the court documents from her lawyer, the stuff she says in there is 180 degrees to what the photographer is claiming. If the photographer can proof she is lying, which should not be a problem with a witness, a signed model release and the proof of payment, she has no case against the photographer.
This image probably is fine with her
(http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/nikkie-forni-browns-fan-1.jpg)
This image would probably cause "serious emotional distress and humiliation to the Plaintiff"
(http://i.imgur.com/YrUB9Ee.jpg)
-
Lol.
You've pointed out the main issue, that the images that were misused could have come from anywhere. You need to go after the person misusing them. Not the person who created them, with your approval.
-
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/ (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/)
New case moved to NY
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5358914/Forni_v_Resnick,_et_al (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5358914/Forni_v_Resnick,_et_al)
She is going after everyone, SS, Amazon, Model Mayhem and more 30 plus altogether.
Signed model release.
http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf (http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf)
It is all about the Benjamins.
-
Signed model release.
[url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url] ([url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url])
"I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer] ... ... including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy."
-
Here is my write up. I hope it helps a bit to raise funds
http://semmickphoto.com/2015/01/10/glamour-model-nikkie-forni-sues-photographer-for-500000/ (http://semmickphoto.com/2015/01/10/glamour-model-nikkie-forni-sues-photographer-for-500000/)
Feel free to copy text etc, for your own blog. A backlink to my blog is appreciated.
-
A sidenote (after looking at ruxpriencdiam's post) - doesn't it make anyone else uneasy how many private information is available to the public through these court materials? *shutters*
-
[url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/[/url] ([url]http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/[/url])
New case moved to NY
[url]https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5358914/Forni_v_Resnick,_et_al[/url] ([url]https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5358914/Forni_v_Resnick,_et_al[/url])
She is going after everyone, SS, Amazon, Model Mayhem and more 30 plus altogether.
Signed model release.
[url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url] ([url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url])
It is all about the Benjamins.
mReading some of these news stories, it's amazing how totally incorrect they are!
[url]https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws[/url] ([url]https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws[/url])
Sorry they have such incompetent reporters that they can't take a few minutes to find out how stock works.
Incompetent reporters currently cause much more... like wars. It's new kind of criminals. Luckily, these articles are not really useful as exhibits in court.
The word "he promised" in the times of Internet sounds amazing. My Release with model does exclude pornographic use (what my model's case is built upon btw), although no "promise" was ever in place. Release does not include wording like "photographer guarantees". Who can guarantee what?! Release is in line with License: no defamatory use. Publishers are to respect it. Photographer is to assure images are sold with correct license. He is not to assure or guarantee end-users respect it. That's what prosecutors are for. A stolen car that's been bona fide locked is not a responsibility of a car's owner, but is a case for police to handle.
I agree if these photos were shot by the photographer with the model permission both he and the model should know that these are perfect images for the slut industry. Photographers there is nothing wrong about shooting this type of image but look at the trouble it might get you into. Not worth it if you ask me..just my opinion.
-
.
-
I just got a guest piece up on petapixel
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/ (http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/)
Thanks petapixel!
-
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.
-
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.
No, this actually concerns anyone who has a camera.
-
Sorry for both Katje and Josh. Josh, I am not a lawyer or expert with US laws, but in general I hear lawyers will tell clients to not comment publicly in a ongoing court case. I hope you are not causing trouble for yourself posting so many details. Who knows if they can twist your words against you?
I will donate to you and hope many others do the same.
+10
-
I have been following this case since I first heard about it. The issues at the core of this case could potentially have ramifications on my work and many here. In support of Seth's cause I have donated to his defense fund.
-
I dont see anyone focussing on the model being dressed or not, some comments are about all the statements she made in the court documents which dont make sense considering her history and actions. Many aspects of the case are being discussed, I dont think that is a problem.
Its also about allegations that the images were sold to porn sites by Resnick while the images were posted on her Facebook by herself, and still there for everyone to take. She demanded the images would be taken down, why not remove them from your own Facebook then?
-
I have been following this case since I first heard about it. The issues at the core of this case could potentially have ramifications on my work and many here. In support of Seth's cause I have donated to his defense fund.
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It means alot to me!
-
For starters - get screenshots of those Facebook posts and have them notarized before she is counseled to remove.
The lawsuit DOES seem like a big stretch. I wonder if this lawyer is the kind that takes all these cases that are unlikely to be proven in court. A company as big as Shutterstock certainly has a "nuisance fee" fund, a dollar amount they are willing to settle out-of-court. All the plaintiff's lawyer has to do is file some papers, make a couple of phone calls and it has the SS legal team in Manhattan quivering. They don't want bad publicity OR any kind of a precedent set so they settle behind doors. If the plaintiff's lawyer gets 30% of a $50,000 settlement - 15K isn't bad for filing some documents (in reality, paying his paralegal an hourly wage or a filing fee) and making a couple calls. Every time he gets his name in the press he gets 10 new clients - so his small investment of time has big dividends.
Are you and (Nancy Wolfe if I remember?) able to have a sit-down meeting with Jon, or a lawyer at SS?
Edited to add: Wow, this firm is really stepping out of their comfort zone with this case. They are known as a "DUI" and "Lead Paint" specialists. OMG, I have never heard of a law firm accepting credit cards and Paypal. Is that normal these days?
Quite a list of Defendants they have included! Whoa.
-
This is why I don't do people stock photos and I never will. If I had some people shots, even of friends or family members, I would be removing them from the agencies ASAP. It's far too easy for internet photos to be stolen and misused, and in our lawsuit-happy society, even if you "win" you still lose. It's simply not worth the potential or actual aggravation for the paltry percentages we receive.
-
Just donated...good luck to you.
I think this case is ridiculous. To have to worry about litigation when we make pennies off this. From my own experience, models think we make a lot of money off stock because they see their face on billboards. In reality, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I don't suggest that Shutterstock use their legal fees to combat all claims...but for a high profile case like this, they really should consider hiring an attorney to send the message that nothing was done wrong here.
Looks like I need to take out insurance now even with signed model releases.
-
Just donated...good luck to you.
I think this case is ridiculous. To have to worry about litigation when we make pennies off this. From my own experience, models think we make a lot of money off stock because they see their face on billboards. In reality, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I don't suggest that Shutterstock use their legal fees to combat all claims...but for a high profile case like this, they really should consider hiring an attorney to send the message that nothing was done wrong here.
Looks like I need to take out insurance now even with signed model releases.
Apparently some people dont read the links much less look at them.
Defendant
Shutterstock Inc
,
Represented By
Steven J. Miller
Miller Goler Faeges Lapine
contact info
David A. Kunselman
Miller Goler Faeges Lapine
contact info
-
I meant to say they should pay for Resnick's legal fees too...stand up for the contributor. I was under the impression that Shutterstock was going to take the settle route but could not reach an agreement Forni.
-
Apparently some people dont read the links much less look at them.
Why is that you are only posting these condescending comments when you come here. You really have an OCD attitude of patronizing superiority when someone hasnt read the entire internet.
Sorry, I just cant keep that to myself. Hows the SS forum? Havent been there in like forever. Things must me awesome there with me and Lagereek gone. ;D
-
I agree. We act in harmony with the TOS of the Agency. The Client breaks the TOS of the Agency. The photographer gets sued.
The Agencies should enforce their own TOS on their clients to protect not only their own interests but also the photographers and models involved. If the Artist has to take all the legal risk despite acting lawfully and in accordance with the agreements the business is not worth it.
-
...I was under the impression that Shutterstock was going to take the settle route but could not reach an agreement Forni.
Which is interesting since she's claimed that she's not after money with the stock agencies. So if they couldn't reach an agreement, what was she asking for, if not money?
Rhetorical question, we all know she's just after money, and lots of it.
-
This is why I don't do people stock photos and I never will. If I had some people shots, even of friends or family members, I would be removing them from the agencies ASAP. It's far too easy for internet photos to be stolen and misused, and in our lawsuit-happy society, even if you "win" you still lose. It's simply not worth the potential or actual aggravation for the paltry percentages we receive.
If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction. I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me. I am very selective about models tho. I don't do glamour or shoot strangers. Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy.
Live in fear if you want. My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.
-
If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction. I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me. I am very selective about models tho. I don't do glamour or shoot strangers. Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy.
Live in fear if you want. My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.
If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion. Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them? If the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it. I simply made the statement that for me, it is not. Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.
-
After reading all that, I'm really happy to be an european living in Europe, and this for two reasons:
first we don't need this big amount of money to pay a lawyer, an then nobody can accuse you if don't show evidence. At the moment the only evidence is the publication of the picture on a book or so on, and this means that tre is an upside down: the publisher needs to demonstrate his "bona fide" or that you was the seller of the photo. More: if he can demonstrate this, he is not innocent! He share the responsibility with you because have not release by the model for pornography.
Good luck, I will immediately send a donation
-
If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction. I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me. I am very selective about models tho. I don't do glamour or shoot strangers. Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy.
Live in fear if you want. My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.
If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion. Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them? If the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it. I simply made the statement that for me, it is not. Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.
Yes I have been more fortunate than the OP not to be sued. That's why I made him a good size donation. But whether I know the mind of my models, they are all personal friends and relatives. So yes, I do know them. And in a tight social group there would be a stigma to suing another member of the group for something they clearly had no control over.
The model in this case was a stranger to the photographer, so there was no trust between them and no social pressure on either to act ethically toward the other. Hopefully most of us can trust our family and friends not to sue us. If not, I would choose different friends.
As for 'pennies', good people shooters can make six figure incomes in stock.
-
If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction. I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me. I am very selective about models tho. I don't do glamour or shoot strangers. Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy.
Live in fear if you want. My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.
If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion. Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them? If the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it. I simply made the statement that for me, it is not. Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.
Yes I have been more fortunate than the OP not to be sued. That's why I made him a good size donation. But whether I know the mind of my models, they are all personal friends and relatives. So yes, I do know them. And in a tight social group there would be a stigma to suing another member of the group for something they clearly had no control over.
The model in this case was a stranger to the photographer, so there was no trust between them and no social pressure on either to act ethically toward the other. Hopefully most of us can trust our family and friends not to sue us. If not, I would choose different friends.
As for 'pennies', good people shooters can make six figure incomes in stock.
The issue is many models thought they 'know' what they are getting themselves into at that point of time. However, they change their mind once the photos come back to haunt them. I'm slightly disturbed by this article here, as it seems this could happen to anyone who signed model release. They are all supportive at the beginning and eventually regret that they sign the release. The photographer is lucky not to be sued, but I can't this is has no impact on their friendship/relationship.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html)
-
The issue is many models thought they 'know' what they are getting themselves into at that point of time. However, they change their mind once the photos come back to haunt them. I'm slightly disturbed by this article here, as it seems this could happen to anyone who signed model release. They are all supportive at the beginning and eventually regret that they sign the release. The photographer is lucky not to be sued, but I can't this is has no impact on their friendship/relationship.
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html[/url] ([url]http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html[/url])
Your right. Many models don't understand the release. Its our job to explain it to them. Even if you are confident they wont sue, you still need to explain possible misuses. I already said I have had misuses. When the models found them, some did not care. I just had a friend used in an advert for people working while high on pot. He didn't smoke pot in 20+ years. He laughed about it.
I had another girl used for HPV sexually transmitted disease. She was upset. I called the company, explained this was a violation of TOS, and model did not agree to it. They took it down. Model still works for me because she knows I will fight for her if images are misused. Again, these are friends. I will pursue misuse on their behalf every time. Trust goes both ways.
-
Most of my models sign without reading the MR, saying "I trust you". That's not very clever of course, because I am not in control of who buys the images and what is done with them. But I do explain what can happen, with a few examples. They always love the story of me appearing on a Trade Union wall poster as a witch, in my own country, and people recognizing me. Until today, all image uses found by me, my models or their friends were happily welcomed. I live in a country were people rarely sue, but I do wonder what would happen in case of real misuse.
-
:)
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 :)
-
Congratulations Katja, excellent news! This creates a precedent for future cases like this, and hopefully will reduce the number of them.
What a relief you must be feeling:)
-
Thank you very much Elena! :D I hope so too, for all honest safe photographers.
-
Did you recover your legal fees from the accuser?
-
Did you recover your legal fees from the accuser?
For 80%, she's ordered to pay within 2 weeks.
-
What's scary is how anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how ridiculous, and in order to defend yourself it will cost a minimum of 50 grand, I had a lawyer tell me that. Completely unrelated to photography, but my family was sued by a cousin and aunt (an inheritance / property issue) and they made false accusations, which in the end the judge recognized and acknowledged and we won the case. But it cost us 50,000 bucks over many years to defend ourselves. Afterwards we thought about suing them for emotional damages and for starting up a frivolous lawsuit but our lawyer said it would be long and difficult to win and we couldn't afford it. Who won? The lawyers.
I feel for you man, I wish you the best.
donating.
-
What's scary is how anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how ridiculous, and in order to defend yourself it will cost a minimum of 50 grand, I had a lawyer tell me that. Completely unrelated to photography, but my family was sued by a cousin and aunt (an inheritance / property issue) and they made false accusations, which in the end the judge recognized and acknowledged and we won the case.
Sounds like my situation. Luckily my case was dismissed after only a year, and the estate paid my legal bills. But it's very sad to have your own family members falsely accuse you of something. I'm very glad to hear Katja won. :)
-
:)
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 :)
Helemaal tegek, gefeliciteerd. Nu even vieren met een biertje. Als dit de eerste case in Nederland was dan kunnen ze deze case in ieder geval gebruiken als jurispudentie. Geniet van je overwinning!
-
Dank je wel ;D
-
Poor baby photographer is being sued :'(.
I'm tired of seeing your winy face (oh woe is me) on your video, asking for money and help, playing the Innocent victim. the only reason you are getting sympathy on here, is cause its every other photographers nightmare to be sued by his model for a situation like this. AND that's why i don't shoot people, i shoot cabbage and such! :P
BUT, Lets look at it at least a bit from her side. Unintentionally (?) you have probably ruined here career! I read now she is "the face of porn" or something like that. you and all us photographers know the potential is there to for this to happen, especially if the pics you take are provocative, and I'm sure they are. so you should have at least had it in the fine print of her contract/release stating that there is a possibility that her photos could be purchased and used by the porn industry! but you don't cause you know what, then the models are going to pause and think abt it before consenting to the photos.
i really resent you acting as if you are the victim and have no fault in this and are surprised that you are being sued. We ALL know that this possibility exists to happen. WE need to stop downplaying it or completely ignoring and not mentioning it, thinking it wont happen to me.
My advice to you is suck it up and settle asap.
-
Poor baby photographer is being sued :'(.
I'm tired of seeing your winy face (oh woe is me) on your video, asking for money and help, playing the Innocent victim. the only reason you are getting sympathy on here, is cause its every other photographers nightmare to be sued by his model for a situation like this. AND that's why i don't shoot people, i shoot cabbage and such! :P
BUT, Lets look at it at least a bit from her side. Unintentionally (?) you have probably ruined here career! I read now she is "the face of porn" or something like that. you and all us photographers know the potential is there to for this to happen, especially if the pics you take are provocative, and I'm sure they are. so you should have at least had it in the fine print of her contract/release stating that there is a possibility that her photos could be purchased and used by the porn industry! but you don't cause you know what, then the models are going to pause and think abt it before consenting to the photos.
i really resent you acting as if you are the victim and have no fault in this and are surprised that you are being sued. We ALL know that this possibility exists to happen. WE need to stop downplaying it or completely ignoring and not mentioning it, thinking it wont happen to me.
My advice to you is suck it up and settle asap.
I resent ignorance and you have plenty of that.
-
Poor baby photographer is being sued :'(.
I'm tired of seeing your winy face (oh woe is me) on your video, asking for money and help, playing the Innocent victim. the only reason you are getting sympathy on here, is cause its every other photographers nightmare to be sued by his model for a situation like this. AND that's why i don't shoot people, i shoot cabbage and such! :P
BUT, Lets look at it at least a bit from her side. Unintentionally (?) you have probably ruined here career! I read now she is "the face of porn" or something like that. you and all us photographers know the potential is there to for this to happen, especially if the pics you take are provocative, and I'm sure they are. so you should have at least had it in the fine print of her contract/release stating that there is a possibility that her photos could be purchased and used by the porn industry! but you don't cause you know what, then the models are going to pause and think abt it before consenting to the photos.
i really resent you acting as if you are the victim and have no fault in this and are surprised that you are being sued. We ALL know that this possibility exists to happen. WE need to stop downplaying it or completely ignoring and not mentioning it, thinking it wont happen to me.
My advice to you is suck it up and settle asap.
I resent ignorance and you have plenty of that.
Good responce, that cleared everything up.
Why dont you step into someone else shoes for a sec. Not just the shoes the benefit you the most.
-
@ouchie: Obviously, you have never seen a model release and have not a slightest idea what it states in pretty noticeable full-size print. So, you posting in this thread why? You know, you can start your own thread discussing problems of shooting cabbages, I can help with that if you don't know how, but please, don't make posts without at least some rudimentary understanding of the subject.
-
@ouchie: Obviously, you have never seen a model release and have not a slightest idea what it states in pretty noticeable full-size print. So, you posting in this thread why? You know, you can start your own thread discussing problems of shooting cabbages, I can help with that if you don't know how, but please, don't make posts without at least some rudimentary understanding of the subject.
Be real, not just self serving.
Why don't you step into someone else shoes for a sec. Not just the shoes the benefit you the most.
I know exactly what a model realease is, i have used them a few times, in the beginning. But i realised the potential for problems, because they are not very clear. So I photograph cabbage, or whatever.
I understand why you all are getting offended and are using semi vieled insults.....cause it has the potential to hit your wallet. ;)
you asked why i posted in this thread. well read between the lines. you all are being self serving and one sided and i decided to take the others side. plain and simple.
also if i needed to discuss the problems of photographing cabbage, i would not ask you. you have enough problems with you own pics ;D
-
I don't know, I've been thinking about this. ::)
It was so obvious her images were going to be used in sex related websites. The other day I found the "famous" picture in a well known swingers site and that was exactly the way I would have thought the image would be used if I had been the photographer or the model. Were they so naive to not see this coming? What happened here shouldn't have been a surprise for the model or the photographer. They are both adults!!!
What do we really have here? A naive photographer who was dying to shoot a hot girl and didn't stop to consider all the risks of shooting and selling such images? or a photographer who knew perfectly well how these images could be used, and yet he didn't explain all the risks to the model? A naive model? or a model who just saw an opportunity to get publicity and a good amount of money?
Hmmm...
-
:)
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 :)
Wonderful news Katje!! Congratulations! So happy to hear common sense won!
-
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.
-
Congratulations, Katja! Thank you for posting this!
-
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.
and thinking like one.
-
LOL, it seems the only one here using semi vieled insults is Ouchie
I guess the constructive discussion in this thread had to end at some point. Luckily it lasted 6 pages before Lagereek's mini me arrived on the stage. ;)
-
Congratulations, Katja! Thank you for posting this!
Wonderful news Katje!! Congratulations! So happy to hear common sense won!
Thank you guys! :)
-
LOL, it seems the only one here using semi vieled insults is Ouchie
I guess the constructive discussion in this thread had to end at some point. Luckily it lasted 6 pages before Lagereek's mini me arrived on the stage. ;)
did you want to say "constructive discussion" or "one sided discussion"?
one sided, sounds much more appropriate for this thread. Photog's agreeing with photog's, is not constructive discussion...that's called self serving discussion.
you ppl sure do get you panties in a bunch when someone takes on the opposing view!
oh yea, and i got your mini me right here ;D
-
I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.
LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!
-
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!!!"
-
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!
-
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.
-
@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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?!
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Troll identified.
I promise, its not me ! ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is only the second time I have used the useful 'ignore' feature of the site...
-
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 donīt want your images to be used in that context, you really canīt show them anywhere online. That is the only way to prevent image theft and abuse.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Elenathewise, congrats!
Any news/update from Joshua's case?
-
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 donīt want your images to be used in that context, you really canīt 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..
-
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:
[url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url] ([url]http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/model-release-question-for-doctorsdds-photo-sessions/msg316441/#msg316441[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/model-release-question-for-doctorsdds-photo-sessions/msg316441/#msg316441[/url])
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.
-
:)
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!
-
Thank you! You got PM :)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11387719/Erectile-dysfunction-and-the-dangers-of-stock-photo-modelling.html)
-
"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.
-
"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 (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. "
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!!"
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.
-
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.
-
:)
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!
-
Thank you Wendy! :)