hi everyone

i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?

[/quote]
If you have no reason to think that the photo was bought illegally (eg watermarked), there may be nothing you can do, i.e. it's probably a legitimate use. Check the end use t&c from the agency they bought it from.
If watermarked, contact the agency concerned.
[/quote]

the photo is not watermarked. this maybe legal but feels wrong.

On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU 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.

Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.

....If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate....

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

If I understand it right, no buyer should put images on Facebook as he cannot grant the licence.

On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU 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.

Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.

Any more immoral than putting a stock photo of a girl with lovely hair on a shampoo ad implying that the hair is shiny because of the product? Etc etc etc. In some countries that would be a breach of advertising standards legislation, but it's apparently OK in others, and not a breach of stock rules.

H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

OK. It may not be immoral but forbidden :-)
"You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."

Is the person saying, "this is me"? Or is it just a photo on her profile page? Allegedly (in a magazine I just bought about social networking, since I'm so 20th century as not to participate in it yet) many people put a celeb photo on their profile.
Anyway, while I don't necessarily like that use, there are many other perfectly legitimate uses for stock photos that IMO would be far worse. Therefore I have no self-portraits in my port.

hi everyone
i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?

To be honest, if that's upsetting her so much, I don't think she understood what the MR allows. It may be you didn't take care to give her 'worst case scenarios'. It may be that you'd be best to take down her photos, or at least talk her through legitimate uses. And if you can't think what these might be, take a long, hard look at some 'in use' threads, e.g. on iStock. I don't know if these exist on other sites.
For example a few years back on iStock there was an 'issue' where a model photographed in a restaurant was used to illustrate an article on high class call girls, unfortunately in the city where she lives and works as an educator. I personally don't think that was a legitimate use according to iStock's terms and conditions, at least without a 'posed by model' disclaimer; but AFAIK, no action was taken. (I did have to wonder why a professional [i.e. not a professional model] would do stock modelling, but that's none of my business, really.)
For example, if I did have a photo of me up, I can only imagine three uses:
1. As a 'before' picture for a facelift, with a photoshopped 'after' photo.
2. As a 'before' picture for a tummy tuck, with a photoshopped 'after' photo. (Actually, I can pull my tummy in to look like some existing before and after pictures. For about five seconds.)
3. "Does your wife look like this? You need Viagra!"
All of which I guess would be uses that iStock wouldn't pursue. Any models you use need to know all that and more.

Quote from: Perry on August 02, 2011, 04:14

You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.

The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.

I wouldn't threaten, just explain the situation and ask nicely. I'm sure most people would understand.

I'm sure they wouldn't; they bought a file and probably used it within the t&c, unless they actually said, "this is me" or somesuch. It might help if you refunded the full cost of the file, possibly.
What if they complain to the agency where they bought it?
What's your model going to do if her image is used to promote a service, product or cause she doesn't agree with?

H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services

Quote from: luceluceluce on August 03, 2011, 02:12

Quote from: ShadySue on August 02, 2011, 04:25

H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services

Normally, that's more like "Hi, I'm Bob and I use Glow-Brite Toothpaste!", not just a background image.

That seems to be fine too. Way back (2007?) there was an 'in-use' with a young girl in a car with keys in her hand and a big smile and a slogan like, "I got my first car insurance from X".
Thought it was odd that that was acceptable then, and still do.

If you file a DMCA takedown notice through Facebook, they'll probably remove it with no questions asked.