MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock model used in homosexual pride campaign  (Read 26390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2015, 10:38 »
+3

What if his head was put onto some fashion he deemed offensive, e.g. totally contrary to the image he puts out? What if he was advertising some product/campaign he disapproves of, particularly if he actively campaigns against it in real life? (He could of course officially decry the advert saying how much he disapproves of it, but again, his worth as a stock model would sink.)

Political, religion and sexual orientation, at least for me and him, is not comparable with fashion taste. He, as reasonable person, haven't find any of those offensive.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2015, 10:39 »
0
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?
At least one of the four T&Cs I looked at above had a clause forbidding implication that someone supported a political party, but I honestly can't be bothered trawling back through them.
Presumably if the photo actually showed someone waving a particular flag or wearing a pin or tie, whatever, that would be OK, else what would be the point of the photo.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 10:43 by ShadySue »

« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2015, 10:40 »
+2
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?

It doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, this matters (SS terms of use):

Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2015, 10:53 »
+1
Ok, fair point.

So do you know where the image was bought?

And is someone a reasonable person if he gets offended by sexual orientation? Seems quite unreasonable to me, but thats personal.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2015, 11:00 »
+1
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?

It doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, this matters (SS terms of use):

Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

But nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.

« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2015, 11:01 »
+2
Ok, fair point.

So do you know where the image was bought?

And is someone a reasonable person if he gets offended by sexual orientation? Seems quite unreasonable to me, but thats personal.

I'm trying to find that out.

In my opinion, reasonable person who like Adidas and find himself in ad for Nike would't care. It would be unreasonable. But sexual orientation is sensitive topic, as well as racially, religion or political.

I wouldn't care if my baby son images are used in gay adoption ad, but that's me and I agree with you that is personal.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2015, 11:02 »
0
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?

It doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, this matters (SS terms of use):

Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

But nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.
The way I understand it is that IS allows it with a disclaimer on the photo or ad

« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2015, 11:06 »
+1
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?

It doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, this matters (SS terms of use):

Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

But nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.

I was just replying to his comment, and also send email to SS, and will send to other agencies regarding sexual orientation topic.


H2O

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2015, 11:08 »
+2
I think you will find that the Law in Europe only sees equality for all before the law, which will make your models thoughts subjective, you really will not have a case with this.

« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2015, 11:25 »
+1
I think you will find that the Law in Europe only sees equality for all before the law, which will make your models thoughts subjective, you really will not have a case with this.

Of course it is possible and most probably will end like that, but I would like to talk with someone who is a lawyer so I asked if anyone here know any lawyer from Germany, or that have similar experiences.

His images are popular, used in hundreds of site with many kind of contest but never in sexual orientation.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2015, 12:53 »
0
The photo you linked to above, not your model, was pretty much like the famous pic from years ago with the old man photographed outside his garden shed, but taken out of that context an into some party poster where brightly coloured condoms were being handed round on trays and he seemed to be leering up a girl's skirt. I thought that was subjecting the old man to ridicule, but I was in a tiny minority in that view, and iS seemed to think it was OK.

« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2015, 13:11 »
+1
The photo you linked to above, not your model, was pretty much like the famous pic from years ago with the old man photographed outside his garden shed, but taken out of that context an into some party poster where brightly coloured condoms were being handed round on trays and he seemed to be leering up a girl's skirt. I thought that was subjecting the old man to ridicule, but I was in a tiny minority in that view, and iS seemed to think it was OK.

What did that model said about that usage? Was he Ok with that?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2015, 13:16 »
+1
The photo you linked to above, not your model, was pretty much like the famous pic from years ago with the old man photographed outside his garden shed, but taken out of that context an into some party poster where brightly coloured condoms were being handed round on trays and he seemed to be leering up a girl's skirt. I thought that was subjecting the old man to ridicule, but I was in a tiny minority in that view, and iS seemed to think it was OK.

What did that model said about that usage? Was he Ok with that?
I don't remember what the model said; the photographer was very unhappy, as I would have been, as she had had to persuade him to sign an MR. Most people thought it was perfectly OK. It was back around 2008 IIRC, so I don't have the link. (I found the bookmark, but because of some iS coding changes, it now just maps to iS's forum homepage.)

May I suggest to your model, if he wants to go on modelling, that he signs up with a proper model agency rather than modelling for stock. I don't know how it is in your country, but here the registered agencies must always tell the model exactly what any job is for so that they can choose whether to go forward with it or not.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 15:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2015, 13:37 »
+1
I don't remember what the model said; the photographer was very unhappy, as I would have been, as she had had to persuade him to sign an MR. Most people thought it was perfectly OK. It was back around 2008 IIRC, so I don't have the link.

May I suggest to your model, if he wants to go on modelling, that he signs up with a proper model agency rather than modelling for stock. I don't know how it is in your country, but here the registered agencies must always tell the model exactly what any job is for so that they can choose whether to go forward with it or not.

I do understand that, it is same in my country with modelling agencies, but this is kind of reputation for all models to never shoot for stock.

The thing is, I believe if images are used even in forbidden contest such as medical or political usage it would also be impossible to do anything against it. It's not only model problems, but for us photographers who works with them too, even if photo is used in countries like Germany... not some third world countries.

You were very helpful so far so thank you for that.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2015, 13:58 »
0
In my opinion, reasonable person who like Adidas and find himself in ad for Nike would't care.
See, as you say that's an opinion.
Not so much Adidas vs Nike, but when I first saw the model release before I thought of all the other possibilities, my first thought was actually, "Oh, Nike or Nestle could use your image" (I try to boycott both of these and many others). In reality, these particular brands probably don't buy stock, but that was the first 'objection' I thought of.

« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2015, 14:02 »
+1
In my opinion, reasonable person who like Adidas and find himself in ad for Nike would't care.
See, as you say that's an opinion.
Not so much Adidas vs Nike, but when I first saw the model release before I thought of all the other possibilities, my first thought was actually, "Oh, Nike or Nestle could use your image" (I try to boycott both of these and many others). In reality, these particular brands probably don't buy stock, but that was the first 'objection' I thought of.

I fully agree, but taste in food, brands or music is not same as sexual orientation. It's much more intimate and sensitive.

Maybe I am wrong, but I would not end at least until I speak with some lawyer about those issues. If he says we can't do anything, that's it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2015, 14:05 »
0
Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.
The way I understand it is that IS allows it with a disclaimer on the photo or ad
Yes, but I'm guessing that there is no disclaimer in this case.

« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2015, 14:09 »
+1
Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.
The way I understand it is that IS allows it with a disclaimer on the photo or ad
Yes, but I'm guessing that there is no disclaimer in this case.

Yes, you guessed right. Nothing. I wouldn't say anything if it was.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2015, 14:09 »
0
Doesnt work that way I think. Its contractual, not about his feelings.

A photo of a Democrat used in a Republican campaign could be upsetting, but there is no violation.
Depends on the agency. That's a forbidden use on some.
Is it? How do you determine if I am a republican or just out for a money grab?
SS:
"YOU MAY NOT:
    ... Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model... as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion"


Fotolia:
"Please note that use of our files is prohibited in the following cases:
... Political endorsements..."

   
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 14:14 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2015, 15:02 »
+1
In my opinion, reasonable person who like Adidas and find himself in ad for Nike would't care.
See, as you say that's an opinion.
Not so much Adidas vs Nike, but when I first saw the model release before I thought of all the other possibilities, my first thought was actually, "Oh, Nike or Nestle could use your image" (I try to boycott both of these and many others). In reality, these particular brands probably don't buy stock, but that was the first 'objection' I thought of.
I fully agree, but taste in food, brands or music is not same as sexual orientation. It's much more intimate and sensitive.
If I am very open about a particuar issue and found myself on an advert for that issue, it would make me a hypocrite. Clearly, as I am not willing for that to happen (in many other contexts too), I wouldn't be a stock model.
Your model should have thought this through before agreeing to sign the MR.

Quote
Maybe I am wrong, but I would not end at least until I speak with some lawyer about those issues. If he says we can't do anything, that's it.
Please feed back what happens.
Please also consider carefully the probable backlash of any lawsuit. The 'Pink Dollar' was estimated at $790 billion in 2012 in the US alone. That's huge pressure to bear on any other company which wants to feature that model, and could backfire on you too.

As i said before, as young straight male he could have some problems if anything with some anti-gay people because he is planning to live in Germany and his photo were used all over that place.
But when the media publish a lawsuit against this usage, he could just as likely have trouble for seeming to be a homophobe.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 15:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2015, 15:55 »
+1
I always ask any interested model which religious group or political party they hate most. And then - how comfortable would they feel if their face was used in one of their propaganda flyers or in huge ads in their city?

Even if the KuKlux clan or neo * use your image somewhere in the world - do you have the money, time and energy to sue them?

If this kind of risk makes you in any way uncomfortable, I decline the offer and look for someone who really doesnt care. You are offering a paid job and many models love stock,especially if they can get creative too and dont just have to do only what they are told.

I think some models are better off working with agents that carefully screen the offers and guide their career, sort of a rights managed deals instead of rf.

But of course you have to be good enough to get an agent or RM offers by companies...

Good luck with your case. Unfortunately now it already happened, hopefully you can get it sorted. I genuinly wish your model could see this use as something really positive, it is a human rights issue he is representing.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 15:58 by cobalt »

« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2015, 16:08 »
+1

But when the media publish a lawsuit against this usage, he could just as likely have trouble for seeming to be a homophobe.

I understand you completely.

I'm trying to find some logic here.  Not your, you are very helpful, but laws in general. What if that person have a wife and kids? It is very delicate issue. I know he isn't a homophobe, but that doesn't mean that he need to be all over some big European town falsely  presented as gay person if he isn't. This is also one "what if", but what if his wife divorced him because of that... we still don't live in ideal world that sexual or any other orientation doesn't matter.

Now I'm just thinking out loud...

« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 16:11 by panicAttack »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #47 on: June 28, 2015, 16:13 »
+4
He shouldnt be a model if he is afraid of any of that. Its a bit naive to think that your photo goes up to 5 micro stock agencies and think there is any control as to what happens with his image.


« Reply #48 on: June 28, 2015, 16:14 »
+1
Where do you draw the line? In some countries you will be thrown in jail or killed for being gay. So it really is a human rights case. Just look at what happened in turkey today.

In the exact same way to what black people had to or still have to suffer. There will also be white models, when if their face is altered in photoshop to look black, will consider this an insult and worry what their friends and family will think.

Somebody else will get insulted if the designer adds a turban or a beard and he looks like a follower of a different religion.

But this is the thing with stock, you really dont know what will happen.


« Reply #49 on: June 28, 2015, 16:35 »
+1
Where do you draw the line? In some countries you will be thrown in jail or killed for being gay. So it really is a human rights case. Just look at what happened in turkey today.

In the exact same way to what black people had to or still have to suffer. There will also be white models, when if their face is altered in photoshop to look black, will consider this an insult and worry what their friends and family will think.

Somebody else will get insulted if the designer adds a turban or a beard and he looks like a follower of a different religion.

But this is the thing with stock, you really dont know what will happen.

What happened in Turkey?

Political and religion orientations are all against terms of use in all agencies.. Sexual is not in all agencies, only Dreamstime, and IStock demand text "Illustrative purpose only" or something like that.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3722 Views
Last post September 24, 2009, 21:35
by madelaide
12 Replies
6680 Views
Last post April 07, 2013, 17:25
by heywoody
0 Replies
1465 Views
Last post January 31, 2015, 10:08
by Sean Locke Photography
49 Replies
19328 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 14:06
by cathyslife
2 Replies
3555 Views
Last post January 08, 2016, 10:51
by Artist

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors