Author Topic: I sold my innocent picture ... now I’m the face of bestiality (Read 6616 times)

namussi · « **on:** June 09, 2018, 06:36 »

"I sold my innocent picture to a stock image site for £50 and now I’m the face of bestiality"

"When you pose for a stock photo, you never know how that picture will be used... and these people have ended up unwittingly fronting some bizarre campaigns"

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/world-news/2756719/i-sold-my-innocent-picture-to-a-stock-image-site-for-50-and-now-im-the-face-of-bestiality/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

dpimborough · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2018, 11:08 »

For a second I thought you were the face of bestiality

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2018, 13:08 »

As if I needed another reason to never have anything to do with these companies again.

niktol · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2018, 13:30 »

"Nico’s face has been plastered on...an advert for gluten-free dinks"

everest · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2018, 14:47 »

In most cases the ofenders would loose in a court if sued, at least if sold through Getty where all model releases uploaded by contributors are very clear about that " use the Content in any Media for any
purpose (except pornographic or defamatory)......
Another thing is that they don't want to do it. If it would happen to me I might support the model if the contract was broken in such a blatant way and encourage them to search for a large compensation.

I have asked and showed many times cases of uses of images with the Istock/Getty credit in similar ways as those samples. Never got an answer. Who plays with fire gets burnt sooner or later.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2018, 14:55 »

Quote from: everest on June 09, 2018, 14:47

In most cases the ofenders would loose in a court if sued, at least if sold through Getty where all model releases uploaded by contributors are very clear about that " use the Content in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic or defamatory)......

Except that 'pornographic' and 'defamatory' are very subjective terms and some instances I've seen which I would consider 'defamatory' have not been considered as such by others, e.g. a model being used to illustrate an article about escorts, without 'posed by model' or similar. I would imagine that the agencies are pretty reluctant to sue for fear of scaring other buyers.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2018, 17:47 »

Note that your model release is irrelevant here. It’s the terms of the license that apply. Your release is between you and the model, so you’d better be working with agencies that support that.

namussi · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2018, 21:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 09, 2018, 14:55

Quote from: everest on June 09, 2018, 14:47
In most cases the ofenders would loose in a court if sued, at least if sold through Getty where all model releases uploaded by contributors are very clear about that " use the Content in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic or defamatory)......
Except that 'pornographic' and 'defamatory' are very subjective terms and some instances I've seen which I would consider 'defamatory' have not been considered as such by others, e.g. a model being used to illustrate an article about escorts, without 'posed by model' or similar. I would imagine that the agencies are pretty reluctant to sue for fear of scaring other buyers.

"Posed by model" captions were common when I was growing up in the UK in the 1970s. Now they seem rare.

namussi · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2018, 21:14 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on June 09, 2018, 11:08

For a second I thought you were the face of bestiality

Ooops! :-)

everest · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2018, 00:59 »

Sean:
Not so irrelevant. Of course if the model starts a litigation two points would come into play. First what contract has the model signed, where when and how the images can be used. If the judge finds the use defamatory, we have a case. Second the license terms that the creative supplier (agency or individual) gave the client for its use.
Lets asume the more common case. Model image has a universal model release that prevents the use in a defamatory manner and model appears in a magazine cover with his/her pet in an article about bestiality. Many things can happen but some of the outcomes could be:

1- Model sues photographer for contract breach. Judge agrees and condemns photographer. Photographer sues the agency because they licensed a use that breaks the authorized terms that the photographer consents the agency under the model releases terms. Agency and photographer can sue or not the final client.
2- The most common would be model sues photographer and client who used the image in a defamatory way. If judge sees a case. Photographer would again sue agency for not taking diligence in licensing the image under the limitation of the model release-and contract with the agency that specifies that images will not be used in a defamatory manner.. Again agency could sue or not client for image breach according to their license use limitations.
3- Model sues all parts involved. .....

There is a reason why all the parts sign such a model release. I have over 10.000 model released images and I would NEVER supply an agency that would not have the defamatory exception in the model release. Independently if the agency has or not ,enforces or not sensitive use. If some day sh.t hits the fan I have at least some coverage as I din't license the final use and there is a bonafide and trust that agency that sells my work for the largest part of the cake is responsible that their licenses terms which include "not defamatory use" are respected.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 09, 2018, 17:47

Note that your model release is irrelevant here. It’s the terms of the license that apply. Your release is between you and the model, so you’d better be working with agencies that support that.

Brightontl · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2018, 04:41 »

One of the reasons why I never shoot anything that breathes or talks.
Way too risky, not worth at all in my opinion, especially where I live.
Even if I never ever shoot people, I almost got arrested for pedophilia once when doing a timelapse of a merry go around on a beach.
Lesson learned, I don't even shoot animals now. You never know...
And remember, Testino, Weber and Richardson all got in trouble

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2018, 04:59 »

Quote from: everest on June 10, 2018, 00:59

I have over 10.000 model released images and I would NEVER supply an agency that would not have the defamatory exception in the model release.

Again, the model release is between you and the model. The agency has a license between them and the buyer. Don't get the things mixed up.

I said the release is irrelevant because the end usage is only subject to the terms of the license.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2018, 05:42 »

One thing to be aware of is that iS for one change their end use licence terms from time to time without announcing it (at least, without announcing it to sellers on their forum or via email). I have no idea whether others do the same. So in the event of a legal case, you might have a problem establishing which licence was in use at the time.

One obvious example: it used to the that the end user licence said that the use of an image had not to imply that the model was endorsing a cause or product - that clause has gone completely (and was widely ignored even when the clause was extant). I'm pretty sure many end-users don't even read the licence terms. For example, the clause, "if you are using content for editorial purposes, you must include the following credit adjacent to the content or in visual production credits: "iStock.com/Artist's Member Name." is still in the agreement, but ever since they started editorial, it has been very seldom used in practice. More usually they just credit iS or Getty, sometimes no credit at all.

"Judge agrees" ... ay, there's the rub. You can never guess how the judge will determine on such a subjective matter. S/he has to be the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' (or whatever the equivalent is in other countries). 'Defamatory' is particularly subjective. For example years ago an iS model posing as a teacher (I hope they weren't really a teacher) was used in an apparently satirical (but IMO missed the mark) item in The Onion to illustrate a teacher with paedophilic tendencies towards a little girl in his class (there was also a photo of a little girl, apparently not from iS). Lots of people thought that image was defamatory - or even illegal; but there was the counter argument that the article was clearly satirical. One previously very active iS and msg forum member argued that iS should not take it up as The Onion was at the time a big iS buyer and they might stop buying which would be bad for all of us. (Actually, in that case, IIRC, iS did require them to take down the image from the article).

alexandersr · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2018, 22:41 »

Quote from: Brightontl on June 10, 2018, 04:41

One of the reasons why I never shoot anything that breathes or talks.
Way too risky, not worth at all in my opinion, especially where I live.
Even if I never ever shoot people, I almost got arrested for pedophilia once when doing a timelapse of a merry go around on a beach.
Lesson learned, I don't even shoot animals now. You never know...
And remember, Testino, Weber and Richardson all got in trouble

Where do you live?

everest · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2018, 05:48 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 10, 2018, 04:59

Quote from: everest on June 10, 2018, 00:59
I have over 10.000 model released images and I would NEVER supply an agency that would not have the defamatory exception in the model release.

Again, the model release is between you and the model. The agency has a license between them and the buyer. Don't get the things mixed up.

I said the release is irrelevant because the end usage is only subject to the terms of the license.

Yes you are right. What counts for the client are the licensing terms. And those licensing terms don't allow "defamatory uses" I would say in any of the big 3 agencies. But if a client uses an image/video in such a way, the model will be comming after the creator (because of the model release he/she signed) and usually the final client where the big money is.

Now me as the creator would go after the final client and the agency that sold the content. Not because the MR but because in my case as an exclusive contributor to Getty for example my contract with them states :

"ii. The right to grant perpetual, worldwide, licenses or sublicenses to end-users. iStock and its Distribution Partners will determine the terms and conditions of all licenses of Content granted by them, but will not use or license Content for uses that are defamatory, pornographic or otherwise illegal".

So even if they tried to limit uses in their licensing terms, the breach of those affects me and in the same way the model has a contract with me through the model release I have a contract with the agency and the consequences of breaching those is their responsability even if they didn't make it intentionally. They can go after the client later for not complying terms but in my case I have an agreement with Getty and not the client. So their licensing terms with buyers are none of my business but if they don't respect my contract with them as a seller they are the ones fully responsible.

Brightontl · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2018, 06:00 »

Quote from: alexandersr on June 10, 2018, 22:41

Quote from: Brightontl on June 10, 2018, 04:41
One of the reasons why I never shoot anything that breathes or talks.
Way too risky, not worth at all in my opinion, especially where I live.
Even if I never ever shoot people, I almost got arrested for pedophilia once when doing a timelapse of a merry go around on a beach.
Lesson learned, I don't even shoot animals now. You never know...
And remember, Testino, Weber and Richardson all got in trouble
Where do you live?

Sunny North London

christiano · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2018, 08:20 »

it's why a never use model (especially not friends and family members...) lol.
If i use a model, the back facing the lens, we never see his face... my sales are 99% of landscapes / editorial. I try to avoid problems! I'm not a pro, only an amateur ...

loop · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2018, 10:05 »

Final client is responsible if doesn't respect what the license says, periode. BTW, I have sold tens of thousand of released photos and never had a single problem. You can't avoid makig normal things out of fear and aprehension, it's like avoiding crossing streets because you could get run over by a car.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I sold my innocent picture ... now I’m the face of bestiality (Read 6616 times)

namussi

dpimborough

stockastic

niktol

everest

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

namussi

namussi

everest

Brightontl

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

alexandersr

everest

Brightontl

christiano

loop

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors