Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 36012 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #125 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:41 »

Makes perfect sense why you would be defending "glamour" shots, danhowl

.

Shelma, i did see the lingerie shots...didnt see the nudes. i think the term "glamour" applies to the bryce shots. Not so much to the shots in question here. Just my opinion (i am allowed to have one). Clearly someone in the photography world has decided to use the term "glamour" loosely here.

Back to the issue at hand, I think both sides made mistakes and no one should be held accountable. Basically its a frivolous lawsuit.

goober · « **Reply #126 on:** December 09, 2014, 20:47 »

She's getting a lot of publicity out of it. It was in my local paper two days ago. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #127 on:** December 09, 2014, 22:18 »

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.

because she's reacting emotionally and not rationally.
besides, maybe she's done with modeling and she already planned to settle down, after all her reputation is compromised and there's nothing she can do to clean it up.

goober · « **Reply #128 on:** December 09, 2014, 23:10 »

Lets just say that I won't be using those images on my grandma's Christmas cards.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #129 on:** December 09, 2014, 23:48 »

Quote from: goober on December 09, 2014, 23:10

Lets just say that I won't be using those images on my grandma's Christmas cards.

Your grandpa might appreciate one tho.

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #130 on:** December 09, 2014, 23:55 »

So a photographer took a photograph and got a signed model release. Someone else either stole the photograph and/or used it in violation of its license. Now the photographer gets sued?

If someone steals your property and uses it in a harmful way, how can you be held responsible?

This should terrify all of us. It could happen to anyone regardless of the content.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #131 on:** December 10, 2014, 00:56 »

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on December 09, 2014, 23:55

Now the photographer gets sued?

in an ideal world the agency would be liable, not the photographer, but ...

Hobostocker · « **Reply #132 on:** December 10, 2014, 00:56 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #133 on:** December 10, 2014, 04:17 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on December 10, 2014, 00:56

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on December 09, 2014, 23:55
Now the photographer gets sued?

in an ideal world the agency would be liable, not the photographer, but ...

Not sure how the agency can be liable.
In an ideal world the end user would be liable, unless the tog allowed 'sensitive use'.

In response to an earlier post, the model was not naive. She was plenty old enough to think for herself about this.
She seems cluelessly mercenary and/or (as suggested above) just wants her moment of infamy in the spotlight.

Katja · « **Reply #134 on:** December 10, 2014, 05:17 »

I'm very sorry for your situation developing like this. I'm being sued as well on very similar terms as you.

Like I said before, I was never planning to satisfy model's requirements without hearing it first from a judge. Firstly, because I did not publish or sell anything to anyone on terms of "for pornographic purpose", and no one has yet proved the "bad websites" even obtained images the legal way (from me or from agency). I don't consider myself guilty of anything. Secondly, because I'd have to close my business since every model would think she can break a Model Release just like that.

I am currently in a final stage of awaiting the order. I suspect the outcome will mean a lot for stock photographers, at least in my country. So I'm very curious how our judge (and yours) will rule.

bunhill · « **Reply #135 on:** December 10, 2014, 05:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2014, 19:48

I've never heard of it called charm in the UK, but I've never heard of a lot of things.

It's called charme in France. The same style which Britain calls glamour.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #136 on:** December 10, 2014, 05:52 »

From Wiki:

Quote

Glamour photography is a genre of photography in which the subjects, usually female, are portrayed in erotic or exciting ways ranging from fully clothed to nude but in ways that either may conceal or may otherwise not especially draw attention to the subjects nipples and vulva. Glamour photography is typically less explicit than pornography and erotica although the term may also be used as a euphemism for erotic photography.

Tror · « **Reply #137 on:** December 10, 2014, 06:33 »

Quote from: iconogenic on December 10, 2014, 05:17

I'm very sorry for your situation developing like this. I'm being sued as well on very similar terms as you.

