Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 42339 times)

PixelBytes · « **Reply #100 on:** December 09, 2014, 11:43 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 09, 2014, 10:07

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.

You know, I think your right about that.

tickstock · « **Reply #101 on:** December 09, 2014, 12:39 »

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?

It looks like she thought the photos would be very limited in use like for building his portfolio. She seems to be arguing that he lied to her in order to get her to sign the release. For any shots I do of people I let them know that the images could be used in ways they don't want, even though that's against the terms of the release and the sites.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #102 on:** December 09, 2014, 13:18 »

Perhaps she thought she'd be jump-starting her career as well, for example as a lingerie model. It sounds like she was concerned that her photos might be used for nefarious purposes, and the photographer reassured her that they would not. He could have added that to the release. Of all the parties involved in this suit, she would be the least at fault. She was young and perhaps hadn't modeled much. The photographer had more experience. The buyers broke the terms of the license. (Unless the photographer allowed sensitive use, which it seems he assured the model he wouldn't do.)

The people in this scenario range from naive (model) to disgusting (porn site owners) and everything in between. But to blame her above everyone else? Why?

Ava Glass · « **Reply #103 on:** December 09, 2014, 14:27 »

I looked at some of the case documents on PACER.

This is what Shutterstock is arguing:

Quote

Plaintiff also alleges -- and thus also admits -- that, later she signed a "Universal Adult Model Release for all Agencies" that does not limit use of the photographs and in fact instead expressly authorizes unrestricted use of them.

Quote

While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them.

To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across.

I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?

Tror · « **Reply #104 on:** December 09, 2014, 14:41 »

Quote from: Ava Glass on December 09, 2014, 14:27

Quote
While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them.

To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across.

I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?

Nope. I am not a native english speaker neither - so please correct me if I`m wrong - but knowing a bit the legal world to me it sounds like that the Model was not involved at any point into the TOS itself. Meaning: the photographer is accepting SS`s TOS when submitting / opening a contributor account and the client is agreeing to the TOS when downloading / opening a Customer account, but the Model itself never has to agree to SS TOS and as such cannot complain about breaking it since she was not involved in the first place. But this is just my interpretation of the argument...

BD · « **Reply #105 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:06 »

Quote from: Tror on December 09, 2014, 14:41

Quote from: Ava Glass on December 09, 2014, 14:27

Quote
While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them.

To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across.

I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?

Nope. I am not a native english speaker neither - so please correct me if I`m wrong - but knowing a bit the legal world to me it sounds like that the Model was not involved at any point into the TOS itself. Meaning: the photographer is accepting SS`s TOS when submitting / opening a contributor account and the client is agreeing to the TOS when downloading / opening a Customer account, but the Model itself never has to agree to SS TOS and as such cannot complain about breaking it since she was not involved in the first place. But this is just my interpretation of the argument...

I think you are right. If you read the "universal model release" the model signed it does not seem to prohibit such uses (I think the model release many stock photographers use prohibit certain uses that this one does not). Also, the model was 21 when she signed the release...an adult. I think the model is claiming the verbal agreement (if there was one) should supersede the written release, but it seems impossible to prove there even was a verbal one.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #106 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:25 »

Perhaps the photographer and the model were both naive for believing that Shutterstock would take action against such blatant violations.

tickstock · « **Reply #107 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:33 »

Quote from: Ava Glass on December 09, 2014, 15:25

Perhaps the photographer and the model were both naive for believing that Shutterstock would take action against such blatant violations.

From what I can tell it doesn't look like they are complaining that Shutterstock didn't take any action, the complaint seems to be that Shutterstock licensed images to the companies that violated the TOS in the first place. It seems impossible for Shutterstock to know which companies are planning to violate the TOS in advance.

disorderly · « **Reply #108 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:34 »

Quote from: Ava Glass on December 09, 2014, 14:27

I looked at some of the case documents on PACER.

This is what Shutterstock is arguing:

Quote
Plaintiff also alleges -- and thus also admits -- that, later she signed a "Universal Adult Model Release for all Agencies" that does not limit use of the photographs and in fact instead expressly authorizes unrestricted use of them.

Quote
While Plaintiff generally alleges breaches of Shutterstock's Terms of Service, she was not a party to those terms; does not and cannot allege that she was; and, does not allege -- and cannot in good faith allege -- that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of them.

To me, it sounds like Shutterstock is saying that unscrupulous buyers can throw out parts of the license terms if the model release is written in a certain way. It probably isn't what they mean, but it how its coming across.

I suppose they mean that violations of the ToS are up to the agency and maybe an image's copyright holder to take care of. However, has Shutterstock or the photographer taken any kind of action against the porn and escort sites, who VERY CLEARLY violated the terms?

I would interpret this as saying the model has no case against Shutterstock and no right to demand they take any action regarding violations of their TOS that aren't covered in the release she signed with the photographer. This is legal hair splitting; model's release to the photographer says one thing, photographer's agreement with the agency says something more restrictive. That asserts the agency's obligation to protect the photographer, perhaps, but says nothing about any obligation to the model who signed a less restrictive document.

By the way, I have had two situations where photos of mine appeared on escort sites. I assume they were purchased, but I was able to have them removed with DMCA requests (the sites were in the US) since the claim that the model was the escort in question was defamatory and therefore a violation of the release and the agency's TOS. So it does work, at least in the US.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #109 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:39 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 09, 2014, 15:33

Quote from: Ava Glass on December 09, 2014, 15:25
Perhaps the photographer and the model were both naive for believing that Shutterstock would take action against such blatant violations.
From what I can tell it doesn't look like they are complaining that Shutterstock didn't take any action, the complaint seems to be that Shutterstock licensed images to the companies that violated the TOS in the first place. It seems impossible for Shutterstock to know which companies are planning to violate the TOS in advance.

I meant in the context of the photographer and model's interaction. He told her that she wouldn't appear on escort sites because it was against the ToS. That was naive. Did Shutterstock do anything?

I don't agree with the model's argument that Shutterstock is at fault for customer violations, but at this point the ToS seem like mere suggestions. I see them violated all the time and the agencies do nothing.

Well, Bigstock did take action against this person:

https://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=213169

bunhill · « **Reply #110 on:** December 09, 2014, 15:48 »

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

How else are you going to use adult-oriented lingerie shots if not in an adult-oriented manner? Still, it's always the buyer who is responsible for breaking terms of the CLA.

If it is so obviously and self evidently a "glamour" image then surely any publication of it violates the terms of the licence ? If the image can have no other meaning. In which case why are the stock sites accepting and selling these images without a special model release which recognises and acknowledges the context in which they are likely to inevitably be used ?

Ava Glass · « **Reply #111 on:** December 09, 2014, 16:13 »

Maybe the agencies should just drop the pretense and loosen the terms overall. That way, photographers and models would know what they're really getting into.

Perhaps microstock is too big to police, and people who want protection should do RM.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #112 on:** December 09, 2014, 17:06 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 09, 2014, 15:48

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 08, 2014, 06:56
How else are you going to use adult-oriented lingerie shots if not in an adult-oriented manner? Still, it's always the buyer who is responsible for breaking terms of the CLA.

If it is so obviously and self evidently a "glamour" image then surely any publication of it violates the terms of the licence ? If the image can have no other meaning. In which case why are the stock sites accepting and selling these images without a special model release which recognises and acknowledges the context in which they are likely to inevitably be used ?

The IS CLA says you can use the image to the extent the model is portrayed in the image. So you can't use a smiling child on a porn cover, but an adult in lingerie on a bed certainly depicts a ... Woman in lingerie in a bed.

cathyslife · « **Reply #113 on:** December 09, 2014, 17:08 »

Quote from: Tror on December 09, 2014, 10:14

Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 09, 2014, 10:07
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.

True. She is out of business.

No worries. In the (unlikely, I hope) event she wins all these lawsuits, she is going to get a big payday. With a quick change of hair color and style, she can start whatever business she wants, and no one will probably even know, or even care.

danhowl · « **Reply #114 on:** December 09, 2014, 18:11 »

It is disappointing to see how many of you were so quick to judge the image in particular and glamour images in general. There are numerous usages for glamour images that would not violate SS's TOS. Sad to see so many of you have such a limited vision of what a lingerie (a fairly tame one at that) is only good for an escort ad.

It seems to me that the real point of this issue is a photographer using standard and accepted business practices without any subterfuge or malice is facing a federal lawsuit that he will have to submit a REAL defense for. It seems very clear to me that the photographer was acting in the same manner that many of us here do when shooting models for stock. We should not get bogged down in the content and jump to this photographer's defense. The provocative nature of the photo in question, in my opinion, is not relevant. Images twice as revealing are available on micro stock and at the same time images that are half as revealing are pirated for the same purposes complained about here.

Unfortunately I have fielded calls from models upset upon finding one of their photos in print. The case that is most clear in my mind was from a plus-sized model who was featured in a full-page ad for a diet pill. She was actually not complaining about the association with the product. Her (not-so-professional) agent got her thinking that it was a multi-thousand $$ model fee missed where upon I emailed her back a copy of the plain language iStock model release not only she signed but her sister witnessed.

The acknowledgement of the signed model release SHOULD have ended this suit. It is unfortunate that the NY Post and UK Daily Mail have gotten ahold of this story and presented it in the most salacious manner possible. I do hope that the photographer has taken good council from a qualified IP attorney and possibly even filed a counter-suit. I further hope he prevails because it will benefit us all. What would be amazing would be to have Shutterstock stand up strongly behind the photographer and defend this frivolous lawsuit.

cathyslife · « **Reply #115 on:** December 09, 2014, 18:28 »

I consider a glamour shot one in which a woman dresses up, has her hair styled, makeup done, and, well, looking glamorous. Beauty, poise, elegance, and classy might be words i think of when i see a glamour shot. I don't consider the images in question "glamorous". I consider them sexual in nature. Nothing to do with glamour. I am guessing a male photographer has given the title "glamour" to these shots in order to make them seem more mainstream and acceptable. I can see Victorias Secret using these shots because their business revolves around sex. JCPenney sells lingerie but i bet you wouldnt see it in one of their ads.

Is there a market for that type of photography? Sure! Clearly the image has been used in ways that it relates to!

Ava Glass · « **Reply #116 on:** December 09, 2014, 19:07 »

Quote from: danhowl on December 09, 2014, 18:11

I further hope he prevails because it will benefit us all. What would be amazing would be to have Shutterstock stand up strongly behind the photographer and defend this frivolous lawsuit.

They're not the only defendants. The model is also suing Playboy, Amazon, Wallsheaven, erotica authors, pick-up artist gurus, strip clubs, radio stations, escort sites, UPROXX, Model Mayhem, and porn sites.

I'm interested in finding out if this case defines erotic fiction as pornography or not. The porn and escort sites, however, blatantly violated the license--I mean the ones who didn't just steal the pic.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #117 on:** December 09, 2014, 19:10 »

Quote from: cathyslife on December 09, 2014, 18:28

I consider a glamour shot one in which a woman dresses up, has her hair styled, makeup done, and, well, looking glamorous. Beauty, poise, elegance, and classy might be words i think of when i see a glamour shot. I don't consider the images in question "glamorous". I consider them sexual in nature. Nothing to do with glamour. I am guessing a male photographer has given the title "glamour" to these shots in order to make them seem more mainstream and acceptable. I can see Victorias Secret using these shots because their business revolves around sex. JCPenney sells lingerie but i bet you wouldnt see it in one of their ads.

Is there a market for that type of photography? Sure! Clearly the image has been used in ways that it relates to!

In the UK, "glamour" modeling can mean "page three" topless stuff. It's a term. Jordan is a "glamour model."

danhowl · « **Reply #118 on:** December 09, 2014, 19:25 »

Thanks Ava,
Clearly Cathyslife is not aware that her individual definition of the term 'glamour' photography differs from a more widely accepted genre of photography that has a definable market. No insult intended, but clearly she did not have a wider view of this market when she responded. Again, the issue should not only be about the content of the image when the professional workflow that this photographer exhibited which has come under attack. We should all be concerned.

As purely an aside, the term of glamour photography, from what I understand, is also referred to as charm in the UK which I have always found a little funny. The difference is that I am not deriding it as a viable market.

ShadySue · « **Reply #119 on:** December 09, 2014, 19:48 »

Quote from: danhowl on December 09, 2014, 19:25

As purely an aside, the term of glamour photography, from what I understand, is also referred to as charm in the UK w

I've never heard of it called charm in the UK, but I've never heard of a lot of things.
Clearly, this UK company hasn't heard of it in a 'glamma' context either:
http://www.charmphotography.co.uk

cathyslife · « **Reply #120 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:03 »

Quote from: danhowl on December 09, 2014, 19:25

Thanks Ava,
Clearly Cathyslife is not aware that her individual definition of the term 'glamour' photography differs from a more widely accepted genre of photography that has a definable market. No insult intended, but clearly she did not have a wider view of this market when she responded. Again, the issue should not only be about the content of the image when the professional workflow that this photographer exhibited which has come under attack. We should all be concerned.

As purely an aside, the term of glamour photography, from what I understand, is also referred to as charm in the UK which I have always found a little funny. The difference is that I am not deriding it as a viable market.

This photographer has the same idea of glamour photography that i have.

https://www.creativelive.com/courses/glamour-photography-sue-bryce

:-)

Ava Glass · « **Reply #121 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:15 »

"Glamour Shots" in the US were popular in the 80s and 90s. They were glamorous photos of regular women. This is what Sue Bryce is trying to update.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/12-ways-to-get-the-best-glamour-shot

Except there appears to be significantly less hairspray in Bryce's video.

danhowl · « **Reply #122 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:19 »

While I didn't write the book on it, I did shoot the cover...

Shelma1 · « **Reply #123 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:20 »

Quote from: cathyslife on December 09, 2014, 20:03

Quote from: danhowl on December 09, 2014, 19:25
Thanks Ava,
Clearly Cathyslife is not aware that her individual definition of the term 'glamour' photography differs from a more widely accepted genre of photography that has a definable market. No insult intended, but clearly she did not have a wider view of this market when she responded. Again, the issue should not only be about the content of the image when the professional workflow that this photographer exhibited which has come under attack. We should all be concerned.

As purely an aside, the term of glamour photography, from what I understand, is also referred to as charm in the UK which I have always found a little funny. The difference is that I am not deriding it as a viable market.

This photographer has the same idea of glamour photography that i have.

https://www.creativelive.com/courses/glamour-photography-sue-bryce

:-)

She has women posing nude and in lingerie.

goober · « **Reply #124 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:40 »

Seems they ignored the TOS at SS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 42339 times)

PixelBytes

tickstock

Shelma1

Ava Glass

Tror

BD

Ava Glass

tickstock

disorderly

Ava Glass

bunhill

Ava Glass

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

danhowl

cathyslife

Ava Glass

Ava Glass

danhowl

ShadySue

cathyslife

Ava Glass

danhowl

Shelma1

goober

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors