pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Abusive usage of images  (Read 6910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 02, 2010, 20:28 »
0
Hi
I think that I find abusive, fake or mislead usage of images which I think it is not allowed in ANY Terms Of Service of ANY photo agency.
Word is about Scam HYIP Ponzi scheme sites which are by definition see more about what I mean on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyip
--------------------------------------------------------------

Typically this "sites" have life span from 1 to 6 months depends on false claiming percent of profit with cheap Ponzi scam script behind site and only one hidden man/creature wanabee admin by himself, but from potential naive "investor" victim point of view it looks that they are Serious investment or bank company.
Few examples with this Scam Ponzi sites with same peoples/photo models I think its from MonkeyBusiness port:
http://www.hugmoney.com/
http://fund-energy.com/
http://www.quest4dollar.com/

Ill post images below because after few months this sites will take money and run away and close site without any trace and money.
First problem is that I think that is the abusive usage of images eg false representing other peoples (photo models).
Victims from this "investment" sites could conclude that photo models are CEOs or real successfull people to whom they give "invest" money, and second is that this kind of sites are Scam for wanebee "investors".
In the darkest scenario I even cant think what can some victim do to this photo models after loosing they money if they met and recognize them somehow on the street.
Problem is not about same models on different sites, blogs etc, Microstock is all about it. Problem is that there are hunderds or thousands this kind of scam sites opened and closed daily with other models too.

How to fight with this kind of abusive usage of photo models images?  :o


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2010, 15:17 »
0
I can't convince myself that modeling for microstock is not risky. Then I ask no one to do it for me. I understand that everyone do it and why they do, though. But when it's time to tell a model what can be done with their images, I see the model release like a "sell your soul" contract...

I browse many entertainment websites everyday, and I can tell that having your face somewhere on the internet is pretty risky. But everything is relative, even writing something dumb on Facebook can affect someone reputation, when it's spread on the internet.

In this particular case though, if someone angry at the company get to think that the models are the CEO of a business, the problem is on their side to me. Still the topic interesting. I think I remember an issue with a poultry farmer who have been harassed by his community 2 years ago

« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2010, 15:23 »
0
Model aare like actors. Nobody is going to think that Robert De Niro is a gangster or a boxer becauses he has played some, or that Tm Cruise is a psyco. Model play a role for a while, that's all.

« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2010, 15:39 »
0
+1

« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2010, 15:52 »
0
I understand what you are saying, but I view models in advertisements and now on websites as "not real people". Like the analogy above with Robert DeNiro. I don't associate the sleazy business with the model that is being used. The model, to me, is the messenger and you don't shoot the messenger.

The license for the image contains some basic language about how a photo can and can't be used:

(from istockphoto, as an example)
Pornographic, obscene or libelous works
Use that depicts personal endorsement by model
Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer.


If the model or photographer feels that their image is being used in one of the above situations, then a complaint/lawsuit, etc. can be filed.

But basically, it's a lot like all the sites that have stolen our images and are giving them away or reselling them...we do the best we can to keep the thieves at bay, and hope that at some point it won't be futile.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2010, 17:17 »
0
I can totally understand why some photographers aren't comfortable using friends and family as models, but I can't see any reason not to have pro or aspiring models.

Whether you are using pro or amateur models, they need to understand the risks involved.   It's important to make sure they have read and understood the model release.  After that, if they are willing to model it is their choice.

I have only seen a usage one time that upset the model and I contacted a lawyer who contacted the production company and had the image taken down.  And even that model who was upset by the usage is still quite happy to model again.  She loves when her friends and family find her "in action" and that seems to more than make up for the one negative experience.

« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2010, 17:22 »
0
Model aare like actors. Nobody is going to think that Robert De Niro is a gangster or a boxer becauses he has played some, or that Tm Cruise is a psyco. Model play a role for a while, that's all.