Like I said before, I was never planning to satisfy model's requirements without hearing it first from a judge. Firstly, because I did not publish or sell anything to anyone on terms of "for pornographic purpose", and no one has yet proved the "bad websites" even obtained images the legal way (from me or from agency). I don't consider myself guilty of anything. Secondly, because I'd have to close my business since every model would think she can break a Model Release just like that.

I am currently in a final stage of awaiting the order. I suspect the outcome will mean a lot for stock photographers, at least in my country. So I'm very curious how our judge (and yours) will rule.

I am very sorry to hear that. Indeed it will be a very important decision from the court for all stock photographers. Im do not think that this is related directly to the style of photography (glamour in the OPs case), but a general legal situation.

You are from the Netherlands, right? It will be also interesting to compare the US vs the NL decision.

Yesterday I checked some of the "Escort" and alike sites and I found tons! of stock photos. Surprisingly most of them the "harmless" ones...e.g. normal Portraits. For example one mature woman, maybe in her late 40s or early 50s, making a phone call with the wedding ring on her hand visible - with a subtext like "F**k married women in the neighborhood" blablabala. This is an issue for all stock photographers.

It will also be very interesting how Shutterstock reacts during the whole case. If SS does not protect the photographer at all it will be highly disapointing to me and should make us all rethink our relationship to them. Same, obviously, goes for any other "Agency" that fails to act in the interest of the photographer as long as they comply with their rules.

Katja · « **Reply #138 on:** December 10, 2014, 06:56 »

Quote from: Tror on December 10, 2014, 06:33

I am very sorry to hear that. Indeed it will be a very important decision from the court for all stock photographers. Im do not think that this is related directly to the style of photography (glamour in the OPs case), but a general legal situation.

You are from the Netherlands, right? It will be also interesting to compare the US vs the NL decision.

Thank you! Yes, NL.
As far as I understand this, an agency is basically not really required to "protect" anyone until it is actually proven an image was purchased from that agency. Especially if a photographer is not exclusive. At least I've been selling her images exclusively on iStock for past years, so one can safely assume a bigger chance iStock could be involved (or not). However, with easy "copy-paste" on the Internet and model having her laptop been stolen in the past we really don't know how images got to adult sites. There are millions of possible ways.
It is very regrettable that even normal portraits are mis-used like this all over. Every job on this planet has risks. I believe we all should educate ourselves and models about our risks, because they won't go away any time soon. Not like you start a shoot with a mention of pornsites

, but...
The lnternet laws are still making baby steps (if any at all), and the publishers just get away with anything. It makes me angry, even more so when I'm put on a stand instead of an actual criminal.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #139 on:** December 10, 2014, 07:45 »

I think there's a lesson here. Photographers need to change their releases to be more explicit. They need to explain to models that their photos will be made publicly available on such and such sites or similar sites, and that it's possible the images will be misused. If I were a glamour photog I would get a few of us together and pay an attorney to write a much more encompassing release form. Have a section where the model can decide whether she want to allow sensitive use. Then the photographe sticks to that agreement. It won't stop lawsuits, but it will certainly help the photographer be released from the suit if the model understood from the beginning that the end users were the ones breaking the terms the model agreed to....not the photographer. Don't give verbal reassurance you can't back up. Protect yourself. Put it all in writing.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #140 on:** December 10, 2014, 07:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 10, 2014, 07:45

I think there's a lesson here. Photographers need to change their releases to be more explicit. They need to explain to models that their photos will be made publicly available on such and such sites or similar sites, and that it's possible the images will be misused. If I were a glamour photog I would get a few of us together and pay an attorney to write a much more encompassing release form. Have a section where the model can decide whether she want to allow sensitive use. Then the photographe sticks to that agreement. It won't stop lawsuits, but it will certainly help the photographer be released from the suit if the model understood from the beginning that the end users were the ones breaking the terms the model agreed to....not the photographer. Don't give verbal reassurance you can't back up. Protect yourself. Put it all in writing.

I agree. After a recent issue I had, I will be changing mine. Releases seem to indicate the photographer can offer some level of protection of the use of the images, when that is actually impossible for anyone, and finding the photographer responsible would basically negate the entire industry.

rene · « **Reply #141 on:** December 10, 2014, 09:29 »

The cases like this are the reason why I almost stopped uploading images with people, especially glamour and with children, to microstock. I think that with a very large diffusion and all kind of customers, often with very low budget, the risk that images are used in a way that my model, who trusted me, will not like is too big. I don't think that in RM the risk is the same. Companies who spent hundreds on one image are usually more serious.
Loose a friend or being sued for for 0.28-0.38 is not worth for me.

Tror · « **Reply #142 on:** December 10, 2014, 09:37 »

Quote from: rene on December 10, 2014, 09:29

Loose a friend or being sued for for 0.28-0.38 is not worth for me.

I agree. I do shoot 90% of the time People, including underwear shots. If the photographer will be held liable despite having done nothing wrong I may consider changing my strategy for microstock. His promise to the model that the photos won`t appear on such sites (porn and alike) was based on the TOS of Shutterstock which indeed forbid such usage (please see the original post of the photographer. I assume he told the truth and did not opt in sensitive use as an option to his benefit).

The question now is:

1. Does the court recognize the "verbal agreement" despite not being written down in the release and how will it be interpreted since his promise is based on the TOS of SS .
2. If so, if the photographer can be held liable for the breach of the TOS of a client of SS despite not being personally involved in any transaction.
3. If SS finds or wants to find a way to pass all responsibility through to the photographer.

# 1 is the least interesting point to me. I never promise any model anything specific. Usually if a newbie Model asks me where the images appear I tell them frankly that nobody can really know. #2 and #3 may have a high impact on my long term strategy and may change the business and its legal fineprints ultimately.

tickstock · « **Reply #143 on:** December 10, 2014, 10:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 10, 2014, 04:17

Quote from: Hobostocker on December 10, 2014, 00:56
Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on December 09, 2014, 23:55
Now the photographer gets sued?

in an ideal world the agency would be liable, not the photographer, but ...
Not sure how the agency can be liable.
In an ideal world the end user would be liable, unless the tog allowed 'sensitive use'.

In response to an earlier post, the model was not naive. She was plenty old enough to think for herself about this.
She seems cluelessly mercenary and/or (as suggested above) just wants her moment of infamy in the spotlight.

I don't think sensitive use on SS would allow the kinds of things the model is objecting to. There are prohibitions specifically against it: "The Premier License prohibits the use of all Content in a fashion that a reasonable person or applicable law would consider pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, notwithstanding the context of such Content."

I think the model may have a valid complaint against those companies that did use her image in a way that is against the TOS. The question is can the photographer and Shutterstock be responsible for putting images up on Shutterstock knowing that those images could be used by those kinds of companies (although against the TOS).

tickstock · « **Reply #144 on:** December 10, 2014, 10:12 »

Quote from: Tror on December 10, 2014, 09:37

Quote from: rene on December 10, 2014, 09:29
Loose a friend or being sued for for 0.28-0.38 is not worth for me.

I agree. I do shoot 90% of the time People, including underwear shots. If the photographer will be held liable despite having done nothing wrong I may consider changing my strategy for microstock. His promise to the model that the photos won`t appear on such sites (porn and alike) was based on the TOS of Shutterstock which indeed forbid such usage (please see the original post of the photographer. I assume he told the truth and did not opt in sensitive use as an option to his benefit).

The question now is:

1. Does the court recognize the "verbal agreement" despite not being written down in the release and how will it be interpreted since his promise is based on the TOS of SS .
2. If so, if the photographer can be held liable for the breach of the TOS of a client of SS despite not being personally involved in any transaction.
3. If SS finds or wants to find a way to pass all responsibility through to the photographer.

# 1 is the least interesting point to me. I never promise any model anything specific. Usually if a newbie Model asks me where the images appear I tell them frankly that nobody can really know. #2 and #3 may have a high impact on my long term strategy and may change the business and its legal fineprints ultimately.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure but I think a verbal agreement is just as binding as a written agreement, although in this case there will probably be some argument over what the exact wording was. I doubt anyone would want to promise that they have any real control over what people do with images once they go on the internet, if that kind of promise is even possible. If the court finds the document was fraudulent then I doubt Shutterstock would stick up for the photographer at that point.

