MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Greek sues over photo on 'Turkish' yoghurt  (Read 22200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 10, 2010, 05:30 »
0
A Greek man is suing a dairy in Sweden for 50 million kronor ($6.9m; 4.5m) for using his image on pots of Turkish-style yoghurt, Swedish media report ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612575.stm


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2010, 08:19 »
0
I don't see how he can have a case if he signed a model release.

« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2010, 09:16 »
0
Presumably he didn't. I guess it was intended for editorial use only by the photographer. It's quite common for travel photographers to take shots of local people which are ok for use in travel articles/brochures but not on yoghurt pots.

It'll be interesting so see what happens in a European case in comparison to the infamous 'coffee jar' case in the US where the plaintive was awarded 5% of the companies profits over several years.

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2010, 09:39 »
0
Presumably he didn't. I guess it was intended for editorial use only by the photographer. It's quite common for travel photographers to take shots of local people which are ok for use in travel articles/brochures but not on yoghurt pots.
Yes, I've been trying to find out more with no success as yet. But I think you've hit it right, since the man is suing the yogurt company and not the tog or agency.

dk

« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2010, 10:30 »
0
Stockholm - A small Swedish dairy is in a pickle over the use of a photo on its yoghurt packaging, a spokesman for the dairy said Friday.

A Greek man has sued family-owned dairy Lindahls Mejeri for 50 million kronor (6.9 million dollars) after it used his image on a package for the company's Turkish yoghurt.

'The sum is preposterous,' Thomas Axelson, purchasing manager for the dairy, told the German Press Agency dpa.

Axelson noted that the sum roughly equalled the annual sales of all the yoghurt the company sells.

'The case dates some while back,' Axelson said, adding that it was being handled by lawyers in Greece. Talks began some eight months ago.

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 bearded Greek was apparently alerted to his appearance on the yoghurt packaging by an acquaintance who lives in Stockholm, Swedish radio reported.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1547018.php/Greek-sues-Swedish-dairy-for-mistaking-his-nationality

« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2010, 10:32 »
0
I'm curious who the "library" was. They certainly don't know very much.

« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2010, 10:33 »
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2010, 10:44 »
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.
"did not have an agreement with the photographer" might mean 'no MR'.

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2010, 10:45 »
0

"mistaken nationality" is probably not something you can sue someone over.

^^Totally agree.  I am sure most of us who shoot models have had them used as various different nationalities.  

A fellow photographer in Norway seems to find different images of my husband (who's American of Irish/English descent) portrayed as a Norwegian in advertisements and articles  practically every month.   :)

And because of my daughter's dark curly hair and brown eyes she has been used as hispanic so many times I eventually started adding the keyword. 

In stock, it doesn't matter what a model "is", it just matters what they look like.

I think the only issue he has any claim over is the lack of model release.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 10:48 by lisafx »

dk

« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2010, 10:51 »
0
If he didn't sign a model release he can sue for any reason he wants. He can sue for nationality and he can even sue them because he doesnt like their yoghurt.  :D

What i'm not sure about is who will end up paying in the end. The photographer, the agency or the yoghurt company.

« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2010, 10:52 »
0
If he didn't sign a model release he can sue for any reason he wants. He can sue for nationality and he can even sue them because he doesnt like their yoghurt.  :D

What i'm not sure about is who will end up paying in the end. The photographer, the agency or the yoghurt company.

As usual it will be the one with money.

« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2010, 10:54 »
0

I think the only issue he has any claim over is the lack of model release.

Agree.

This makes a great case for companies dealing directly with photographers when it comes to negotiating licenses and leaving the middle man out.

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2010, 10:57 »
0
If he didn't sign a model release he can sue for any reason he wants. He can sue for nationality and he can even sue them because he doesnt like their yoghurt.  :D


Anyone can sue for anything they want anyway - with or without a model release.  The question is what points can he win on.    

No model release is a real issue.  The nationality thing is a red herring.  Sounds like he is trying to throw a bunch of charges at the wall and see what sticks...

dk

« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2010, 11:05 »
0
About the nationality issue i think it isn't that far stretched because he is wearing a traditional greek costume...
What were they thinking?  ??? Good for them they didn't put a japanese geisha on their yoghurt!

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2010, 11:28 »
0
About the nationality issue i think it isn't that far stretched because he is wearing a traditional greek costume...
What were they thinking?  ??? Good for them they didn't put a japanese geisha on their yoghurt!

^^  Very good point.  LOL on the geisha! ;D

Personally I love Greek yogurt the best anyway - they should have just called it GREEK yogurt! 

« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2010, 11:36 »
0
Knowing the feud that has been going over an island  for decades between Greek en Turkey it's understandable the guy is upset.
It would be the same being portrayed in a gay advertise although not being so.

Patrick.

« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2010, 11:45 »
0
Knowing the feud that has been going over an island  for decades between Greek en Turkey it's understandable the guy is upset.

Yes, being taken for Turkish is about the most offensive thing that could happen for some Greeks (especially when they're wearing their national costume).


« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2010, 11:48 »
0
Knowing the feud that has been going over an island  for decades between Greek en Turkey it's understandable the guy is upset.

Yes, being taken for Turkish is about the most offensive thing that could happen for some Greeks (especially when they're wearing their national costume).

What a major faux pas.

« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2010, 12:05 »
0
Knowing the feud that has been going over an island  for decades between Greek en Turkey it's understandable the guy is upset.

Yes, being taken for Turkish is about the most offensive thing that could happen for some Greeks (especially when they're wearing their national costume).

So is being portrayed as a republican if you're a democrat.

The Turkish thing is a non-issue.  The case epends on the existence of the MR.

« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2010, 12:07 »
0
Knowing the feud that has been going over an island  for decades between Greek en Turkey it's understandable the guy is upset.

Yes, being taken for Turkish is about the most offensive thing that could happen for some Greeks (especially when they're wearing their national costume).

So is being portrayed as a republican if you're a democrat.

The Turkish thing is a non-issue.  The case epends on the existence of the MR.

Question remains.. is there a model release.... no lawyer would sue knowing there is a model release.  IMO this was a vacation snapshot... editorial.

Patrick.

« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2010, 12:18 »
0
The Turkish thing is a non-issue.  The case epends on the existence of the MR.

It might be legally but it would certainly up the stakes publicity-wise in Greece. There's also the potential issue of false advertising or representation. Mind you the yogurt is probably about as 'Turkish' as Abba themselves.

« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2010, 12:55 »
0
This is the reason why I don't sell photos of people as RF, even as editorial. 

Also, you may talk to the person and have him sign a release, but an ordinary person does not fully understand the implications of a model release.  Given the Greece vs Turkey problems, it's understandable that a Greek man doesn't like his image used as a Turkish man.  Think of a Jewish being portrayed as Arab or vice-versa (even if many are really very much alike).

« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2010, 14:55 »
0
This could easily happen again at agencies without reviewers.  At Mostphotos I se Editorials for sale as Rf all the time.  People dont know the difference and dont seem to care. Hopefully they check the images when a sale occur.

The greek was photographed by a tourist without permission.  The photo was sold by a Swedish agency that got it in a package from a spanish agency.


« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2010, 15:44 »
0
Ok, so no release.  Now we need to know how it was licensed, if it was misrepresented, did the designer use it improperly, etc...

« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2010, 17:05 »
0
I checked out Ims agency website (Where they bought it) but couldnt find the image.
I found other international images on People sold as RM with the choice "commercial prints".

Heres an example:

http://www.nordicphotos.se/SE/Details/4373018

Is this ok? Im not good at Rm licences
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 10:00 by Magnum »

« 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 »

« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2010, 10:06 »
0
yes but even signing a release he wouldn't see a single euro from the photographer.

True. But then he might think twice before signing a paper to a stranger, probably in a language he doesn't know. Still, he could still be very nave and sign a release without having any idea people would be making money out of him.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2010, 18:22 »
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. ;-)

ironically the very reason to buy RM is to have you ass covered in situations like this.

i blame AGE or their distributors and sub-agencies.

as for payments AGE is an ugly agency anyway, for the record to get paid you need to send them a
paper invoice in Spain and we're in 2010...

i don't care if it's AGE fault or their sub-contractors.

AGE sold the image, AGE should be accountable in case of ANY issues, period.

« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2010, 19:02 »
0
AGE sold the image, AGE should be accountable in case of ANY issues, period.
I was, of course, just teasing you. But as you mention, some RM agencies at least seem still to live in the stone age. Micro-RF at least has its clearances things right, or they would out of business soon. And what to say about the buyer? There still seems to be a lot of ignorance with (occasional?) buyers. (I just suppose the image on AGE was marked as editorial). For instance the Crystalgraphics-Bigstock case a few years back, where we found our images for 70$ on CG, when they were less than 1/10th of that price on BS. A simple Google search could have saved they buyers a lot of money.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2010, 04:27 »
0
the problem lies with sub-distributors.
how can big agencies check their releases one by one ? and what if they're written in chinese or hindi ?

getty sub-licences a bunch of less known agencies and collections for instance, for sure there's plenty
of fake or missing releases there, but how many are going to sue getty in the end ?

it took 10 years for the greek man to find out about the yoghurt for instance.

there's certainly a lot of ads around using unreleases photos or even pics stolen on flickr.

« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2010, 18:10 »
0
the problem lies with sub-distributors.
how can big agencies check their releases one by one ? and what if they're written in chinese or hindi ?

In fact they do, even if they are based in surreal countries like Spain, as I work with one based there and they do a pretty professional work.

There are really good translators from chinese, korean, arabic, etc. to english; you only need to scan the model release, apply OCR and translate to the western language of your choice and have a good understanding of the chinese, etc. model release.

Why if the photographer signed a contract with the agency, which ever was the agency that sold the image, saying that he had a MR and when the model release was requested the photographer smiled innocently, blincking his eyes, and said that, in fact, he had no MR signed with the greek chap? Nice thought! I bet this is what is happening here... 

Dook

« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2010, 04:27 »
0
The photographer never claimed he had the MR for the Greek guy picture. This pictures is sold under RM licence without MR and it is clearly stated to buyers. The Swedish company used it in a wrong way. Or, maybe, the agency was suposed to explain it to them? ???

« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2010, 04:48 »
0
The photographer never claimed he had the MR for the Greek guy picture. This pictures is sold under RM licence without MR and it is clearly stated to buyers. The Swedish company used it in a wrong way. Or, maybe, the agency was suposed to explain it to them? ???

How do you know? This image was sold apparently in 2001 or 2002 I'm not sure, but certainly it was not sold last week, thus what do you know what the photographer said then? What is being said today is irrelevant. There are factual things that we dont know in this case...



« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2010, 14:00 »
0
in surreal countries like Spain,

Spain is not just about Salvador Dali, you know.   ;D

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: April 18, 2010, 20:01 »
0
spain is good enough.

RacePhoto

« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2010, 02:24 »
0
in surreal countries like Spain,


Spain is not just about Salvador Dali, you know.   ;D


Oh now you tell me after all this time? So much for my Persistence of Memory!

Here's the original and it's RM, no model release. Same link as Dook's message but without the comma! (so it will work)  ;)

http://www.reflexstock.com/image/4407486/Greece-Arachoua-portrait-man-dressed-traditionally.html

Dook

« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2010, 15:49 »
0
Thanks RacePhoto! I made mistake trying to list two links.

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2010, 16:06 »
0
Thanks RacePhoto! I made mistake trying to list two links.
]
You are the first person to do this EVER!  ;D

a comma or a period or anything makes the address go to the site and show a 404 error, which makes people think something was removed.

By the way, good hunting. I didn't realize it was just the comma until after I went and spend time searching and came up with the same page and link.

As Paraphenildiamide pointed out, they could have changed the license or model release information, we don't know for sure, but it is what it is right now.

« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2010, 16:26 »
0

« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Quote
A very wealthy man walks into a bar and sees a beautiful
woman sitting at the bar. He walks up to her and asks her
if he can buy her a drink. She accepts and he says to her,
"I can't help but notice that you are exceptionally
beautiful. I am an extremely wealthy man and was wondering
if you would consider sleeping with me for one million dollars."

She thinks for a moment and replies:
"Well, yes...I accept."

The man sayes, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?"

She sayes, "What do you think I am, a WHORE???"

He sayes, "We've already established than, NOW, we are
negotiating the price!"

A very wealthy yogurt producer walks into a market and sees an
old Greek dude sitting at the bar. He walks up to him and asks him
if he can buy him a drink. He accepts and he says to him,
"I can't help but notice that you are exceptionally
ethnically Greek. I am an extremely wealthy Turkish yogurt producer and was wondering
if you would consider letting me use your likeness for one million dollars."

He thinks for a moment and replies:
"Well, yes...I accept."

The man says, "Can I use it without compensation?"

He says, "How dare you insult my ethnicity.  What do you think I am, a WHORE???"

The producer says, "We've already established than, NOW, we are
negotiating the price!"

« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2010, 16:39 »
0
So the guy gets a  Euro 160K compensation.

Interesting. Unfortunately they haven't really explained on what grounds it was paid out on. Was it lack of MR or being used as a Turk which seems to be inferred in the article?

dk

« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2010, 16:59 »
0
The yoghurt company intends to seek compensation from the image library.


« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2010, 17:04 »
0
I'm wondering what part the designer of the label had in this (as far as using that image  is concerned). I imagine that the image library knew better than to pass off editorial imagery as suitable for commercial use.

dk

« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2010, 18:25 »
0
Looks like he was one the greek news today!

deltio-alpha


...and he's wearing a less traditional hat!

 :D

« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2010, 18:44 »
0
So the guy gets a  Euro 160K compensation.

Interesting. Unfortunately they haven't really explained on what grounds it was paid out on. Was it lack of MR or being used as a Turk which seems to be inferred in the article?


This was a deal, according to the article, not a legal win. They wanted to avoid court and figured out what it would cost them to reach a contract deal with the "model". They apparently now have him as their yoghurt's mascot :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Greek riots

Started by CofkoCof Off Topic

2 Replies
1743 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
6651 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 18:09
by ShadySue
1 Replies
1439 Views
Last post February 03, 2015, 09:13
by Niakris
82 Replies
14139 Views
Last post September 11, 2015, 15:33
by eyeidea

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results