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.

I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention.

She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples?

"No further questions m'lud"

.

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.

I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention.

She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples?

"No further questions m'lud"

LOL, I know what you mean, believe it or not I thought it would never sell precisely because there is not much use for it. I believed it would go unsold but rack up tons of traffic for my port. I based this off of a similar shoot I had done before, it got zero sales, but I got a huge number of port views and indirect increase in food image sales, so I thought the same might apply here. For the record though, her images really did not sell that good, a few sales here and there, but nothing to special,  my traffic did increase significantly though.

 

Quote from: bpepz 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.

Get a screen shot of that if you can.

done

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:26

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.

I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention.

She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples?

"No further questions m'lud"

LOL, I know what you mean, believe it or not I thought it would never sell precisely because there is not much use for it. I believed it would go unsold but rack up tons of traffic for my port. I based this off of a similar shoot I had done before, it got zero sales, but I got a huge number of port views and indirect increase in food image sales, so I thought the same might apply here. For the record though, her images really did not sell that good, a few sales here and there, but nothing to special,  my traffic did increase significantly though.

Can you really make a definite link that people came to your site to see a soft-porn photo then decided to buy a food image instead?
Are you sure the food images didn't sell on their own merit, while a lot of adolescent boys gawped at the burd?

From Facebook's TOS:

�  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.
�  When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).


So basically it could very well be her own fault.   She can sue, but I doubt she has much of a case if she's been spreading them all around the internet willy-nilly.

[/quote]

Dude, you should select your models more carefully. This girl seems to be really, ehhh, volatile.
I know some girls who would kill for being in the Playboy BTW.
[/quote]

From now on I will only shoot actual porn stars. Not much chance of them getting upset about anything. Also, they are actually dramatically cheaper then "normal" models and are way more professional.

Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.

No, the only use of this particular shot, sold as stock, is going to be a business that takes advantage of what is shown in the image.

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 19:49

Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.

lol, another hornymale photographer shooting soft porn glamour and calling it "art". Yep, and you only read the articles in Playboy too. 

So many people seem to be able to judge lately. Yes, in fact I do think it is a great shot. Beyond the subject which is a matter of taste - like always in art - I think it has the right to be called art and the photo is of outstanding quality - no matter if it is glamour or not. (And no, glamour is not a synonymous of soft porn)

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 24, 2013, 20:24

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 19:49

Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.

No, the only use of this particular shot, sold as stock, is going to be a business that takes advantage of what is shown in the image.

I know what you mean. But this does not justify that the client who bought the image is breaking the legal agreement of the Agency who sold it. Misuse is misuse - even if the usage fits the matter very well.

It doesn't, but creating content that invites misuse isn't very good business either.

Quote from: Tror on September 25, 2013, 05:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 24, 2013, 20:24

Quote from: Tror on September 24, 2013, 19:49

Wow. Some people here really seem to think the only thinkable usage of a glamour shot is promoting prostitution. Not much artistic freedom left in a microstock fried market I guess.

No, the only use of this particular shot, sold as stock, is going to be a business that takes advantage of what is shown in the image.

I know what you mean. But this does not justify that the client who bought the image is breaking the legal agreement of the Agency who sold it. Misuse is misuse - even if the usage fits the matter very well.

Have we even established that:
1. The disallowed uses were bought from an agency?
    b. If so, which one?
    c. That the T&C of that agency or distributor disallows this?
2. Or it was stolen from the site of a legitimate buyer?
3. Or it was lifted from the model's facebook (etc)?
    b did she protect it in any way, e.g. watermark?

Finally a constructive post again. Especially point 3 is an interesting Aspect.

Yesterday I checked the TOS of about 12 Agencies and all of them are disapproving defamatory use. We cannot know if the image was stolen or from which site it was bought from, but I think unless the image was purchased under the SS sensitive usage license (if this would allow such use?) it is almost safe to say that whoever bought or uses the image does so in a unlawful manner. This would mean the photographer cannot held responsible for the misuse IMHO. (It would be easy for the OP to check the Terms of all the sites he contributes to within 15 min.)

Is anybody aware of any Site which allow such use in their Terms? I would not contribute one shot more to such a site and I even don`t do Glamour or nudes.

My point, as it has been throughout this thread, is that we do not know whether the end-user bought the file directly or loaded it up.
Until we know that, any discussion of whether they abused the T&C is irrelevant.
In the OP, only SS was mentioned; later we were told that the image is also on istock, fotolia, 123rf, and dreamstime; later still we got the info that the model has the photo on her Fb.
So there are already a lot of places (i.e. the sites of buyers, and Fb) from where someone could illegally 'lift' an image, so it becomes an issue of image theft, not abuse of T&C.
Good luck with getting information from the abusers about where they sourced the image. @OP Take screenshots of the use of the images there too.

I understood and understand your point Sue and off course you are right. I was more looking to try to find out wether the photographer is to be held responsible or not. And in both cases - if it was purchased or stolen - it is not the fault of the OP.

As someone who has been in a similar situation, I would like to express my support and full understanding of your concerns. It is not fun at all. I've had a situation with a model who's been giving me kisses before and after shoots for years, until I very suddenly received a letter from her lawyer with an amount request you'd laugh at (think like a million euros, just less). It gave me a heart condition and a huge disappointment in what I do and in people I work with.

What I can say we've learnt from contacting various law firms (Europe, so please note it's not a final word of law for you at all):
1. The one at fault is a publisher, not a photographer, and not an agency. A publisher should have verified what use is allowed and what use is prohibited.
2. A Model Release covers you pretty well.
3. Fact that the image is for free on the internet (like FB or piracy sites) covers you well.

On a question of "delete or not delete photos", I'd say it depends. If the images make your livelihood and you don't want a line of other models demanding the same joke from you after this lady succeeded, I'd advise you not to delete anything until you hear it from a judge.

I consider the discussion on glamour photography safety pretty laughable. Adult model doing things at her will (i.e. going as far as she wants for professional free images)  is not your problem at all, unless you had a gun to her head. You said yourself she got her gig thanks to your pictures. Don't be shy, ask for a share!