Don't be so sure. There are millions of really dumb people out there, and not so many people who know anything about modeling. I keep telling people that I sell images on internet, and they always ask: "why? what kind of images? what for? who is buying images?" And when I say that all images in magazines are actually bought from websites like those where I sell images, everyone seems surprised.
People mostly think that images in printed media are actually taken especially for that printed media.... like for catalogs etc.
We here "live" in microstock world everyday, and for us it's hard to believe that people actually don't have an idea what "microstock" is. I can easily imagine some angry Russian or Serbian, or Bosnian, or whichever guy, who meets on the street "fake CEO" of a fake company, and attacks him.
I'm telling this because I live in a society where all kinds of organized criminal simply flourish.
In nineties we had several fake banks, that offered great interest rate for people who want to put foreign currencies in them. They all appeared at the same time, and people put millions of dollars in them. In few weeks, they disappeared with money, and put the money in banks in Cyprus, Switzerland etc.
People were simply robbed completely.
My neighbor used to work in one of those banks. She said they were told to putt all money in big bags, and to move them to another bank. She said, no one actually counted how much money there is....
After it, she build a big nice house, and now she happily lives there with her family. And she was just a simple teller in the bank. :)

« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2010, 17:52 »
0
These scam artists are too cheap to even license different pictures.  Looks like they used the same pictures several times.

Since there are no real names associated with the pictures only the people who know the models in real life would be able to make the connection.  Hopefully these people can figure out that their next door neighbor isn't really flying to some foreign country to rip people off.

I tell professional models to visit the site and read all licensing agreements prior to our shoot.  Friends, family and people on the street, I try to inform them as best as possible.

« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2010, 18:01 »
0
The probability is very small for some model to be attacked, and I believe it could really happen only on the street, if someone who was robbed recognize a model.
Images those criminals use are not bought on microstock sites. They are downloaded from pirated websites.

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2010, 18:13 »
0
The probability is very small for some model to be attacked, and I believe it could really happen only on the street, if someone who was robbed recognize a model.
Images those criminals use are not bought on microstock sites. They are downloaded from pirated websites.

Pretty scary thought though!  I will have to make sure none of my models ever go to visit you Ivan! ;)

FWIW, I agree with you about not everyone understanding that the models in the pictures are just models.  A couple at my church who model for me a lot were used by a vitamin catalogue.  Several people at church came up to them to ask how they liked the vitamins and why they recommend them. 

From my experience, mostly it seems to be elderly people who don't understand about it.  Most younger and mid-adult people seem pretty media savvy. 

« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2010, 18:38 »
0
The probability is very small for some model to be attacked, and I believe it could really happen only on the street, if someone who was robbed recognize a model.
Images those criminals use are not bought on microstock sites. They are downloaded from pirated websites.

Pretty scary thought though!  I will have to make sure none of my models ever go to visit you Ivan! ;)

FWIW, I agree with you about not everyone understanding that the models in the pictures are just models.  A couple at my church who model for me a lot were used by a vitamin catalogue.  Several people at church came up to them to ask how they liked the vitamins and why they recommend them. 

From my experience, mostly it seems to be elderly people who don't understand about it.  Most younger and mid-adult people seem pretty media savvy. 

lol and lol :D

« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 21:30 »
0
I understand what you are saying, but I view models in advertisements and now on websites as "not real people". Like the analogy above with Robert DeNiro.
In fact many people make an association. Actors here often tell stories that happened with them when playing the vilains, or someone who is betrayed.  In the first case people may be aggressive, in the second they may offer help. It's weird.

Of course, this doesn't mean a photo in a site may be taken as the true person, yet it is strange when they put a real name behind the person shown there, as we've seen in a couple of examples before.  I mean, if there is a site "Medical Advice by Dr. Smith" and a photo of a man saying "Hello, I am Dr. Smith", we expect that the person in the photo is indeed Dr. Smith.

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2010, 09:27 »
0


Of course, this doesn't mean a photo in a site may be taken as the true person, yet it is strange when they put a real name behind the person shown there, as we've seen in a couple of examples before.  I mean, if there is a site "Medical Advice by Dr. Smith" and a photo of a man saying "Hello, I am Dr. Smith", we expect that the person in the photo is indeed Dr. Smith.

I see this all the time with my images.  I believe it is a violation of licensing terms, but it happens so much it hardly seems worth the effort pursuing it unless there is some other violation too (like sensitive use). 

« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2010, 11:15 »
0


Of course, this doesn't mean a photo in a site may be taken as the true person, yet it is strange when they put a real name behind the person shown there, as we've seen in a couple of examples before.  I mean, if there is a site "Medical Advice by Dr. Smith" and a photo of a man saying "Hello, I am Dr. Smith", we expect that the person in the photo is indeed Dr. Smith.

I see this all the time with my images.  I believe it is a violation of licensing terms, but it happens so much it hardly seems worth the effort pursuing it unless there is some other violation too (like sensitive use). 

Isn't exactly this situation the "beginning" of the whole problem. We DO see that there is a problem but we don't act on it as long the model either doesn't know about it or if the model knows about it threatens with a lawsuit. We most likely did get paid for the image so technically "why would we care?".

In the end it's the agencies' duty to contain or punish illegal use of the images purchased from them. The agency is making the rules not we.

I think only above average smart people and people working in the media industry know that "Dr. Smith" isn't really Dr. Smith. Why would TV commercials explicitly write underneath "Spokesperson is an actor and not a real doctor". It's the same reason why McDonalds had to put the warning label on their coffee cups: Contents are very hot. Duh, who wants lukewarm coffee???

Once more this is a classic example of the problems that come along with Microstock. In the early (earlier) days such an image could only be obtained through the big agencies where they had to pay a chunk of money. Not that the buyer was more aware of the licensing terms but also such violations were much easier to trace.
Forget that these days with the micros.

Upload and forget is the motto. Sadly.

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2010, 14:26 »
0

Isn't exactly this situation the "beginning" of the whole problem. We DO see that there is a problem but we don't act on it as long the model either doesn't know about it or if the model knows about it threatens with a lawsuit. We most likely did get paid for the image so technically "why would we care?".

In the end it's the agencies' duty to contain or punish illegal use of the images purchased from them. The agency is making the rules not we.


I totally agree, in theory, that we should follow up on every example of possible misuse.  Unfortunately in practical terms that is very difficult for a one person, low budget operation to accomplish.  If I were to follow up on every example of stretching the license I would not have any time leftover to take or upload pictures.  Not to mention the one time I did pursue misuse it cost me over $1100 in legal fees.

Frankly, it should be the agency's job to enforce their own licensing terms.  This is, theoretically, why they get 60 - 80% of the money from our work.... 

« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2010, 14:41 »
0
... Frankly, it should be the agency's job to enforce their own licensing terms.  This is, theoretically, why they get 60 - 80% of the money from our work.... 

Absolutely correct, but in this world we live in, it's not going to happen.

Only the case, where SS went after a client who was supposed to get only ELs for every single image they got.

« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2010, 20:04 »
0


Of course, this doesn't mean a photo in a site may be taken as the true person, yet it is strange when they put a real name behind the person shown there, as we've seen in a couple of examples before.  I mean, if there is a site "Medical Advice by Dr. Smith" and a photo of a man saying "Hello, I am Dr. Smith", we expect that the person in the photo is indeed Dr. Smith.

I see this all the time with my images.  I believe it is a violation of licensing terms, but it happens so much it hardly seems worth the effort pursuing it unless there is some other violation too (like sensitive use). 

I don't see that as an abuse either, but it is nevertheless bas business to me. Once you find out that Dr.Smith doesn't exist, how can you trust anythng from the site?

click_click,

Here in Brazil there are many ads that show "real names", like a toothpaste showing a name and "dentist" below it. It does imply that the person in it is a real dentist. He probably isn't, and I never saw this type of advert you mention (which is probably a requirement there). Again, it's not because the guy is a dentist (if he is) that I will buy the toothpaste, but I'm sure this "reality" affects many viewers.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10111 Views
Last post November 19, 2010, 20:01
by ShadySue
1 Replies
2086 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 16:50
by cathyslife
6 Replies
2904 Views
Last post February 14, 2011, 16:25
by madelaide
13 Replies
9766 Views
Last post September 21, 2013, 05:41
by ShadySue
2 Replies
1435 Views
Last post January 09, 2015, 07:16
by cuppacoffee

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle