Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 35802 times)

bpepz · « **on:** September 24, 2013, 16:45 »

--------UPDATE-------

Hey everyone, I actually did end up getting sued by the model and it has developed into an extremely scary scenario, to the people who already went through this thread I am making a new one to address what is currently going on. I will not really be able to answer many questions, but I made a pretty detailed statement on what has gone down so far for everyone to read.

Please visit my new thread so I can update everyone on what is happening.

"http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/being-sued-by-model-for-half-a-million-dollars-in-federal-court-please-read!/"

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:07 »

She signed a model release. What does the model release say?

I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.

I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?

bpepz · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:15 »

Quote from: Ron on September 24, 2013, 17:07

She signed a model release. What does the model release say?

I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.

I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?

I hope your right. I used yuri's model release template. She says she got signed on to a big cosmetics company and these images could destroy her career, she also cited that the contract she has with the cosmetics company forbids her from doing any work the would end up in an escort ad, problem is she modeled for me and signed my release long before she became part of that cosmetics company. Also I don't see how its my fault other people other misused the images or stole them.

Tror · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:16 »

1. Which Model release did she sign? There are releases which prohibit "defamatory" use and those which don`t mention anything.
2. If she signed a release which does not exclude that she has IMHO no legal power of the situation. She abandoned the right over the image.
3. Another question is even if she signed a release which excludes defamatory use, the agency might do so as well.
If the image got downloaded from a Agency which prohibits such usage the client which used the image for the escort site is breaking the Agencies TOS and the agency has to take care about that. Same goes for the piracy sites. The Agency has to assure their content is used in a legal way and take care about it if THEIR terms got violated.
4. If the MR prohibits such usage, but the agency does not you have a very difficult situation since a) you are not in control about the clients and the usage (the agency is), but b) you have to make sure the MR conditions do not get violated.

IMHO except of 4. you are out of the responsibility.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:19 »

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 17:15

Quote from: Ron on September 24, 2013, 17:07
She signed a model release. What does the model release say?

I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.

I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?

I hope your right. I used yuri's model release template. She says she got signed on to a big cosmetics company and these images could destroy her career, she also cited that the contract she has with the cosmetics company forbids her from doing any work the would end up in an escort ad, problem is she modeled for me and signed my release long before she became part of that cosmetics company. Also I don't see how its my fault other people other misused the images or stole them.

But you did tell her that images can be stolen from sites which legitimately purchased them and be abused then.
But also, Ron's right - what did she think those images could be used for?

If the images are only on SS, you could see if they will help you with the abuses, whether directly purchased from them (in which case, they should help you, unless you allowed 'sensitive use') or stolen from another site (don't know what their policy might be).

shotupdave · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:23 »

A model release is a form of contract, your contract with her supersedes any future contract. As long as your contract does not limit where and how the photos can be used she does not have any case against you. This is just basic contract law, any first year law student would be aware of this.

Ron · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:23 »

So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.

bpepz · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 17:19

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 17:15
Quote from: Ron on September 24, 2013, 17:07
She signed a model release. What does the model release say?

I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.

I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?

I hope your right. I used yuri's model release template. She says she got signed on to a big cosmetics company and these images could destroy her career, she also cited that the contract she has with the cosmetics company forbids her from doing any work the would end up in an escort ad, problem is she modeled for me and signed my release long before she became part of that cosmetics company. Also I don't see how its my fault other people other misused the images or stole them.
But you did tell her that images can be stolen from sites which legitimately purchased them and be abused then.
But also, Ron's right - what did she think those images could be used for?

If the images are only on SS, you could see if they will help you with the abuses, whether directly purchased from them (in which case, they should help you, unless you allowed 'sensitive use') or stolen from another site (don't know what their policy might be).

I did allow sensitive use, but the sensitive use, but the sensitive use still does not allow it to be used for something like a an escort ad or strip club. As far as the wording of the MR, it does not say anything about defamatory use either way, it just says it can be used for anything. I did submit the images to a few other sites besides shutterstock, but it was istock, fotolia, 123rf, and dreamstime. I am pretty sure they also do not allow images to be used for an escort ad.

Tror · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:31 »

Quote from: shotupdave on September 24, 2013, 17:23

A model release is a form of contract, your contract with her supersedes any future contract. As long as your contract does not limit where and how the photos can be used she does not have any case against you. This is just basic contract law, any first year law student would be aware of this.

Yes. The problem now is that I just checked Yuris release and it excludes, like the Getty one, "defamatory" use. The model may have a case if a escort site is considered "Defamatory" (i would). Nevertheless the client has to accept the TOS of the site where he bought the image. He did not get it from the photog himself. So the Agency has to make sure their TOS are not violated. The case is not against the Photographer since he uploaded clearly to a site who prohibits such usage to its custumors. So he did nothing wrong (if SS prohibits this - I have not read the TOS regarding this yet).

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:35 »

Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.

Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.

Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?

bpepz · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:37 »

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 17:31

Quote from: shotupdave on September 24, 2013, 17:23
A model release is a form of contract, your contract with her supersedes any future contract. As long as your contract does not limit where and how the photos can be used she does not have any case against you. This is just basic contract law, any first year law student would be aware of this.

Yes. The problem now is that I just checked Yuris release and it excludes, like the Getty one, "defamatory" use. The model may have a case if a escort site is considered "Defamatory" (i would). Nevertheless the client has to accept the TOS of the site where he bought the image. He did not get it from the photog himself. So the Agency has to make sure their TOS are not violated. The case is not against the Photographer since he uploaded clearly to a site who prohibits such usage to its custumors. So he did nothing wrong (if SS prohibits this - I have not read the TOS regarding this yet).

I used yuri's old release, I can paste the text in here so you can be the judge on this

In consideration of my engagement as a model, upon the terms herewith stated, I hereby give to ____________, his/her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom ______________ is acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission:
a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.

b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith.

c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied.

d) I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer], his/her heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and all persons functioning under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is functioning, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy.

e) I hereby affirm that I am over the age of majority and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release and agreement, prior to its execution; I fully understand the contents thereof. This agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives and assigns.

bpepz · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 17:35

Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.

Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.

Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?

I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.

loop · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:50 »

I would delete the photos. Forget the legal aspect, avoid possible trouble and let her have her career.

Imagenomad · « **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:52 »

Quote from: loop on September 24, 2013, 17:50

I would delete the photos. Forget the legal aspect, avoid possible trouble and let her have her career.

This. For peace of mind.

She's still deluded, mind.

Tror · « **Reply #14 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:14 »

I think from a legal POV you should be fine, but nevertheless I would delete the Shots.
No one is really safe from stuff like this, but I never ever shoot with people who are not 100% sure what they are doing. I always explain the concept of stock before and make clear that I have no control over the pictures once they are purchased.

bpepz · « **Reply #15 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:16 »

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 18:14

I think from a legal POV you should be fine, but nevertheless I would delete the Shots.
No one is really safe from stuff like this, but I never ever shoot with people who are not 100% sure what they are doing. I always explain the concept of stock before and make clear that I have no control over the pictures once they are purchased.

I am hoping deleting the images would even be enough. They are apparently very popular with pirates, she is going to keep seeing the images misused whether I take them down or not, I am worried she will somehow try to sue me for that too.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:19 »

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 18:14
I think from a legal POV you should be fine, but nevertheless I would delete the Shots.
No one is really safe from stuff like this, but I never ever shoot with people who are not 100% sure what they are doing. I always explain the concept of stock before and make clear that I have no control over the pictures once they are purchased.

I am hoping deleting the images would even be enough. They are apparently very popular with pirates, she is going to keep seeing the images misused whether I take them down or not, I am worried she will somehow try to sue me for that too.

She can try, doesn't mean she will succeed.
Anyway, from what I have read on here over the years, contracts seem to have more legal binding in the US, so you should be OK.

Tror · « **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:25 »

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 18:14
I think from a legal POV you should be fine, but nevertheless I would delete the Shots.
No one is really safe from stuff like this, but I never ever shoot with people who are not 100% sure what they are doing. I always explain the concept of stock before and make clear that I have no control over the pictures once they are purchased.

I am hoping deleting the images would even be enough. They are apparently very popular with pirates, she is going to keep seeing the images misused whether I take them down or not, I am worried she will somehow try to sue me for that too.

Are you sure the image got bought from Shutterstock? If you know that for sure then they are violating the SS terms - I just re-read them. They exclude defamatory use. I think most Agencies prohibit such usage.

What pirates do is out of your control. You can try: ask the site directly where they got the image from and if they legally purchase the image. Then they would have three options: a) They do not respond > Send them a DMCA! b) They admit they stole it and take it down > perfect! c) They purchased it from Agency XYZ > contact the agency about the misuse and you are out of responsibility too. In each of the named three cases you can show to the Model as well as in a possible legal process that you did all you could do.

EmberMike · « **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:31 »

Isn't this an agency issue more than anything else? That's the whole point of what these companies do, they act as our agent to distribute images, handle the sales, define licensing, and address misuse when it happens. Shutterstock (or whichever company) issued the license, which includes the prohibition of use in porn and escort ads. The photographer isn't at fault here. Shouldn't the model be going after the stock agency instead?

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:44 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 24, 2013, 18:31

Isn't this an agency issue more than anything else? That's the whole point of what these companies do, they act as our agent to distribute images, handle the sales, define licensing, and address misuse when it happens. Shutterstock (or whichever company) issued the license, which includes the prohibition of use in porn and escort ads. The photographer isn't at fault here. Shouldn't the model be going after the stock agency instead?

Firstly, you'd need to know which of several agencies the image was bought from.
Then you'd need to know the terms of the relevant agency, if it was bought from an agency.
If it was stolen, that's different again.
If the image was bought from a stock agency, and that agency forbids that sort of use in their t&c, the end user is the one who should be sued. And if they stole it, clearly it's they who are at fault.
So shouldn't the model (and photographer) be going after the abuser, provided that each of the agencies, and distributors of that agency, disallow the use.
If the abusers are also in the US, the DCMA route may be best, but check that they couldn't possibly have bought and used it legitimately - some distributors or partners have different t&c to those of the parent company.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** September 24, 2013, 18:53 »

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 17:40

Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 17:35
Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.

Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.

Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?

I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.

Does "Glamour modeling" mean nekkid pictures or lingerie? If so, there should be no surprise they ended up on an escort site.

bpepz · « **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:11 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 24, 2013, 18:53

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 17:40
Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 17:35
Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.

Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.

Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?

I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.

Does "Glamour modeling" mean nekkid pictures or lingerie? If so, there should be no surprise they ended up on an escort site.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=130911773&src=id

the image in question

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:18 »

I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 19:18

I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.

Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.

Hey, but your food shots are great!

bpepz · « **Reply #24 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:23 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 24, 2013, 19:19

Quote from: ShadySue on September 24, 2013, 19:18
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.

Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.

Hey, but your food shots are great!

I don't know if this makes much of a difference, but she also used the images on her facebook and got like 2k likes on it, the picture got alot of attention so it can't just be from shutterstock that all these improper uses came about.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 35802 times)

bpepz

Ron

bpepz

Tror

ShadySue

shotupdave

Ron

bpepz

Tror

ShadySue

bpepz

bpepz

loop

Imagenomad

Tror

bpepz

ShadySue

Tror

EmberMike

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

bpepz

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

bpepz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors