MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Weird image (use) - ideas?  (Read 2601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 28, 2011, 03:16 »
0
A weird thing happened when I was reading the online version of one of the (more popular) Belgian newspapers in Dutch "Het Laatste Nieuws". In the "bizarre news" section, there was a headline about a man watching child porn on a laptop in an airplane. It was accompanied by a photo right under the headline. You didn't even have to open the article : the photo was already at the summary news. The photo is of an elderly gentleman, clearly not of stock quality, like taken candidly from another seat. The full article is here. I saved a screen shot in case the image should disappear.

Translation: Man watching child porn on laptop in airplane.

There is no copyright mentioned near the image so one could think this was the man. If stock, in my book this would be clearly slanderous and degrading use. Imagine the model (or even the person taken candidly and sold as editorial) saw this title and his image, wouldn't he have grounds to sue for damages after being recognized by his employer, employees, business associates or family?

Being curious where this image was sold, I opened ImageExchange and it was for sale on Getty and Media Bakery. Thought it was quite surprising since the white balance is far off and the framing is very-snapshot like.
On Getty, the image wasn't available any more. On Media Bakery too but I found an image that definitely looks like the same man and plane here, for sale on Media Bakery.

The image was, according to Google images, also in use (cropped) on a site about deep vein thrombosis on longer flights, here, and credited to David De Lossy/Valueline/Getty Images.

My question is whether this kind of embarrassing use is permitted on Getty (Media Bakery?) and the question is for those on this forum that are contributors on Getty.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 03:27 by AttilaTheNun »


« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 21:07 »
0
Although they are the same image, the first link I opened had a block of text hiding the man's face. I wonder if anyone who isn't used to dealing with stock images would even put the two together unless they happened to have just read the prior article.

 It may be the same way that my images of people in handcuffs show up in news articles without a "stock photo" disclaimer but cropped to show hands, handcuffs and very little recognizable body (with no face or head).  In fact my daughter laughs at how many countries she has been "arrested in" based on where we find the images.

I do agree though that if his face is shown then he would have grounds to complain..as for sueing, I'll leave that for more experienced folks to decide.

« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 00:01 »
0
Although they are the same image, the first link I opened had a block of text hiding the man's face.
As soon as my message appeared on Google (a few hours later), they cropped the image indeed, as I anticipated.
Here is the original screenshot:
http://cjoint.com/11nv/AKEgavArBlP_hln.jpg


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
7837 Views
Last post July 24, 2008, 13:11
by angel gab
9 Replies
5268 Views
Last post March 02, 2009, 09:24
by mantonino
17 Replies
4616 Views
Last post April 23, 2009, 04:31
by Dreamframer
4 Replies
2962 Views
Last post April 20, 2013, 16:38
by ShadySue
Any ideas to suggest to them?

Started by georgep7 « 1 2 3  All » Pond5

55 Replies
13892 Views
Last post October 18, 2019, 18:40
by StockDaebak

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle