pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock images used instead of 'real people' in campaign ad...  (Read 14088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2011, 09:44 »
0
Not exactly the same thing, but over the weekend I happened upon a photographer's portfolio web site which displayed their best efforts in a couple genres.  In addition there was an information page describing his headshot services and displaying two beautiful images.  However, there was something remarkably familiar about the shots.  Both are big sellers from iStockphoto by two different photographers, neither of whom are the photographer using the images on his website. 

I guess he was smart enough to put them on a separate page from his portfolio, but it does strike me as a potentially stupid mistake in the long run to put other photographer's work on your website advertising your services. It took me about 5 seconds to plug in the right keywords to make either image pop up to the first page of a best match search.

That is dumb. I've actually seen a designer or two doing the same thing (posting someone else's work as their own).


digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2011, 13:54 »
0
wrong quote
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 14:00 by digitalexpressionimages »

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2011, 13:57 »
0
I had the same reaction, Sue.  There might be some extra sensitivity towards the firefighter concerned, but they make it sound as though that's the main issue.

Why say 'I was there' at all?  Wasn't the event itself horrendous enough to suggest that this was a bad move - no matter who the model was?

_______________________________

ETA:  Oops - my comment under SJ's above looks glib when put into context with his post.  Sorry - I posted that before I'd read his message.

If the issue is that they made this model/actor out to be something he wasn't then I say boo hoo to him. They had a disclaimer on the ad and he signed a release and in fact was a model at the time the photo was taken. It goes with the territory. If, on the other hand, the issue is the law firm and ad agency being tasteless by trying to exploit the tragic events of September 11, 2001 I have to wonder: is anyone really so naive as to think people didn't get rich over that event? Every photographer who captured and then sold images that day and the days that followed, to a news agency or elsewhere, profited from the event. There have been several movies made, and I can tell you, actors, directors, film crews and distributors DON'T work for free. They are all tasteless bast**ds I guess. Come on, even CNN, Fox and every other news broadcaster sold millions in ads while covering that event. Newspapers sold millions of copies during that time as well. In fact, tasteless as it may seem, they only stopped covering the story when it was no longer profitable to do so.

In other words, this law firm is only doing what so many others have already done, taking a tragic, iconic event and turning it into business.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 13:59 by digitalexpressionimages »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
10332 Views
Last post July 24, 2009, 20:20
by microstockinsider
3 Replies
2098 Views
Last post October 04, 2012, 15:26
by Perry
41 Replies
6510 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 04:15
by gillian vann
2 Replies
1997 Views
Last post March 27, 2014, 06:11
by ShadySue
19 Replies
4826 Views
Last post December 18, 2015, 16:59
by max headroom

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results