http://nypost.com/2014/12/07/model-sues-over-misuse-of-photos-on-sex-sites/

This made it to the NY Post. Wow.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 08, 2014, 06:56

Still, it's always the buyer who is responsible for breaking terms of the CLA.

Exactly. The photographer has a written contract and the verbal agreement matches the TOS of Shutterstock where the images had been sold. Only the buyer broke the TOS and subsequently the "promise" of the photographer and as such should be held responsible. How can the photographer responsible if he sells through an Agency with a TOS which promises the same as him and the buyer breaks the TOS of the place where he bought the image?

This thread may be relevant:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agenices-views-on-stock-photos-of-people-on-erotica-books

That said, I agree with Sean on this - what did the lingerie model think her image would be used for with that pose?

+1 Jonathan.
But, reading the article I understood he already has the layer and, since the image in question is not avaliable at SS anymore, the case is probably over ( some kind of deal with the model to remove the picture, I guess). Actualy, the sad thing is the image's been removed. So the photographer lost one way or another, unless she compensated him for removing the picture.

It does not appear to be finished.

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/

Near the bottom there is a link to the model release.

The case has been moved from Ohio to NY per Shuttersock's terms. The NY filing was December 1st, which is probably why the case is now in the news.

She's an idiot or else greedy and looking for publicity.  What did she think those kind of photos were going to be used for, selling car insurance?  Maybe a church  bulletin?

Quote from: BD on December 08, 2014, 14:47

.....
Near the bottom there is a link to the model release.

I have had a good look at the bottom but still can't see the link?

The document you're looking for is called: "Attachment 1: Exhibit Resnick Document"

Or was "having a good look at the bottom" just a play on words? 

It is in the responsibility of shutterstock to assure that the images are not used against their own TOS. We, as photographers, seek to fully comply with their TOS and the whole workchain (our Models, stylists, etc.) relies on that.

It is easy to blame the Model or be Judgemental on Glamour photography, but regardless of personal opinion there had been clients who simply broke the rules and have to be held responsible. One thing is to license a glamour photo and use it on a advert on your lingerie store or on a ebook like "how to enjoy sex more", but portraing a Model as a hooker with a "b*g c*ck in every h**le" (like someone here said) is a complete different story. Actually, it should be on SS to constantly scan the web for the correct usage of their images and take action if something like this happens. We comply with their rules. They have to deal with the Clients and the related Problems.

In general, this case will be very interesting for all People photographers based in the US. If the photographer experiences any negative consequence it is very bad news for all of us. He did nothing wrong.

The situation might be more understandable in this case of a lingerie shoot, but if the photographer ultimately can be held responsible for the usage of any image regardless of the Release and the TOS of the selling Agency. Then Any Model can take legal Action for whatever reason which might be understandable in front of the law.
Take, for example, a beautiful portrait of a guy which appears in support of a radical or controversial political party. No way such usage can be controlled, assumed or prevented by any photographer. Or what about a high class Model which feels insulted when her Pic is used in a Advert for a cheap, labour abusive and big supermarket chain?

Take, for example, a beautiful portrait of a guy which appears in support of a radical or controversial political party. No way such usage can be controlled, assumed or prevented by any photographer. Or what about a high class Model which feels insulted when her Pic is used in a Advert for a cheap, labour abusive and big supermarket chain?

You don't get to sue just because you don't like the message.

Quote from: Tror on December 09, 2014, 07:01

Take, for example, a beautiful portrait of a guy which appears in support of a radical or controversial political party. No way such usage can be controlled, assumed or prevented by any photographer. Or what about a high class Model which feels insulted when her Pic is used in a Advert for a cheap, labour abusive and big supermarket chain?

You don't get to sue just because you don't like the message.

Who guarantees that? I prefer a clear legal situation...

What career? She has become a walking time bomb, no photographer would want to shoot her anymore, risking to be sued. Great publicitiy, she is now getting more focus on the adult shots, more focus on the porn ads and more focus on here being a liability. Bad publicity is still publicity but obviously not the one you want in this case. Unless she expects to lose the case and just wants to jump start her 15 minutes of fame.

Quote from: PixelBytes on December 08, 2014, 23:10

She's an idiot or else greedy and looking for publicity.  What did she think those kind of photos were going to be used for, selling car insurance?  Maybe a church  bulletin?

You can say this vice versa, this is a photographer forum so it's natural to blame only the model. But what had thought the photographer how this photos going to be used yeah he said it's against the TOS of SS but come on he should known better. If you shot glamour for stock you're an idiot regardless if you are the model or the photographer, short term gain will cause long term pain in this regard!

Everyone who does glamour, photogher and model should know this type of use is likely.  The model is the one suing, not the photographer.  That is why i say its her looking for publicity.  Kim Kardashian started out with a sex tape.  Maybe this girl wants to be the next to get famous.