MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sensitive use complaint  (Read 3947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 08, 2021, 10:04 »
+1
Let me try to keep this short :
10 years ago, a 19y old woman posed in my studio, signed a MR and got all prints and digitals. 
2 images were (not nude) closeups of her with tears on her cheeks.
Today, her family is mad at her because those crying photos are found in articles about abuse or other sad situations.
She wants the photos removed, but obviously, this is out of my hands.  I can remove them from Shutterstock, but not the photos in use.
Now before you all start telling me to get a lawyer :  THIS IS BELGIUM.  We do NOT go to court, we do not sue eachother, so I don't expect letters from her lawyers.
My question is :  what could I do to make her (or her family) happy?   I don't want to give her money, because I'm sure she'll keep knocking on my door for the next 10 years.  I COULD delete the images on SS etc., but that would not stop the publications that are already out there. 
What else?
This is one of the images :
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-tears-woman-image22279140


« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2021, 10:12 »
+4
Do not offer her money! You may not use lawyers but they could and they could use that as an admission of having done something wrong or of liability in some way.

I am not a lawyer but personally I think I would delete the photo just to avoid the hassle. There's nothing you can do about the licenses already sold but buyers wont usually reuse photos for new campaigns so they should rapidly see less of it. Most news organisation or magazines etc. will have a subscription to a stock site and its easier to search up something appropriate than digging through old photos on file.

« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2021, 10:21 »
+1
Do not offer her money! You may not use lawyers but they could and they could use that as an admission of having done something wrong or of liability in some way.

I am not a lawyer but personally I think I would delete the photo just to avoid the hassle. There's nothing you can do about the licenses already sold but buyers wont usually reuse photos for new campaigns so they should rapidly see less of it. Most news organisation or magazines etc. will have a subscription to a stock site and its easier to search up something appropriate than digging through old photos on file.


That makes sense, I can tell her that.  And the more I think of it, deleting the images is the least I can do as a gesture of goodwill.
And no, I will absolutely NOT offer her money.

« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2021, 10:29 »
+4
This is a business.  When you sign that model release and get paid, you're supposed to know what you are getting into.  It's like an actor asking movie producer to take him out of the movie he/she appeared in. 

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2021, 10:32 »
+2
RF you can expect these photos to be in use for a long time from past licenses. There's no turning back the clock. If they are good photos, nice work, your have the release and claiming a photo of someone crying is  not supposed to look like someone crying is rather absurd. What use can there be, except being unhappy. Death is unhappy, if used for a sad occasion of a funeral home, will these people complain they aren't dead?

You can be as nice as you want, but don't be bullied or threatened into fearing for the future, you did nothing wrong.

Do not offer her money! You may not use lawyers but they could and they could use that as an admission of having done something wrong or of liability in some way.

Especially good advise!

« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2021, 11:16 »
+1
That makes sense, I can tell her that.  And the more I think of it, deleting the images is the least I can do as a gesture of goodwill.
And no, I will absolutely NOT offer her money.

Honestly you are being very kind. The least you can do is nothing as they agreed to the terms and should have known this was a possibility. But for a quiet life sometimes it's worth choosing your battles.

« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2021, 12:13 »
+1
Let me try to keep this short :
This is one of the images :
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-tears-woman-image22279140

The image has been removed.

« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2021, 12:57 »
0
Let me try to keep this short :
This is one of the images :
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-tears-woman-image22279140

The image has been removed.
Oops, yes, the link is not working anymore now that I removed the images, sorry.  It is just a closeup photo of an African woman crying. The photo itself has no reference to the reason why she would be crying (daily life clothing, no bruises or anything), so the only way to make the use "sensitive" is by adding text.

« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2021, 14:57 »
0
What everyone else said. Do the best you can removing images where you can. You did nothing wrong and she signed a release. The rest is out of your hands.

« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2021, 15:01 »
+2
What everyone else said. Do the best you can removing images where you can. You did nothing wrong and she signed a release. The rest is out of your hands.


Thanks.  The problem is, she didn't do anything wrong either, it's just her family that is nagging her about it.  So if I can help her by deleting 4 images, no problem.

« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2021, 15:16 »
+1
What everyone else said. Do the best you can removing images where you can. You did nothing wrong and she signed a release. The rest is out of your hands.


Thanks.  The problem is, she didn't do anything wrong either, it's just her family that is nagging her about it.  So if I can help her by deleting 4 images, no problem.

Exactly. But you have no control over the problems between her and her family. No, she didnt do anything wrong, but apparently her family thinks she did. :-(

« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2021, 12:06 »
0
if the photo is used in context of abuse or other 'negative' uses it's likely a violation of license conditions, so you might forward the letters to the agency that sold it -  or the publication

« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2021, 13:04 »
+2
if the photo is used in context of abuse or other 'negative' uses it's likely a violation of license conditions, so you might forward the letters to the agency that sold it -  or the publication
The images have been used with negative context, but there have not been any letters yet, she just talked to me about it and asked to remove them "everywhere" (which is not possible obviously).  She had forgotten all about the MR she signed, so I did a lot of explaining.  If she comes back to me, I'll tell her I deleted the photos, and hopefully that will be enough.

« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2021, 12:12 »
+4
Sad story! :(

It is not worth taking photos in which you will probably be involved in future problems for a few dollars. It is difficult to work with people.

duns123

« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2021, 15:15 »
+1
This is why I don't photograph people for MS as you don't know how the pictures will be used and can you really trust agencies? I wanted to photograph my wife but would be worried about what I'd expose her to. Oh just realized, agencies aren't supposed to portray people in threatening or violent situations. I think its in their T&S.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 15:25 by duns123 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3268 Views
Last post March 13, 2007, 16:11
by ludesal
35 Replies
14743 Views
Last post April 12, 2011, 12:09
by Risamay
14 Replies
5837 Views
Last post December 27, 2012, 05:13
by Eco
0 Replies
1675 Views
Last post February 26, 2014, 08:50
by Tror
1 Replies
1965 Views
Last post November 14, 2015, 09:13
by Mantis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle