MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: panicAttack on June 28, 2015, 09:19
-
Greetings and excuse my English
My straight male stock model has been used in one Berlin gay pride event.
I don't have anything against anyone, but for young straight male it is very sensitive case when using on those kind of campaign.
I am selling stock on 5 agencies, SS, IS, dreamstime, fotolia and 123rf.
I don't sell my images as sensitive use.
I am thinking about getting a lawyer from Germany, if anyone know someone who is good and experienced in those kid of thing?
What can be done about all this?
Thank you.
-
Its not defamatory so I dont think there is case.
-
Its not defamatory so I dont think there is case.
Looks like it is for him and that matters.
I will try to contact some lawyers from Germany to see what can be done, if anyone have experience I would like to know about it.
Thank you
-
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.
-
PanicAttack, fitting username. ;) dont lets this upset you too much
-
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
-
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.
And what if he already had some bad experience about that?
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.
My username has nothing to do with that.
-
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.
And what if he already had some bad experience about that?
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.
He shouldnt be a model if he is concerned about how his image is used in public. Especially a stock photo model.
Again, its not about his feelings or where he wants to live. If the photo is not used in a defamatory way, I dont think there is a case. But by all means, getting legal advice is never a bad thing to do. Just make sure you have the contract ready you signed with the agency where the image was purchased.
-
It was your duty to explain to your model that misuses are possible, and you can't do anything to prevent it, and neither can the agent/distributor.
You'd need to know where the file was purchased from, as the wording of each is different.
iS:
"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."
More detailed in the Content Licence Agreement:
"If any Content featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement adjacent to the Content that indicates that: (i) the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Content, if any, is a model, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself;"
(Who is this 'reasonable person'?)
But the phrase re sexual preference would seem to trump that, presuming the actual image doesn't "clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter".
SS (licensing terms link on photo page) "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. "
The usage you mention, just by discription, would seem to be OK by SS's standard terms, unless the 'reasonable person' would find it 'offensive', which is unlikely in law nowadays, now that equal rights are being espoused by more and more western countries.
DT - that use would be forbidden without DT's written permission:
Sensitive Subjects
Any license granted by Dreamstime shall not constitute a representation that a Media is compatible for use with any other material. You are solely responsible for the use of any Media in combination with any other material, and you agree not to use Media 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.
FT:
" use the Work in a way that places any person in the photo in a bad light or depicts them in a way that they may find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to:
the use of Works in pornography;
tobacco ads;
ads for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, including escort or similar services;
political endorsements;
uses that are defamatory, or otherwise contain unlawful, offensive or immoral content. "
Seems like your use would be OK.
But "depicts them in a way that they may find offensive" seems like a very strange clause. A money-grabbing model could claim that they'd find just about any use offensive.
However, the Fotolia MR states:
"Release and Indemnity .
The Model hereby releases and indemnifies the Photographer, and the Photographer's agents and representatives, licensees and sublicensees, assigns, heirs and successors, from and against all claims, expenses (including attorney fees) or other liability arising from and against any and all uses of the Photographs, including, without limitation, any claims or actions based on libel or slander or other defamation, right of privacy or “false light”, right of publicity, or blurring or distortion or alteration whether or not intentional.
The Model and Photographer each hereby warrant that he or she has read this Agreement prior to execution, and is fully familiar with the contents of this Agreement. "
I've totally failed to discover 123RF's terms and conditions apart from the technical restrictions (size on web, number of prints etc etc). However their MR reads: "For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant Photographer the irrevocable right and permission, throughout the world, in connection with the photographs you have taken of me on the Production Date above, or in which I may be mincluded with others, the following : (a) the right to use and re-use, in any legal manner at all, said photographs, in whole or in part, modified or altered, either by themselves or in conjunction with other photographs, in any medium or form of distribution, and for any legal purposes whatsoever, including without limitation, all promotional and advertising uses, and other trade purposes, and (b) the right to copyright said photographs in your name. I waive the right to inspect or approve any use thereof.
I hereby forever release and discharge Photographer from any and all claims, actions and demands arising out of or in connection with the use of said photographs, including without limitation, any and all claims for invasion of privacy and libel. This release shall inure to the benefit of the assigns, licensees and legal representatives of Photographer, as well as the party(ies) for whom Photographer took said photographs."
(OT: Interesting point: Some of the agencies list as misuses sexual orientation, which must surely also restrict implication (out of photo context) that a particular model is heterosexual.)
As the usage is allowed on at least one, or arguably two or three of the agencies (can anyone find 123RF's terms?), a smart lawyer would argue that you have allowed the image to be used in that way on these agencies, so you have little right to complain even if it was purchased from an agency which forbids it.
-
I guess it is a good thing that you explained to him before he signed the model release that you have very little to no control over where these images will be used. Sure, everyone wants their image to be plastered all over the next Lamborghini ad but that isn't how things work.
I suspect that he should be considering whether he really wants to be a model any more now that he realizes it isn't all glam and parties.
Grab a lawyer, sure. He will help you get your $0.38 back. I'm sure if you told him you were offended by his hourly rates and felt it was taking advantage of you he would have some choice words for you.
-
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.
-
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
I'm sure he would be.
I am here to ask, so it's okay for all of you to have your own opinion and thank you for that. If religious, political and other orientation are not allowed by terms of use, those things can be even worst experience for the model. Not talking about his opinion about gay people, it doesn't matter, I neither have anything against anyone, but for young person it is possible to have some bad experience regarding other modeling jobs and this is falsely represented person (against SS terms of use).
Not to mention that my job will suffer financial damage if he or his friends I already shoot would not model for me anymore because of that.
-
... for young person it is possible to have some bad experience regarding other modeling jobs and this is falsely represented person (against SS terms of use).
Why do you think it's against SS terms of use? I couldn't see that there.
Besides, the SS MR says, "I hereby release, discharge, and agree to hold harmless the Photographer, the Photographer’s heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under the Photographer’s authority or those for whom he/she is acting, from any liability by virtue of any use of the Content or any changes or alterations made thereto."
Besides, what if the model was used in the aforementioned Lamborghini ad but hates Lamborghinis? Would that be misrepresentation?
Most of the agencies' T&C forbid use which suggests a model uses or endorses a product, but what would a model be in an advert for without suggesting their approval. The alterative would be an advert saying basically:
"Here is a photo of a randomly-chosen handsome model"
"Here is a photo of our product"
"Our product is good"
-
Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.
I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.
Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
-
Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.
I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.
Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.
Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.
Are you sure your young model is even bothered about this? Some of of my (late middle-aged, heterosexual) FB friends yesterday joined some campaign I didn't know about involving overlaying a rainbow flag over their main FB photo to celebrate Gay Pride and equal rights.
-
Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.
Waste of time to mention that. Keywords don't serve to restrict how an image may be used; they are only provided as a way for an agency's search mechanism to guide a client to images they may want to license. You're grasping at straws.
-
Grab a lawyer, sure. He will help you get your $0.38 back.
this is not about image theft.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
+100
Because for sure dragging this through a court would damage his reputation irrevokably with anyone but homophobic groups. Who else would then want him representing their product.
-
Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.
I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.
Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.
Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.
Are you sure your young model is even bothered about this? Some of of my (late middle-aged, heterosexual) FB friends yesterday joined some campaign I didn't know about involving overlaying a rainbow flag over their main FB photo to celebrate Gay Pride and equal rights.
Historic Supreme Court decision in the U.S. this week, saying individual states cannot make gay marriage illegal. Huge celebrations and everyone's doing the FB rainbow thing. Now we're only a couple of decades behind the rest of the modern world.
-
Yes, I explained to all my models that it is impossible to control where and who will buy/use images, but also that I will do anything I legally can do if I find out that images are used in sensitive way. And this case is.
I know that gay pride doesn't have anything with that, but design studio does.
Not to mention that I do not have any keywords that can be correlated with that use.
Did you read all the agencies' conditions of use carefully before you uploaded to them? Because I can't find any misuse in some of the T&Cs.
It was nice of you to guarantee you'd spend all your money doing 'anything you legally can' to protect your micro-earning images. Especially when often there won't be anything you can legally do.
If I can't do anything legally I can't spend all or any of my money.
The thing I am talking about is "reasonable person would find offensive" part.
btw. this is not that picture, but would reasonable person can find offensive this?
https://www.facebook.com/events/797229950373460/ (https://www.facebook.com/events/797229950373460/)
-
I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard)
http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-person.html (http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-person.html)
I honestly don't think your model should be modelling. I wouldn't be a stock model, and neither would anyone I know. Clearly some can, but they need to know what they're getting into. The few local-ish people on MM who put Stock on their profile (most don't) seem to think they'll be contacted to approve any use. ::)
-
I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".
If his images are used all over the web for many sites (fashion, fitness, webshop... etc) he didn't find any of that offensive. Maybe there is something offensive if his sexual orientation are being falsely presented. It is some kind of personal or intimately thing.
-
I have no idea what legally constitutes a "reasonable person".
If his images are used all over the web for many sites (fashion, fitness, webshop... etc) he didn't find any of that offensive. Maybe there is something offensive if his sexual orientation are being falsely presented.
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.)
Seems like it's best for stock models not to have strong opinions about anything.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..."
-
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.
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.
-
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 doesn´t care. You are offering a paid job and many models love stock,especially if they can get creative too and don´t 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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 don´t know what will happen.
-
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 don´t 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.
-
What happened in Turkey?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390)
-
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...
There was also an iS case when a model was used to illustrate an editorial article about 'escorts'. She wasn't a full time model, but an educator, and the publication was widespread in her home city. IMO, it should have had 'posed by model', but I certainly didn't read about any good outcome for her. Why she was part-time modelling I have no idea. There are so many apparently-legitimate usages that could make you a source or ridicule amoung your students and their parents.
-
What happened in Turkey?
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390[/url])
Disaster.
It would be very bad if my model is living in Turkey. This is of course human right in Turkey problem at first place, but it could lead to stock models problems from countries like that.
-
There was also an iS case when a model was used to illustrate an editorial article about 'escorts'. She wasn't a full time model, but an educator, and the publication was widespread in her home city. IMO, it should have had 'posed by model', but I certainly didn't read about any good outcome for her. Why she was part-time modelling I have no idea. There are so many apparently-legitimate usages that could make you a source or ridicule amoung your students and their parents.
That's also a case for a lawyer if there wasn't text explaining it is only "posed by model" or "for illustrative purpose". Ok. no more internet for me today. Thank you and good night! :)
-
What happened in Turkey?
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390[/url])
Disaster.
It would be very bad if my model is living in Turkey. This is of course human right in Turkey problem at first place, but it could lead to stock models problems from countries like that.
It's one of several "what if's" that a photographer of stock models needs to consider very carefully.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
Good point! Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personl feelings may be.
Horrifying about what happened in Turkey. I hope we in the Western world are not expected to live our lives according to the biases of repressive regimes.
-
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
They would if it was purchased from iS and used without a disclaimer, or from DT without written permission.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
Good point! Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.
it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking
but back to the original point - there is definitely a caveat when dealing with models in rf microstock,
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
Good point! Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.
it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking
but back to the original point - there is definitely a caveat when dealing with models in rf microstock,
You can't legislate against opinion, but you can legislate against acting on certain opinions. In fact, that's what the Law is. One may think it's OK to steal, but one is in trouble if they actually do it.
-
i think the model knows from the beginning when he became one, that he is going to be portrayed as different things. he is a model and would he object to being show eg...
-drinking beer? (many or most models i know don't drink alcohol)
- eating meat eg. at a barbeque ( most models too, i know , are vegan)
- partying and dancing like an alpha male (many are introverted)
it's much like being an actor. tom cruise is portrayed as a SS , ...gestapo, not shutterstock..
others are portrayed as a psychopath , pedophile, etc..
we all know, most of them are not .
it goes with the territory. if you're not able to take this, then be an accountant or
flip burgers.
-
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 don´t 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.
Turkey? the way the government attacked the pride demonstrations? It is front page news here. Blatant human rights abuse and this just after the US finally fully legalized gay marriage in all their states. Can you imagine you are heterosexual and your government declares loving your wife or husband illegal? Or white people that forbid their children to marry a black man or woman? I really admire my friends from the LGBT community how they stand up for their rights.
Yes, many agencies have provisions against sensitive use in their contracts. But like all contracts, they are worth the money you have for the international lawyers to enforce them. Otherwise, it is a piece of paper. Unfortunately.
Sue might be right, if you uploaded to different places, it might be a problem in court if just one of them allows this kind of usage.
You´ll have to ask your lawyer, I really hope things work out.
-
I received positive response for Shutterstock about this and I'm glad because of it.
For few guys who reply in this topic, it's not about his personal opinion about anyone. Sexuality orientation is intimate and personal thing, even if he was a homosexual person, portraying someone as some kind of icon of any sexual orientation (even heterosexual) is at least for sensitive case licence (which I have never and will never make an options for photos with models).
For one comparing it with acting. completely different thing, actors agreed to act as for example particularly gestapo in some project and even there they are credited as actors before or after the movie.
-
.
pA beat me to it, and was more concise!
-
This is not about gay people this is about the rights of a model. Law is failing its purpose here.
This is an interesting case. This is an indicator of how low value our photos and we have.
I think you can do nothing in this case even though I think you are 100% right and this should be handled as a sesitive case. Not because of law and not because of equal human rights but because of public oppinion. If anyone wants to change public oppinion or fight for a good case it is good but it should be his/her own decision. OWN.
Questionable uses should be handled very seriously by the stock agencies otherwise we will not have models after a while.... or only models who now find their participation in this industry as one of the biggest mistakes of their lifes.
For questionable uses everyone should use the model agencies and a not-simplified (more expensive) image licencing model not microstock. This is the concept what should be communicated and even forced by the agencies... but the industry is going to the opposite direction.
-
NitorPhoto, I absolutely agree.
It's not about sexual orientation, it's about right of a person (model) in the first place. Not only low values of a photos, but low values of a real people who are stock models.
Reading between the lines here it looks like some people here want to say if someone poses for model they are stripped of all their rights or even dignity. It's perfectly fine if someone is even portrait as a pedophile (without any explanation of illustrative purposes only), and what is most scary that those are coming from stock photographers.
I am pretty sure this will be better controlled as laws (and embedding/jpeg technology) advance in next five or ten years, and "wild west" of internet times would be over.
-
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
-
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
You completely missed whole point here.
I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.
In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.
Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.
If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.
We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
Good point! Maybe explain to the model it is the 21st century and being portrayed as gay is not defamatory no matter what his personal prejudices may be.
it may be the 21st century but everyone is entitled to their beleives and opinions - even if it is diametrically opposed to someone elses, noone should be squeezed into anyone elses way of thinking
Well, yes and no. If someone likes chicken and someone else likes beef, they are both entitled to their opinion. If one persons belief is that another person should be killed, jailed, or attacked for who they are, be it skin color, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever then no, I don't think we should just agree to disagree.
A couple centuries ago a black person was believed by many in the US to be 3/5 of a person. Were the people who decide that entitled to their beliefs?
-
Well, yes and no. If someone likes chicken and someone else likes beef, they are both entitled to their opinion. If one persons belief is that another person should be killed, jailed, or attacked for who they are, be it skin color, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever then no, I don't think we should just agree to disagree.
This is what I am talking about, you put in same context skin color, religion and sexual orientation, because there are delicate and sensitive topics.
-
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
You completely missed whole point here.
I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.
In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.
Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.
If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.
We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.
No you missed the point. If you had done your job your model, an obvious amateur, would not be surprised or bothered by the use of their image. If you find a model, explain the situation of how their image may be used and they have even the slightest apprehension,,, FIND ANOTHER MODEL. Easily offended people that want to somehow pre-approve the use of their image have no place in microstock. It has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or straight guys being deemed homosexual which you seem fixated on. That's not the point. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it. There are many things that images could be used for that might offend a model. These people should expect that, be prepared for it and accept it or they should not be modeling.
You also, mentioned consulting a lawyer a couple of times in this thread. I didn't bring it up. We as contributors should, if we have any sense, try to protect the industry we work in. Allowing models to even think about litigation for images that are legally licensed and used within the terms and conditions of the agency is a bad bad idea. Buyers will go else where if they are at risk of being sued by some offended model when they have followed the rules.
I maintain my advice to you but I go even further. You should close your accounts and take up knitting. There's far less chance of anyone being offended that way.
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
No, just an actual professional working with actual professionals.
-
i think although everyone is correct and no one is incorrect in such a topic.
the point i am making with my posting is not whether the model is right or wrong .
the point i make is that even if you go to court on this issue, you will spend a lot of money
to win . or you will lose, depending on the argument.
the points i made will be part of the lawyer's case to the model. if i , a layman , can hit
the model on these points, i am sure, the lawyer or judge will hit the model with far stronger
points as to whether he understand the situation of being a model.
you are right, in some way , to say an actor chose to agree to play a part.
the agency also will have the right to say, it is you..the photographer to inform the model
that in some way, esp stock photography, there is very little control over the usage, other
that what is stipulated in the model release. still, that is still debatable as to what those words
construe.
if you had perharps selected in ss for example, that your images will not be used for "sensitive" usage...
that might work in favour of the model. but still, it does not mean you will win the case.
as i said, we can go on and on to push our own subjective views on this.
but until you chose to defend your model with retaining a lawyer, it is moot.
-
Here's a hopefully-hypothetical thought and not a pretty one. What if a terrorist group used a stock model picture and claimed they were a recruit to their cause. Where would your agency or lawyer be then? And that would be far, far worse for the model than being in a Pride campaign.
Still, I guess they could steal any picture from the web, it wouldn't have to be a stock model.
-
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
You completely missed whole point here.
I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.
In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.
Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.
If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.
We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.
No you missed the point. If you had done your job your model, an obvious amateur, would not be surprised or bothered by the use of their image. If you find a model, explain the situation of how their image may be used and they have even the slightest apprehension,,, FIND ANOTHER MODEL. Easily offended people that want to somehow pre-approve the use of their image have no place in microstock. It has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or straight guys being deemed homosexual which you seem fixated on. That's not the point. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it. There are many things that images could be used for that might offend a model. These people should expect that, be prepared for it and accept it or they should not be modeling.
You also, mentioned consulting a lawyer a couple of times in this thread. I didn't bring it up. We as contributors should, if we have any sense, try to protect the industry we work in. Allowing models to even think about litigation for images that are legally licensed and used within the terms and conditions of the agency is a bad bad idea. Buyers will go else where if they are at risk of being sued by some offended model when they have followed the rules.
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
No, just an actual professional working with actual professionals.
Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)
And sorry to let you down, you are not professional, just internet troll, but anyway I'll try to explain, not for you as you are trolling, but for others.
If it is fine by agency terms of us, that's the end. end of discussion.
Fixated with gay? I'm explaining my situation here. No fixation. As I already said same things go to BDSM/straight anything that sexual related, but this is not what happened so I don't talk about that. If I wanted those I would enjoy selling sensitive usage like you probably do, and that's fine to me.
Why is there a problem consulting a lawyer about anything if I want his opinion? Is that same as to sue someone? You are just lost.
We need to protect ourselves, industry is well protected.
I maintain my advice to you but I go even further. You should close your accounts and take up knitting. There's far less chance of anyone being offended that way.
You sound like someone who is very afraid of other microstock photographers. This is not the way to cope with competition. Just try to be a better photographer.
-
It's not about sexual orientation, it's about right of a person (model) in the first place. Not only low values of a photos, but low values of a real people who are stock models.
After seeing some of what iS deems 'acceptable use' (I don't follow similar threads elsewhere), I think a stock model must need to be a totally values-free zone, and be careful never to acquire any in later life.
Interesting that you and he wouldn't object to BDSM. Each to his own; but that's a sexual preference that many people wouldn't want to be associated with.
-
After seeing some of what iS deems 'acceptable use' (I don't follow similar threads elsewhere), I think a stock model must need to be a totally values-free zone, and be careful never to acquire any in later life.
Interesting that you and he wouldn't object to BDSM. Each to his own; but that's a sexual preference that many people wouldn't want to be associated with.
I didn't say we wouldn't, I said that would be the same problem as this is.
-
Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)
It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used.
Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising".
If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.
-
Ok I see you are just a troll. ;)
It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used.
Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising".
If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.
You should really read first who started to insult here without any evidences (I was referring him as a troll because he acted that he know my conversation with my models), and not everybody is pointing that I am wrong and what is most important it looks like agencies are also sharing my thought that this is kind of sensitive usage of an image.
You cannot close your eyes that some of agencies has this particular usage restricted. (Dreamstime). So looks like there is something there. Not everybody living in Berlin. My model definitely isn't. As i said before, world unfortunately is not perfect place and you all know that.
I am talking with agencies legal teams now so this topic can be closed. I only thought that someone had similar experience but I guess I was wrong.
I still do believe that sexuality topics (fetishes or orientations) are personal, intimate and sensitive especially if someone have a wife or family.
-
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.
-
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.
I couldn't say this better. This is only thing and all I want to say. Thank you.
-
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you.
-
In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
Haters will always hate, and possibly attack, anyone who is different. There have been homophobic attacks in the UK, but also people are attacked for being old/special needs/well-off/red-haired/a different race or religion from the attacker/female/whatever.
The point is that some agencies don't allow any suggestion of sexual orientation/or need a disclaimer for same, but others do. The fact that even one of the agencies holding images of the model allows it without a disclaimer means that effectively that the photographer, on behalf of the model, has accepted that usage.
You may find your model has a case against you for submitting to agencies which allow a usage he doesn't like, but that depends on the release he signed.
I've found the licence agreement for 123RF (by googling, I failed to find it from the site) and it says:
You may not
"under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, offensive, political, racist, ethnically or culturally offensive, obscene or indecent, sexually explicit, immoral, defamatory, intrusive of privacy or illegal materials; or in a manner which endorses violence or acts of terrorism, is discriminatory towards race, gender, religion, faith or sexual orientation, or which purports to endorse products or services carrying sensitive mental/health connotations"
which, unless your usage was sexually explicit would almost certainly allow the use in the context mentioned in the OP, though we haven't actually seen the usage.
Now, you could try to argue that some cultures are unaccepting of homosexuality, but you could also argue likewise that some cultures are unaccepting of eating pork. And as we have established, German culture in general is not so offended.
And in fact, it could be argued that your putative legal attack on the buyer would be 'discriminatory towards sexual orientation'.
The OP chose to submit there, under these conditions; I can't see that they have a legal leg to stand on.
Your only hope is that the file wasn't bought, but stolen. Then you can have a different, and less controversial, legal case.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
I still think that this is the best answer on this thread.
If that doesn't work, one of our TV presenters once said, "I'm gay for professional reasons" (though in his case, it was a joke as he'd been 'out' for many years).
-
In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
Haters will alway hate and possibly attack anyone who is different. There have been homophobic attacks in the UK, but also people are attacked for being old/special needs/well-off/red-haired/a different race or religion from the attacker/female/whatever.
The point is that some agencies don't allow any suggestion of sexual orientation/or need a disclaimer for same, but others do. The fact that even one of the agencies holding images of the model allows it without a disclaimer means that effectively that the photographer, on behalf of the model, has accepted that usage.
I've found the licence agreement for 123RF (by googling, I failed to find it from the site) and it says:
You may not
"under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, offensive, political, racist, ethnically or culturally offensive, obscene or indecent, sexually explicit, immoral, defamatory, intrusive of privacy or illegal materials; or in a manner which endorses violence or acts of terrorism, is discriminatory towards race, gender, religion, faith or sexual orientation, or which purports to endorse products or services carrying sensitive mental/health connotations"
which, unless your usage was sexually explicit would almost certainly allow the use in the context mentioned in the OP, though we haven't actually seen the usage.
Now, you could try to argue that some cultures are unaccepting of homosexuality, but you could also argue likewise that some cultures are unaccepting of eating pork. And as we have established, German culture in general is not so offended.
And in fact, it could be argued that your putative legal attack on the buyer would be 'discriminatory towards sexual orientation'.
The OP chose to submit there, under these conditions; I can't see that they have a legal leg to stand on.
Your only hope is that the file wasn't bought, but stolen. Then you can have a different, and less controversial, legal case.
Even we have different opinion you were most helpful on this topic and I appreciate that.
-
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
I still think that this is the best answer on this thread.
If that doesn't work, one of our TV presenters once said, "I'm gay for professional reasons" (though in his case, it was a joke as he'd been 'out' for many years).
Yes, it could be that I agree, of course unfortunately it could be other way around because we are not all in well developed countries and if that happens (example: lose future project from some company because of that) that would be a completely different case where he would be discriminated about falsely presented sexual orientation.
We can forget about this case from now on, let assume we all sorted everything out, but this topics is something to talk about. Wives or husbands of models can look it differently, and that's why I stand behind my words that his kind of usage is sensitive.
-
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.
We are talking about selling RF here. The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used. If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.
As for talking with the compliance depts of the agencies, if you are indie your wasting your time. I have had REAL undeniable misuses and the agencies did jack all.
-
We are talking about selling RF here. The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used. If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.
Which RM companies contact you to pre-approve any use?
Also, which companies allow you to place files which have already sold as RF as RM? For just general RM sales, with no exclusivity, it's possible; but I'm sure I've heard that quite a few won't allow it.
As mentioned above, the model should join a pukka agency to get the right to go forward for only the jobs he's happy with, and give up stock modelling.
-
We are talking about selling RF here. The models sign a general release allowing broad usage and forgoing the right to preapprove or even post-approve how their image is used. If you or your models want the right to preapprove usages, then you should pull all your stuff with humans in it and put it into RM only.
Which RM companies contact you to pre-approve any use?
Also, which companies allow you to place files which have already sold as RF as RM? For just general RM sales, with no exclusivity, it's possible; but I'm sure I've heard that quite a few won't allow it.
As mentioned above, the model should join a pukka agency to get the right to go forward for only the jobs he's happy with, and give up stock modelling.
The OP suggested he and the model should get to preapprove usages. That's never been the case with RF. Thats why I recommend selling RM. You get more control over which usages are allowed. Unless you know something about RM that I don't. If so, you explain where I got it wrong?
-
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you.
So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this. It doesn't matter where you or your model live or what you both think. It only matters what the contract of the specific agency the image was licensed through would state, and how the laws in the country of the image user is. If you can't live with that, stock isn't right for you.
And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not. Not that macrostock agencies have less lenient terms but at least the chances are much smaller that some hobbyist blogger or party organizer is going to use my model images.
But as you keep arguing your case without the ability to distinguish between your personal opinion and reliable legal terms... I guess this won't be your last post here.
-
So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this.
And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not.
You are telling me to stop being stock photographer (or at least microstock) and then you are acting like insulted child when I pointed out the truth that you mostly shoot object and yourself (on your microstock portfolios), and not only that, you in some way confirmed my opinion when you said that you stopped uploading model photos to microstock because of issues like that, so there is something there. You could be helpful roughly explaining some your cases but you decided to quote the part I was arguing with someone who tried to insult me.
I'm not talking about my case anymore, just replying to you.
-
Don't know why everyone is bashing at panicAttack.
The situation described can be deeply offensive/defamatory for the model.
-
model should be aware that photographer don't know for what his image will be used for.
Let's call this "Business Risk"..i don't think he can start any legal action vs you
if you don't like to risk "your" face/image you don't choose to work as a model...
-
Most likely depends where the image was licensed from. iStock says this is prohibited: "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."
-
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)
Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.
After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
-
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)
Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.
After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."
Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.
-
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)
Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.
After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."
Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.
Those terms are effective 29 July.
Anyway, sending a DMCA to a client that potentially have bought the image is just plain stupid.
-
Don't know why everyone is bashing at panicAttack.
The situation described can be deeply offensive/defamatory for the model.
You don't understand the situation any more than him. Here's the simplest answer I can say...
What is deeply offensive to the model does not qualify as defammatory in the legal sense. The personal likes, dislikes, biases, etc. Of the model are irrelevant to whether there was misuse of the image.
The usage described would not qualify as LEGALLY defammatory in most countries liberal enough to have Pride celebration.
Edit. Below is the first time adult entertainment context was mentioned. That is definitely sensitive use. You buried the lead mate.
-
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments :)
Looks like they didn't even bought the picture.
After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
I would be very careful doing things like that, didn't SS just update their terms?
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."
Seems like you risk violating the terms of your agreement by doing this which could possibly result in your account being closed.
I did contact SS but it looks like that has nothing with them. They finally answered my emails and we are communicating now.
I am in contact with them and we are friendly communicating about that (real problem doesn't have anything with orientation, but connotation with adult entertainment, because they are using terms like "sexy bitches" "go-go parties", ).
-
To tye OP, glad the situation wzs ressolved to you and your models satisfaction. You got lucky that it turned out to be a simple copyright violation.
Personally, I would still remove images of that model from my port. If he's so picky and sensitive this won't be the last problem he makes for you.
-
Thanks.
After I searched their site it looks like adult entertainment club parties site, it's not site about homosexual rights and equality I was assuming first. That usage would be legal on agency they bought the image.
So, I was wrong in some way, but I friendly advised them not to use microstock images when putting text like "Sexy bitches" "go-go party" because it could lead them into a legal trouble.
On site where the image was downloaded that usage isn't allowed.
-
Thanks.
After I searched their site it looks like adult entertainment club parties site, it's not site about homosexual rights and equality I was assuming first. That usage would be legal on agency they bought the image.
So, I was wrong in some way, but I friendly advised them not to use microstock images when putting text like "Sexy bitches" "go-go party" because it could lead them into a legal trouble.
On site where the image was downloaded that usage isn't allowed.
You really need to be careful going after people like you did, as it turns out you were completely misjudging the situation.
If I were you I would stop working with that model and in the future research properly before going after buyers.
-
Thanks.
After I searched their site it looks like adult entertainment club parties site, it's not site about homosexual rights and equality I was assuming first. That usage would be legal on agency they bought the image.
So, I was wrong in some way, but I friendly advised them not to use microstock images when putting text like "Sexy bitches" "go-go party" because it could lead them into a legal trouble.
On site where the image was downloaded that usage isn't allowed.
Your right. Adult entertainment would be considered sensitive use on all sites most of us sell on.
Glad you were sucessful in taking it down.
-
You really need to be careful going after people like you did, as it turns out you were completely misjudging the situation.
If I were you I would stop working with that model and in the future research properly before going after buyers.
From the start I knew this isn't only about false orientation but didn't want to put everything public. I was the one who wanted this solved more then anyone else, as well if any of my female models got in banner for Go go shower party girls and similar I will do the same.
They in some way confirmed that didn't read terms of conditions and asked me for opinion.
I am not a money grabber or anything, on the site they bought the picture they can be refunded and after our conversation there will be no legal actions.
-
Why should they be refunded if they used the file, even though against T&C?
What reason would they have not to try this again?
Glad it's been sorted to your satisfaction. Certainly I'd hate models to be used as gogo shower girls or suchlike.
-
Why should they be refunded if they used the file, even though against T&C?
What reason would they have not to try this again?
Glad it's been sorted to your satisfaction. Certainly I'd hate models to be used as gogo shower girls or suchlike.
They didn't took refund at least for now.
I had two main problems here... my english and the fact that I didn't know if or where they bought the photo (because they didn't answered my mails). Only Dreamstime and iStock had sexual connotation usage mentioned in the terms of use, on first it is not allowed and second one need text about illustrative purposes.
When they told me they used Fotolia to buy image I could read specifically their terms of use and there is paragraph
III. ads for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, including escort or similar services;
I knew this wasn't pure pornography, dating service or escort but when I saw on their page terms like "creamy party", "sexy bitches party" "go-go shower" etc.
They agreed to remove that photo from all their sites and I friendly advised them no to use any other microstock photos for such events. The problem remains because I have information from friend (my gay friends who were attending the event) that they were using my photo on printed banner in the city in which was that event but of course they said nothing about it (not confirmed nor denied).
So now I am with contact with Fotolia legal team but I will not talk about this in public until all is finished.
I do understand some contributors here who "attacked" me because even I didn't know about adult entertainment restriction, but it was logical to me.
My experience so far: SS legal team (I contacted when I didn't know in what agency they bought the photo) was fastest to respond with best advises and I thank them for it.
Now we will see with Fotolia legal team if image is used as printed banner and what we can do about that.
-
double post, sorry
-
With all this in mind, I can't wait for the first homosexual man or woman to object to having his photographs used to promote a heterosexual event, club, or ad. Now that will be interesting to see how misrepresentation laws are going to tackle it.
-
With all this in mind, I can't wait for the first homosexual man or woman to object to having his photographs used to promote a heterosexual event, club, or ad. Now that will be interesting to see how misrepresentation laws are going to tackle it.
It wouldn't necessarily come to misrepresentation laws. Depending where the file was purchased, it might be simply a case of breaking the terms of use. How much backup you'd get from the distributor or agency concerned would be the interesting point.
-
With all this in mind, I can't wait for the first homosexual man or woman to object to having his photographs used to promote a heterosexual event, club, or ad. Now that will be interesting to see how misrepresentation laws are going to tackle it.
I would be the first one to support him/her if my homosexual model male or female got used in adult entertainment clubs/parties with ads like "sexy bitches".
I respect my models.
-
While I am absent of all of the specific facts, I have an answer for your question. Every single attribute of an image that you create and choose to license is controlled by you. From the specific agreement that you make with your model to who licenses the image, for what use and for how much, you control every single aspect of the image. You own it. With ownership comes the privilege to enjoy the rewards you choose to derive from an image. Responsibility also comes with ownership. You are also responsible for every single thing that happens to that same image. You control whether or not an image is sold into any specific environment. You can choose not to sell to tobacco manufacturers, homeless entities, any specific religious entity OR message, homosexual situations - everything. You have an agreement with a model that grants you specific rights. Do they include the right to sell to anyone for anything or are there limitations? Does the agreement that you have with agency 1,2, 3, 4 or 5 give them the right to license the image for all situations or are there limitations? It's up to you to ensure that you set whatever boundaries you want and then honor and enforce them. If you don't want to sell to tobacco, homosexual messaging, a particular religious message, don't. Set it up the way you want it to be. Here is how to answer your own question. Please remember I am not addressing my self to a specific situation, just showing the thought process. If the model precluded homosexual environments and you allowed it to be sold that way, you are at fault. If you have an agency working with Rights Managed images, have you limited their distribution accordingly? The specific facts have to align with the agreements that you have both backwards and forwards. Backwards to the components of the image and forward to the licensees. You don't need to ask us, although the fact that you don't know and thus are asking is good. Pull out your paperwork, look at the license that was granted. Is everything in alignment or has any one of the agreements you have along the way been violated? This is contract law - likely in any country. It isn't personal. If you engage in the business of professional photography, then you must know, exercise and honor the agreements you have made. There are a lot of ways to do business and if you are a professional, make sure you know them. If photography is not one's profession, then one has a particular duty not to be upset when the Rules of the Road apply and one hasn't read the rule book. Everyone that is a professional has to start somewhere and that seems to be what you are doing. Realize that there may be some things you may not know and that you can learn before the next question comes up. I recommend ASMP Business Practices book It's very good. ASMP.org
-
You have to ask yourself, would a proud gay model be able to object to his image being used in a ad promoting a straight agenda? I don't think so.
If I took a photo of a gay couple and put it on a website advertising services that supposedly cure homosexuality with church-based counseling and said that couple was now happily straight, I'm pretty those proud gay models would be very upset and they would do everything in their power to get their photos off at website.