The model in the image used in the article linked below contacted me this morning. In your opinion, is this an accepted use of the image? It seems like the usage makes it look like the photo is of "Tom Logan," the chef mentioned/quoted in the article.

The model wasn't upset, just amused at seeing another photo of him in use.

A license was sold this morning on DT. What are your thoughts? This is more from curiosity than any desire to pursue the matter.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/who-am-i-to-judge-the-pope-says-gay-man-2013073077345

It's pretty clearly misrepresentation.  I doubt it qualifies as defamation, which is an unacceptable use according to the release I use.  I don't remember; does DT's license say anything about misrepresentation?

That's what I wasn't sure of. I thought that maybe someone here would know off the top of their head.

Elvin, why couldn't you look at DT's licence conditions yourself? I'm not even on there, but they were easy to find from a link 'Terms of Use' on the first page.
I suspect there is no such person as this Tom Logan, I suspect that's a satirical article, but it is a breach of DT's conditions:
"Any license granted by Dreamstime shall not constitute a representation that an Image is compatible for use with any other material. You are solely responsible for the use of any Image in combination with any other material, and you agree not to use Images with sensitive topics without Dreamstime`s separate written agreement. Such sensitive topics include, but are not limited to: models with mental or physical health issues, social issues, sexual activity, sexual orientation or related, substance abuse, crime or other subjects that can be considered to be offensive or unflattering to any of the models included in the image."
https://www.dreamstime.com/terms
Please keep us up to date with DT's repsonse. It's always interesting to see what, if anything, an agency does in regard to protecting its models/pursuing abusers. At the very least there must be a takedown notice issued.

From their terms:

http://www.dreamstime.com/terms
Sensitive Subjects

Any license granted by Dreamstime shall not constitute a representation that an Image is compatible for use with any other material. You are solely responsible for the use of any Image in combination with any other material, and you agree not to use Images with sensitive topics without Dreamstime`s separate written agreement. Such sensitive topics include, but are not limited to: models with mental or physical health issues, social issues, sexual activity, sexual orientation or related, substance abuse, crime or other subjects that can be considered to be offensive or unflattering to any of the models included in the image.
You must contact Dreamstime for additional information prior to any use of an Image with any sensitive topic.

edit: ShadySue beat me to it.

Sue,
I certainly could have read through the TOS myself, but thought that someone here might know without having to look. Today is incredibly busy for me with a half-hour television show and a 30 second commercial to film.

Thanks for the info and sorry if I offended you.

Quote from: elvinstar on July 30, 2013, 19:33
Sue,
I certainly could have read through the TOS myself, but thought that someone here might know without having to look. Today is incredibly busy for me with a half-hour television show and a 30 second commercial to film.

Thanks for the info and sorry if I offended you.

Not offended or inconvenienced as it only took 2 seconds to find. Just curious.