pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My models images from Dreamstime were used once again for a porn site. grrrrrr  (Read 10347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 09, 2009, 22:20 »
0
Does anyone else have this problem? I am very upset. My model has contacted me once again about her images being used in a derogatory manner. She has been on TV and is a very busy model being on commercials and ads.

She is so not happy. At the same time, it has brought her a couple of jobs doing stock for us. I know that anyone purchasing images of people are not suppose to use them in any way that it will hurt the persons image.

Any comments from anyone??


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2009, 22:28 »
0

« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2009, 23:42 »
0
I always wondered where else photos in lingerie could be used. Maybe I'm just naive.

« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2009, 01:24 »
0
But these were not images of her in lingere. She is dressed in normal fashion wear. That is what is so weird about it.

« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2009, 01:29 »
0
I always wondered where else photos in lingerie could be used. Maybe I'm just naive.

I agree.

Youwill find more if you keep searching. Im pretty sure.

All models posing in lingerie can expect to end up on pornsites. Even with their clothes on.  Sad but true..

« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 01:35 by Magnum »

« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2009, 01:39 »
0
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing an image of someone in normal clothes on that page... is she being depicted as an escort?

« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2009, 02:01 »
0
Does anyone else have this problem? I am very upset. My model has contacted me once again about her images being used in a derogatory manner. She has been on TV and is a very busy model being on commercials and ads.

She is so not happy. At the same time, it has brought her a couple of jobs doing stock for us. I know that anyone purchasing images of people are not suppose to use them in any way that it will hurt the persons image.

Any comments from anyone??

Without seeing the exact context of the photos and more details, its hard to give specific advice -
things that would be relevant are:
1. The site the images were downloaded from and what specific terms apply to those images
2. The jurisdiction the site is hosted in and the jurisdiction the operators work from
3. Terms of the model release
4. How long the image has been used in this manner
5. The extent to which you're prepared to go to go to prosecute any infringement

If the image is still online in its context I'd takes some screenshots at the very least so that you have evidence for any subsequent actions.

Contrary to some of the responses posted here, provided that the site you sell photos through prohibits use of images on pornographic or obscene sites, then you do have rights - most obviously in an action in defamation (or libel depending on which jurisdiction you happen to be in) or for breach of copyright. If the use is outside the license agreement, the purchaser is in virtually the same position legally as if they'd simply pirated the images from elsewhere on the net.

I haven't checked the terms of all the sites (and don't intend to!) but many don't allow such uses of images - I'm aware that both Dreamstime and Istock preclude such use. Shutterstock is even more explicit in its prohibition. My personal view is that submitters shouldn't just roll over on such license breaches, but actually take steps to prosecute if at all feasible.

« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2009, 02:04 »
0
Does anyone else have this problem? I am very upset. My model has contacted me once again about her images being used in a derogatory manner. She has been on TV and is a very busy model being on commercials and ads.

She is so not happy. At the same time, it has brought her a couple of jobs doing stock for us. I know that anyone purchasing images of people are not suppose to use them in any way that it will hurt the persons image.

Any comments from anyone??


Your agent should handle this for you:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dmca-and-license/msg96039/#msg96039

« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2009, 03:38 »
0
Your agent should handle this for you:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dmca-and-license/msg96039/#msg96039

LOL.
I'm sure the "agent" will handle this. Contributors problems are his priority.

« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2009, 16:56 »
0
Lisafx reported a case she got a lawyer to sue the infractor.  If the site is in the same country as you, this is worth doing.  Otherwise, all you can expect by reporting this to the agency or the host is having the image removed - what I think is very little punishment.

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2009, 17:12 »
0
Lisafx reported a case she got a lawyer to sue the infractor.  If the site is in the same country as you, this is worth doing.  Otherwise, all you can expect by reporting this to the agency or the host is having the image removed - what I think is very little punishment.

I had the lawyer draft a letter to the producer of the TV show.  Fortunately I never ended up having to sue.  They were very cooperative about editing out the image after receiving the letter. 

Supposedly they are going to also reimburse my legal fees, but so far no check.  Been waiting a couple of months now.

But at least the image is removed and my model is happy (and modeling again).

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2009, 19:17 »
0
correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not on every MR that says "the image shall not be used in any form that would embarass or is derogatory to the model", or words to that effect?

« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2009, 00:24 »
0
correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not on every MR that says "the image shall not be used in any form that would embarass or is derogatory to the model", or words to that effect?

Its on the IS model release but not on some others, and one reason why I *wouldn't* recommend using the IS model release. Whether its on the model release is irrelevant for the buyer - its the terms of license that are important there. In most cases they shouldn't actually see the model release - providing them with model releases would be a breach of privacy laws in some countries - including Australia.

Personally I think its a mistake to draft or use model releases with too many exclusions - the purpose of the model release should be to prevent you the photographer from being sued by the model. Its not really to protect the rights of the model. Its your job to then ensure you don't use the image inappropriately - or don't allow the image to be used inappropriately with your consent. In the event that the image does get used improperly, you don't want to risk becoming a defendant or party to an action at the initiation of the model.

« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2009, 14:36 »
0
Sorry, Lisafx, for my confusion.  But anyway I hope your case may serve as an example for the present one.

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2009, 15:22 »
0
Sorry, Lisafx, for my confusion.  But anyway I hope your case may serve as an example for the present one.

I totally agree :)

It was sure a life lesson for me, anyway... :-\

On the model release issue, my releases don't have the sensitive uses exclusion.  That is on licensing agreements of the sites I list with.  That is who the end user is contracting with.

The model release is an agreement between the photographer and the models, not the end user or the agency.  To have usage exclusions on it would, IMO, transfer some of the liability for misuse to the photographer, even though we have no control over the final usage.    I would never purposely add something to my releases that puts me at risk.

FWIW, the reason I aggressively pursued the situation with the TV show misusing a photo wasn't because I had any liability.  It was simply because the model is a popular one (not to mention a friend) and I wanted her to feel comfortable modeling in the future.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2009, 15:40 »
0
i don't get it.

with part of RF licence you don't understand ?

once you sell it RF it's over ... buyers can do whatever they want, even in 30 years from now.
if you want a minimum of control over the usage you must sell RM.

i doubt the model knew their pictures were sold as RF.

« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2009, 16:24 »
0
i don't get it.

with part of RF licence you don't understand ?

No, I don't think you do get it.  Royalty Free simply means that the use of the licensed image is free of royalties beyond the license fee.  It does not mean that the usage is free of restrictions.  The licensor specifies how the image may be used, including for example how many copies may be printed with the image included.  That's why such things as extended licenses exist: to give the licensee permission to go beyond the restrictions attached to the base license.


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 16:28 »
0
i don't get it.

with part of RF licence you don't understand ?

once you sell it RF it's over ... buyers can do whatever they want, even in 30 years from now.
if you want a minimum of control over the usage you must sell RM.

i doubt the model knew their pictures were sold as RF.

Sorry Sergey, but you are wrong.  RF doesn't mean carte blanche for the buyers to do what they want.  

They are purchasing a license and the usage limits are defined on the various sites.  

To be fair, I think many of us here are quite capable of reading and understanding an RF or any other kind of license (and even spelling license).  Personally having been a parallegal helps in my case, but is hardly necessary.

ETA:  Disorderly was faster.  And also proved my point that many of us can read and understand a license agreement ;)

 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 16:31 by lisafx »

« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 23:52 »
0
Well, you are not seeing the images because they are not there anymore. I wrote the website and told them there are legal repercussions for misusing images and they agreed to usage when purchasing them and that my agency would be contacting them if they did not take them off ASAP. (Matter of fact, there was many images that looked like stock and they came down too. )
i wrote to Dreamstime and they had a email to me within the next morning and was on top of it. The site removed all the images immediately. I am happy and so is my model. All ends well again. Thanks to Dreamstime!!

If you read on Dreamstime,
Quote:
"Unauthorized Use

Without limitation, Images may not be used as a trademark or service mark (unless the appropriate extended license is being used), for any pornographic or unlawful purpose, to defame a person, to violate a person's right to privacy or publicity, to infringe upon any copyright, trade name, trademark, or service mark of any person/entity. Unauthorized use of these Images constitutes copyright infringement and shall entitle Dreamstime to exercise all rights and remedies under applicable copyright law, including an injunction preventing further use and monetary damages against all users and beneficiaries of the use of such Images. The foregoing is not a limiting statement of Dreamstime's rights or remedies in connection with any unauthorized use."
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 23:55 by lephotography »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2009, 02:10 »
0
i don't get it.

with part of RF licence you don't understand ?

once you sell it RF it's over ... buyers can do whatever they want, even in 30 years from now.
if you want a minimum of control over the usage you must sell RM.

i doubt the model knew their pictures were sold as RF.

Sorry Sergey, but you are wrong.  RF doesn't mean carte blanche for the buyers to do what they want.  

They are purchasing a license and the usage limits are defined on the various sites.  

To be fair, I think many of us here are quite capable of reading and understanding an RF or any other kind of license (and even spelling license).  Personally having been a parallegal helps in my case, but is hardly necessary.

ETA:  Disorderly was faster.  And also proved my point that many of us can read and understand a license agreement ;)

 

for your information "licence" is the correct british english spelling, "license" is the cowboy spelling.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2009, 02:12 »
0
i don't get it.

with part of RF licence you don't understand ?

once you sell it RF it's over ... buyers can do whatever they want, even in 30 years from now.
if you want a minimum of control over the usage you must sell RM.

i doubt the model knew their pictures were sold as RF.

Sorry Sergey, but you are wrong.  RF doesn't mean carte blanche for the buyers to do what they want.  

They are purchasing a license and the usage limits are defined on the various sites.  

To be fair, I think many of us here are quite capable of reading and understanding an RF or any other kind of license (and even spelling license).  Personally having been a parallegal helps in my case, but is hardly necessary.

ETA:  Disorderly was faster.  And also proved my point that many of us can read and understand a license agreement ;)

 

fine, but are we sure the buyers are aware of this ?

for instance about pornography use, i had no idea about it.
RF is universally sold as "do what you want with it".


« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2009, 02:43 »
0
fine, but are we sure the buyers are aware of this ?

for instance about pornography use, i had no idea about it.
RF is universally sold as "do what you want with it".

Try Googling the phrase "Ignorantia juris non excusat".  Agencies make their license terms available to their clients; it's up to the clients to read, understand and live within them.  And I would dispute your second statement.  RF is not sold as you suggest.  Any agency that stated or implied such a thing would lose its suppliers and its content in a flash.


« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2009, 15:51 »
0
upsetting for all concerned. But I guess this shows the value of this forum. It is  good DT acted so quickly, but you have also raised an issue we all need to be aware of and the associated problems. THANK YOU.

« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2009, 00:28 »
0
Achilles,
I was very happy with the results. Dreamstime did a great job. Thank you.
I imagine that sites such as these misuse alot of images.
I really was not knowing the steps to take but I imagine that maybe they wont do it again. My model was freaking out over it and I knew I better do something to get it down ASAP as it has happened before with her images that we took. I don't understand why they would use these images. They are not "pornish" and she didn't have lingerie or anything on. Weird.

I was just praising DT.

« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2009, 00:30 »
0
I imagine I am not the only one that was not sure what to do in this case. I thought if they did not take it down that DT would take care of it but no sign left of my images on the site.

« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2009, 20:21 »
0
I also wanted to say I had such great response from DT. I even got a phone call to resolve the problem along with several emails.
WOW!
ty Dreamstime!


lisafx

« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2009, 11:53 »
0
i don't get it.
with part of RF licence you don't understand ?



They are purchasing a license and the usage limits are defined on the various sites.  


fine, but are we sure the buyers are aware of this ?

for instance about pornography use, i had no idea about it.
RF is universally sold as "do what you want with it".



ROFLMAO!

So after accusing others of not reading or being able to understand the license terms, it turns out that it is you, Sergey, who actually didn't bother to read or understand them?!...

Priceless. ::)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 11:55 by lisafx »

lisafx

« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2009, 11:59 »
0
I imagine I am not the only one that was not sure what to do in this case. I thought if they did not take it down that DT would take care of it but no sign left of my images on the site.

So happy it worked out well for you :)

And great to know that DT will aggressively protect out images!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
34 Replies
11938 Views
Last post November 01, 2015, 15:54
by amperial
13 Replies
7792 Views
Last post March 09, 2012, 11:24
by heywoody
13 Replies
4821 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 11:56
by rimglow
7 Replies
3654 Views
Last post August 12, 2014, 20:25
by Goofy
19 Replies
6495 Views
Last post November 10, 2014, 13:12
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle