MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ever have any problem with kid photos?  (Read 2746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 09, 2013, 13:48 »
0
I shot a few images of my neighbours son and my own daughter this past weekend while they were gardening. 6 and 11 year olds. I've used my daughter in stock shots since she was 2 minutes old. Without getting into a huge philosophical discussion on whether it's  okay to exploit children for the purposes of making money from stock images, has anyone ever had a problem surface from such usages? I ask this because my neighbour was very hesitant signing a releases because of the image "being out there". Of the hundreds of sales from photos of my daughter and of other children, I have never had an issue or seen any of my images used in an inappropriate way. Have you? Or have you heard of any?


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2013, 13:57 »
+2
No.  Kids doing normal things in normal environments have never been a problem.

« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2013, 14:06 »
0
Same here.  You just have to make sure that you have them doing normal everyday things making it difficult to misuse them.   Saying that I would never understate the risks and tell the parents that I have no control over misuse.

« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2013, 14:44 »
0
This is my experience as well. I thought I would check though to see what others have experienced. I don't underplay it but at the same time I did state that I had never heard of a problem, which I hadn't.

« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2013, 14:50 »
+2
My kids love shooting with me and I have never had a problem with misuse.  My friends and family have all seen my kids on tv and in print and are always excited to shoot with me, they don't have a problem signing the release because they have seen my shots and seen how shots of my kids have been used. 
If you neighbor is hesitant I would be careful, show him some examples of shots with your kids and how they have been used.  If he is still hesitant I would not use his kids, some people are much more sensitive to things like this and you should be very careful if your subject is hesitant to sign the release. 

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2013, 06:57 »
0
Just as with anything else there are some cases of misuse of photos.


« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2013, 07:19 »
0
No.  Kids doing normal things in normal environments have never been a problem.

BINGO.  Once you try to treat them like any other model, it gets exponentially tougher than adult models....usually ;)

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2013, 16:01 »
0
Same story here.  I've never had a problem uploading photos of kids doing normal things.

If your friend is hesitant, I wouldn't push them, but you might ask if they ever upload photos of their kids to facebook, instagram, flickr, etc.  If they do, then their kids pics are already "out there" and in a lot less secure location than a microstock site. 

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2013, 16:09 »
0
If your friend is hesitant, I wouldn't push them, but you might ask if they ever upload photos of their kids to facebook, instagram, flickr, etc.  If they do, then their kids pics are already "out there" and in a lot less secure location than a microstock site.
<pedantic>Not quite. You can protect your images to some extent on Flickr (don't know about the others). But once someone buys an image and puts them on their site, there are seldom any protections.

That said, I had the same discussion with a young woman I photographed when 'out and about'. I discovered she was on MM, and hoped I'd at long last have a model, as she had 'stock' as one of her possibilities. In email discussion, it turned out she hadn't realised she/I wouldn't have control of what stock images could be used for. I pointed out that she had posted images of herself in scanty clothes/provocative positions (mild) on her website with no protection. Turned out she had never thought of that, and she both removed 'stock' from the MM profile and at least right click disabled her website photos and removed some of the 'racier' ones.
Well, it's nice to be educational.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 16:41 by ShadySue »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2013, 17:48 »
0
If a parent even hesitates I wouldn't push the issue. If they are using facebook and putting their kids' pics on it, then uh! can you even point out how ludicrous they are being? I've never found a polite way to point that out, so i just move on.

I actually "pay" my kids, usually in the form of ice cream or slushies. :) They are pretty ok with their "exploitation". They also just got mini iPads so i'm sure I'll do a series of "kids with technology" which they'll be more than happy to comply with.

« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2013, 21:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:50 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2013, 22:35 »
0
What does the Shutterstock sensitive use license say about kids?
Nothing specific about kids, but the buyer "may not:

Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content or in such a manner that it infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.
9.
Use an Image in a way that places any person depicted in the Image in a bad light or in a way that they may find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to the use of Images: a) in pornography, "adult videos" or the like; b) in ads for tobacco products; c) in ads or promotional materials for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or for escort, dating or similar services; d) in connection with political endorsements; e) in advertisements or promotional materials for pharmaceutical or healthcare, herbal or medical products, including, but not limited to dietary supplements, digestive aids, herbal supplements, personal hygiene or birth control products; and f) uses that are defamatory, or contain otherwise unlawful, offensive or immoral content. You may not use an Image containing the likeness of a person if such use implies that the model engages in any immoral or illegal activity or suffers from a physical or mental infirmity, ailment or condition."


Compare iS:
Prohibited uses
Pornographic, obscene or libelous works
Use that depicts personal endorsement by model
Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer.

« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2013, 22:49 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:50 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2013, 22:56 »
0
So - SS requires you to opt in to sensitive uses, for which I'm sure the tog is paid more (does the model get to choose, i.e. have to sign that they agree to the sensitive use?) and the buyer must give a disclaimer.
iS there is no opt-out, but only some of these uses are allowed, with a disclaimer. Actually, there used to be a clause in iS that sensitive use, with a disclaimer, could only be used if the photo actually showed something. E.g. someone portraying someone taking drugs, or violence, or being in a gay or heterosexual couple, meaning even with the disclaimer, you couldn't photoshop a model into a sensitive situation, but that seems to be gone now.

« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2013, 23:00 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:50 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2013, 23:08 »
0
No the model doesn't get a say if they sign a release (they could opt not to sign the release), the opt in out is for 100% of your photos or none. "By default, your images will be included, unless you choose to opt-out."  AFAIK the license isn't available publicly but it would seem to allow all kinds of uses with kids that could be upsetting to the parent or the child.
The uses (with disclaimer) seem to be similar to what iS allows without the tog agreeing, and without any extra payment; and neither protects kids specifically.
Nor sure why we're talking about SS and iS, as the OP wasn't specific.
Anyway, it's 05:07, so sleep calls.  :)

Slainte
Liz
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 23:11 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2013, 23:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:49 by Audi 5000 »


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2013, 23:19 »
0
No the model doesn't get a say if they sign a release (they could opt not to sign the release), the opt in out is for 100% of your photos or none. "By default, your images will be included, unless you choose to opt-out."  AFAIK the license isn't available publicly but it would seem to allow all kinds of uses with kids that could be upsetting to the parent or the child.
The uses (with disclaimer) seem to be similar to what iS allows without the tog agreeing, and neither protects kids specifically.
Nor sure why we're talking about SS and iS, as the OP wasn't specific.
Anyway, it's 05:07, so sleep calls.  :)

Slainte
Liz
Sorry you posted the IS license that says explicitly you are prohibited from "Use that depicts model in a sensitive way" while the Shutterstock license is called a sensitive use license, I don't think they could be further apart.  The implication is that Shutterstock is allowing kid photos to be used in a way that "some might consider controversial or unflattering."  We are talking about microstock sites (the two biggest) because that's what this forum is about and the OP asked about problems with kid photos, this could be a problem couldn't it?

Not as different as you think.
SS prohibits, in its sensitive use sales,  ... tobacco ads; in materials that are pornographic; or are used to market and/or promote adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or escort, dating or similar services. with a disclaimer. No particular protection is offered to children, but the tog can opt out.

iStock allows ... Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference with a disclaimer. No particular protection is offered to children and the photographer can't opt out.



« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2013, 23:26 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:49 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2013, 07:16 »
0
No the model doesn't get a say if they sign a release (they could opt not to sign the release), the opt in out is for 100% of your photos or none. "By default, your images will be included, unless you choose to opt-out."  AFAIK the license isn't available publicly but it would seem to allow all kinds of uses with kids that could be upsetting to the parent or the child.

The uses (with disclaimer) seem to be similar to what iS allows without the tog agreeing, and neither protects kids specifically.
Nor sure why we're talking about SS and iS, as the OP wasn't specific.
Anyway, it's 05:07, so sleep calls.  :)

Slainte
Liz

Sorry you posted the IS license that says explicitly you are prohibited from "Use that depicts model in a sensitive way" while the Shutterstock license is called a sensitive use license, I don't think they could be further apart.  The implication is that Shutterstock is allowing kid photos to be used in a way that "some might consider controversial or unflattering."  We are talking about microstock sites (the two biggest) because that's what this forum is about and the OP asked about problems with kid photos, this could be a problem couldn't it?


Not as different as you think.
SS prohibits, in its sensitive use sales,  ... tobacco ads; in materials that are pornographic; or are used to market and/or promote adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or escort, dating or similar services. with a disclaimer. No particular protection is offered to children, but the tog can opt out.

iStock allows ... Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference with a disclaimer. No particular protection is offered to children and the photographer can't opt out.

Where are you seeing that?  I found this:
Prohibited use:
"use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStockphoto (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute; "
and
"that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself; "

Maybe I'm missing the part about a disclaimer but I don't see it here (there is something about a disclaimer for endorsements)

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses, which is the page you get sent to if you click on 'license options' directly from a photo's home page. The info I quoted is underneath the chart which compares normal and extended licenses under licence restrictions.

Notice that that's why I thought "in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself;" had been removed. You have clearly found a different version of the agreement where that clause still exists.
Surely a buyer would have done 'due diligence' if they'd clicked 'license options' from an image home page and read the restrictions there - why would they imagine that further restrictions would exist on another page entirely?

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2013, 07:20 »
0
Back to the OP. IMO, the most real 'risk' for the child is being bullied at school/nursery. I had a pupil who had been badly bullied in primary school because he'd modelled underwear for a children's clothes catalogue (vests and pants [Underpants to USians], straight catalogue imagery, nothing dubious or kinky). This was a while ago. I don't think they show faces nowadays.

That said, it beats me why some parents have allowed their children to be identifiably photographed for stock on a potty or toilet. Bullying is totally wrong, but why would you put your child in direct risk of bullying like that? (Theft is totally wrong, but you wouldn't leave your Ming vase on the front lawn.)

« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2013, 10:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:49 by Audi 5000 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1800 Views
Last post November 01, 2007, 08:00
by fleitao
7 Replies
4642 Views
Last post January 28, 2011, 18:40
by RacePhoto
15 Replies
6012 Views
Last post March 26, 2011, 11:08
by Niakris
8 Replies
2607 Views
Last post March 11, 2013, 15:51
by aspp
3 Replies
375 Views
Last post August 17, 2019, 07:55
by Niakris

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results