MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Greek sues over photo on 'Turkish' yoghurt  (Read 22202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2010, 09:07 »
0
The man in the photo did not apparently have an agreement with the photographer, but Axelson said the case of mistaken nationality was also a factor behind his decision to sue.

If a release was signed, "mistaken nationality" is probably not something you can sue someone over.

right, more it would seem the greek felt insulted, not that it added legal weight - unfortunately for them, many greek 'traditional' foods have turkish or other middle eastern  origins [baklava, pastrami, hummus,dolmates, doner kebabs, other mezes, etc].  there's a similar case where israel is trying to claim exclusive rights to falafel;  most of these foods originated under the ottoman empire, so attaching specific nationalities is at best hazy.  i just order greek yogurt in greece and turkish when there.

s


vonkara

« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2010, 09:13 »
0
I wonder how it taste first

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2010, 10:39 »
0
The dairy says that it had a deal with a photo agency to use its photos for its products.

The man in the photo did not apparently have an agreement with the photographer, but Axelson said the case of mistaken nationality was also a factor behind his decision to sue.

The man in the photo did not apparently have an agreement with the photographer = no model release.

So who all potentially are liable here? Photographer for not getting a release? Agency for mismarking the license (Commercial instead of Editorial) or not restricting it to Editorial? Designer for improper usage? Yogurt company for improper usage?

If there was a release I doubt they'd have a case for mistaken identity or defamation/libel. But with no release now libel is in addition to misuse.

It'll be interesting to see who gets nailed for this. I've been looking into an LLC and Corp business and this case just pushes the issue.

« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2010, 14:29 »
0
The dairy says that it had a deal with a photo agency to use its photos for its products.

The man in the photo did not apparently have an agreement with the photographer, but Axelson said the case of mistaken nationality was also a factor behind his decision to sue.

The man in the photo did not apparently have an agreement with the photographer = no model release.

So who all potentially are liable here? Photographer for not getting a release? Agency for mismarking the license (Commercial instead of Editorial) or not restricting it to Editorial? Designer for improper usage? Yogurt company for improper usage?

If there was a release I doubt they'd have a case for mistaken identity or defamation/libel. But with no release now libel is in addition to misuse.

It'll be interesting to see who gets nailed for this. I've been looking into an LLC and Corp business and this case just pushes the issue.

There is certainly nothing wrong with 'not getting a release' from someone and selling it as editorial.  The only thing the photographer could have done wrong is to sell an image as Released when it wasn't released.  I hope this image was listed correctly by the photographer.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2010, 14:40 »
0
^ Exactly. Alamy had a problem with this. They were finding contributors marking photos as having a model release when there wasn't one. After being busted those contributors were saying stuff like "I was going to get it later" or "The model never sent it back to me."

So in that case does that make the photographer liable?

« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2010, 14:45 »
0
^ Exactly. Alamy had a problem with this. They were finding contributors marking photos as having a model release when there wasn't one. After being busted those contributors were saying stuff like "I was going to get it later" or "The model never sent it back to me."

So in that case does that make the photographer liable?

I would certainly think so.  The photog would be selling something he doesn't have, or misrepresenting what he does have.

If the model hasen't signed the release 'yet', or if they 'never got back' to the photographer then the photographer doesn't have a release.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2010, 17:13 »
0
hahahaha !

the bearded man discovered RM's dirty little secret....

most of the pics have no release or they have fake releases
and agencies don't give a crap unless a scandal like this makes
the headlines.

as for the liability it's of course the agency to blame, they will later
fine or sue the photographer depending on the contract they signed
with him.

with all the bearded greeks living in stockholm they could have saved money
hiring some immigrant dressing with traditonal uniform and pay
a photographer for the photo set.

you see... stock can be more expensive sometimes ....

i like that picture, it's exactly like the ethnic portraits i shoot.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2010, 17:14 »
0
^ Exactly. Alamy had a problem with this. They were finding contributors marking photos as having a model release when there wasn't one. After being busted those contributors were saying stuff like "I was going to get it later" or "The model never sent it back to me."

So in that case does that make the photographer liable?

yes but if he sues somebody it will be the agency first.

as for Alamy what about the new "model release for iPhone APP" ?

it seems alamy is willing to accept this crap, they even wrote about it
in their corporate blog.

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2010, 18:00 »
0


So who all potentially are liable here? Photographer for not getting a release? Agency for mismarking the license (Commercial instead of Editorial) or not restricting it to Editorial? Designer for improper usage? Yogurt company for improper usage?

SNIP

It'll be interesting to see who gets nailed for this. I've been looking into an LLC and Corp business and this case just pushes the issue.

I've read various articles (which I can't seem to find to reference at the moment) and the gist seems to be that proper usage is ultimately the responsibility of the end user.  Of course if there was misrepresentation at the agency or by the photographer than changes things.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2010, 03:32 »
0


So who all potentially are liable here? Photographer for not getting a release? Agency for mismarking the license (Commercial instead of Editorial) or not restricting it to Editorial? Designer for improper usage? Yogurt company for improper usage?

SNIP

It'll be interesting to see who gets nailed for this. I've been looking into an LLC and Corp business and this case just pushes the issue.

I've read various articles (which I can't seem to find to reference at the moment) and the gist seems to be that proper usage is ultimately the responsibility of the end user.  Of course if there was misrepresentation at the agency or by the photographer than changes things.


gray area.

what if the photographer keyworded and captioned the image saying the man was turkish instead of greek ?
who's to blame in that case ? no agency check keywording nor i think is fully responsible for that.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2010, 05:57 »
0
Looks like the yogurt company might be at fault. It's clearly marked RM with no release at a couple different agencies.

http://www.reflexstock.com/image/4407485/Greece-Arachoua-portrait-man-dressed-traditionally.html

Or who knows. It may have been incorrectly marked and was changed at some point.

« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2010, 06:07 »
0
gray area.

what if the photographer keyworded and captioned the image saying the man was turkish instead of greek ?
who's to blame in that case ? no agency check keywording nor i think is fully responsible for that.

I've never heard that keywords are some sort of contract.  They are descriptive and interpretive.

« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2010, 06:12 »
0
Looks like the yogurt company might be at fault. It's clearly marked RM with no release at a couple different agencies.

Nice find. The plot thickens!

I just had a price quotation from that agency based on the use (over 1M units) for packaging on a food product in Sweden and it came out at over $2K.

For that sort of money they could have commissioned their own photographer/model. I would guess that quite a few corners were cut to save money in the assumption that they wouldn't get caught. It's going to be a very expensive mistake for someone. I hope the old boy (and the photographer) get a very good drink out of it.

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2010, 06:40 »
0
gray area.

what if the photographer keyworded and captioned the image saying the man was turkish instead of greek ?
who's to blame in that case ? no agency check keywording nor i think is fully responsible for that.

I've never heard that keywords are some sort of contract.  They are descriptive and interpretive.
Separate issue, but I don't see anything in the model release which would allow you to describe someone as e.g. Turkish rather than Greek, English rather than Scottish, American rather than Canadian, whatever. I wonder what rights a model would have over a photographer who assigned them wrongly. I know, it would be different in different countries, probably a lot stricter in the UK than the US, for example.

« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2010, 07:16 »
0
Separate issue, but I don't see anything in the model release which would allow you to describe someone as e.g. Turkish rather than Greek, English rather than Scottish, American rather than Canadian, whatever.
The photographer and the agency have the right to assign a "different ethnicity" if it suits them, as is stated in the iStock/Getty release I use now for all sites.
Quote
I acknowledge and agree that I have consented to publication of my ethnicity(ies) as indicated below, but understand that other ethnicities may be associated with me by the Photographer / Filmmaker and / or Assigns for descriptive purposes.
I wonder what rights a model would have over a photographer who assigned them wrongly. I know, it would be different in different countries, probably a lot stricter in the UK than the US, for example.
Knowing the history of Turkey (that originally was Greek, as Asia Minor) and their different invasion waves, ending up in a thorough mixing of their original genes (many Turkish look just like Europeans), it is a bit ridiculous to play the "ethnicity" argument.
There has been a similar case in Belgium 5 years ago, where a Walloon model was used on a political poster of a Flemish party. A lower court then ruled that releases don't count, and that a model has to give permission for every use of a photo. Which is lunatic of course.
In general, and this only goes for countries with Napoleontic law, a model can only claim damages when (1) the photographer/agency knowingly did something wrong, and (2) those damages are real and financial, so that the model can prove them with exact amounts and why. The burden of proof in that case lies with the model.
In the case of the OP, the model won't have any financial damages being depicted as a Turk, or he might be convicted himself for racial stereotyping and hyper-nationalism.
There can be moral damages but courts usually give fines of 1 euro for moral damages in those cases.

In countries with Anglosaxon law (the UK and the US), things might work differently. Especially the US with its ridiculous lawsuits and too many lawyers, the Greek probably could get what he wants, given he makes some lawyers rich first.

« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2010, 07:30 »
0
Looks like the yogurt company might be at fault. It's clearly marked RM with no release at a couple different agencies.

http://www.reflexstock.com/image/4407485/Greece-Arachoua-portrait-man-dressed-traditionally.html

Or who knows. It may have been incorrectly marked and was changed at some point.


The caption under the photo at the link above says Photos of Greece...and the link above has Greece in the name of the photo. So unless it has been changed since the lawsuit was filed, there wasn't any misleading on the part of the agency that the guy was Greek.

« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2010, 08:25 »
0
Separate issue, but I don't see anything in the model release which would allow you to describe someone as e.g. Turkish rather than Greek, English rather than Scottish, American rather than Canadian, whatever. I wonder what rights a model would have over a photographer who assigned them wrongly. I know, it would be different in different countries, probably a lot stricter in the UK than the US, for example.

From the iStock legal: While we have made reasonable efforts to correctly categorize and keyword the Content, iStockphoto does not warrant the accuracy of such information. "

I don't think keywording is an enforceable contract.  Keywording is more of a literal description of the visual interpretation, and if someone can appear to be hispanic while actually being caucasian, the keywords can still be used.


« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2010, 14:49 »
0
Looks like the yogurt company might be at fault. It's clearly marked RM with no release at a couple different agencies.

http://www.reflexstock.com/image/4407485/Greece-Arachoua-portrait-man-dressed-traditionally.html

Or who knows. It may have been incorrectly marked and was changed at some point.

Or the designer perhaps?

ETA: I seen it reported that some companies won't allow the use microstock because they cannot personally confirm all releases (because agencies won't give out contact details for models). Perhaps this justifies that attitude. istocks recent legal guarantees make sense in this scenario.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 14:52 by averil »

Microbius

« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2010, 06:01 »
0
lots more interesting facts here, including photogs name and agency and a post that's apparently from the Greek man's legal advisor

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/04/greek-man-sues-swedish-company-over-turkish-yoghurt-image-usage-seriously.html
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 06:04 by Microbius »

dk

« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2010, 13:55 »
0
lots more interesting facts here, including photogs name and agency and a post that's apparently from the Greek man's legal advisor

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/04/greek-man-sues-swedish-company-over-turkish-yoghurt-image-usage-seriously.html


Reading the article above they describe this as "nationalistic tension" which is just stupid. I mean a man has the right not to have his face plastered on products against his will or not?

Microbius

« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2010, 04:46 »
0
Yeah I think it's a bit of a distraction concentrating on why he is insulted etc. The issue is really whether there is a model release allowing for the use of the image or not. Although I guess the level of compensation may be different depending on how much the misuse effects his life. Either way, this is something to be considered further down the line, the first issue is whether the photo was released.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2010, 06:05 »
0
The BBC articles says the image was sold on AGE Fotostock but i think it was thru another distributor so in these cases it's not unusual that something fishy happens with model releases.

So it's not clear who's to blame here, if AGE or another small RM agency that in the meantime has been sold or went bankrupt.

Technically AGE should be the one to pay back the bearded man, and then they would recoup the money sueing the other agency or the photographer.

It's a big mess, what will happen when agencies accept model release taken with the iPhone (Alamy seems to be ok with it, they have an app for this).

For anything else, i think the old man is going too far with his claims.
His face is on a yoghurt, so what ? He's famous all over sweden now, why not
just accept it and live with it ?

« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2010, 06:21 »
0
The BBC articles says the image was sold on AGE Fotostock but i think it was thru another distributor so in these cases it's not unusual that something fishy happens with model releases.

So it's not clear who's to blame here, if AGE or another small RM agency that in the meantime has been sold or went bankrupt.

Technically AGE should be the one to pay back the bearded man, and then they would recoup the money sueing the other agency or the photographer.
Well if the photographer said the image doesn't have a release he hasn't done anything wrong and can't be sued.

It's a big mess, what will happen when agencies accept model release taken with the iPhone (Alamy seems to be ok with it, they have an app for this).

For anything else, i think the old man is going too far with his claims.
His face is on a yoghurt, so what ? He's famous all over sweden now, why not
just accept it and live with it ?
Just accept it?  He was used for a job (advertising for a company) and wasn't paid for it.  Surely of all people you wouldn't be happy working for free.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2010, 07:28 »
0
yes but even signing a release he wouldn't see a single euro from the photographer.

besides, as they're using the image since 10 years there's also the possibility that
because of some obscure legal loophole he's too late to complain today.

« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2010, 09:26 »
0
So it's not clear who's to blame here, if AGE or another small RM agency that in the meantime has been sold or went bankrupt.
Well this a very good reason for any buyer not to buy from macro, that seems to be very sloppy with releases and clearances.
Micro is very strict about all this, and most important micro sites even offer a warranty. So why do people still buy from the dinosaur macros at overrated prices? Ignorance. Let this be a lesson. ;-)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2010, 10:08 by FD-amateur »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Greek riots

Started by CofkoCof Off Topic

2 Replies
1745 Views
Last post December 17, 2008, 09:34
by vonkara
2 Replies
1626 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 16:39
by EmberMike
36 Replies
6653 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 18:09
by ShadySue
1 Replies
1441 Views
Last post February 03, 2015, 09:13
by Niakris
82 Replies
14140 Views
Last post September 11, 2015, 15:33
by eyeidea

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results