Tror · « **Reply #145 on:** December 10, 2014, 10:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 10, 2014, 10:12

Quote from: Tror on December 10, 2014, 09:37
Quote from: rene on December 10, 2014, 09:29
Loose a friend or being sued for for 0.28-0.38 is not worth for me.

I agree. I do shoot 90% of the time People, including underwear shots. If the photographer will be held liable despite having done nothing wrong I may consider changing my strategy for microstock. His promise to the model that the photos won`t appear on such sites (porn and alike) was based on the TOS of Shutterstock which indeed forbid such usage (please see the original post of the photographer. I assume he told the truth and did not opt in sensitive use as an option to his benefit).

The question now is:

1. Does the court recognize the "verbal agreement" despite not being written down in the release and how will it be interpreted since his promise is based on the TOS of SS .
2. If so, if the photographer can be held liable for the breach of the TOS of a client of SS despite not being personally involved in any transaction.
3. If SS finds or wants to find a way to pass all responsibility through to the photographer.

# 1 is the least interesting point to me. I never promise any model anything specific. Usually if a newbie Model asks me where the images appear I tell them frankly that nobody can really know. #2 and #3 may have a high impact on my long term strategy and may change the business and its legal fineprints ultimately.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure but I think a verbal agreement is just as binding as a written agreement, although in this case there will probably be some argument over what the exact wording was. I doubt anyone would want to promise that they have any real control over what people do with images once they go on the internet, if that kind of promise is even possible. If the court finds the document was fraudulent then I doubt Shutterstock would stick up for the photographer at that point.

Regarding the verbal agreement: yes, I think you are right. But still a bit of muddy waters to fish in...lets see what the court says.

The affected photographer who got sued says this in his original post:

Quote from: bpepz on September 24, 2013, 16:45

She expressed concern about her images ending up on a porn site, I told her shutterstock does not allow images to be used for pornographic purposes, which she seemed relieved about. All well and good right?

I assumed many of us would tell something like this when shooting for stock. And believe so as well. Are all those photographers now liable for any damage by breach of the SS TOS? Thats the big question!

bunhill · « **Reply #146 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:05 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 10, 2014, 07:57

I agree. After a recent issue I had, I will be changing mine. Releases seem to indicate the photographer can offer some level of protection of the use of the images, when that is actually impossible for anyone, and finding the photographer responsible would basically negate the entire industry.

That's interesting. A person can sign away their legal rights in the USA ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #147 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:12 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 10, 2014, 11:05

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 10, 2014, 07:57
I agree. After a recent issue I had, I will be changing mine. Releases seem to indicate the photographer can offer some level of protection of the use of the images, when that is actually impossible for anyone, and finding the photographer responsible would basically negate the entire industry.

That's interesting. A person can sign away their legal rights in the USA ?

What?

Tror · « **Reply #148 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:22 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 10, 2014, 11:05

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 10, 2014, 07:57
I agree. After a recent issue I had, I will be changing mine. Releases seem to indicate the photographer can offer some level of protection of the use of the images, when that is actually impossible for anyone, and finding the photographer responsible would basically negate the entire industry.

That's interesting. A person can sign away their legal rights in the USA ?

bunhill · « **Reply #149 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:25 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 10, 2014, 11:12

What?

It's a question: Whether something written and signed in a contract necessarily trumps existing legislation and / or legal protections.

Personally I doubt that it necessarily always would.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: model might try to sue me (Read 36012 times)

cathyslife

goober

Hobostocker

goober

PixelBytes

ComfortEagle2095

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

ShadySue

Katja

bunhill

Microstockphoto

Tror

Katja

Shelma1

Sean Locke Photography

rene

Tror

tickstock

tickstock

Tror

bunhill

Sean Locke Photography

Tror

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors