pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock images used instead of 'real people' in campaign ad...  (Read 14108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 01, 2010, 17:58 »
0


on yesterday's Rachel Maddow, intersting use of istock photos by an anonymous group that's spent over $160K against Rep defazio of OR - their home page uses several istock images - shown in the video below, and doesnt reveal these are models, insteaad implying these are real supporters

they showed tghe images on istock, but didnt mention the photographer's name

steve

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39449958


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2010, 19:03 »
0
What would be really funny is if the same "supporters" showed up in their rivals ads.

« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2010, 19:22 »
0
So I guess political advertising is perfectly fine for model released content. I consider advertising for republican candidates defamatory however.

« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2010, 19:28 »
0
All jokes aside, if the campaign attributed quotes and names to the models, I believe that would be a breach of the licensing agreement. If the images are just there, mingled with text, I think that usage is okay. I did not feel like watching the clip however, but if you see a clear breach, I suggest you contact compliance enforcement at the various agencies. It would be kinda fun seeing some of these politicos get their asses handed to them, though it's not like they are unfamiliar with breaking the law. Most of them seem pretty adept at it. And don't care.

bittersweet

« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2010, 20:04 »
0
All jokes aside, if the campaign attributed quotes and names to the models, I believe that would be a breach of the licensing agreement. If the images are just there, mingled with text, I think that usage is okay. I did not feel like watching the clip however, but if you see a clear breach, I suggest you contact compliance enforcement at the various agencies. It would be kinda fun seeing some of these politicos get their asses handed to them, though it's not like they are unfamiliar with breaking the law. Most of them seem pretty adept at it. And don't care.

It looked like there was text on the left of the page and a collage of random people images on the right. While it was impossible to read the text in the video, the general look of the blocks of text did not seem to be attributing specific quotes or claiming that the images were anything other than what they appeared to be: random people. Can't tell for sure without looking at the actual site, of course.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2010, 09:28 »
0
Rachel loves to dig up the Istock photos featured in political ads.  This is at least the third time she's done it.  It's a funny bit, definitely!

I don't have a problem with these politicians using stock photos, though.  My husband was used in an Obama mailing in 08.  We support Obama, but even if it had been McCaine or someone else we didn't support, regardless of political affiliation, this is what we signed up for when we posted microstock pics. 

I mostly wish Rachel would stop promoting Istock and use other sites to reference on her show.  Assuming the pics she's finding aren't exclusive. 

« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Mother and son is exclusive (link)

So is the family (link)

I didn't look up the others. Maybe we should all email her to let her know that there are other agencies out there!

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2010, 15:18 »
0
What would be really funny is if the same "supporters" showed up in their rivals ads.

It already happened in the UK during the last major election. Sorry I'm not in the UK, but I'm sure google will find it if you play around with some searches. There might even be a thread right here on MSG.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 15:21 by stormchaser »

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2010, 15:32 »
0
What would be really funny is if the same "supporters" showed up in their rivals ads.

It already happened in the UK during the last major election. Sorry I'm not in the UK, but I'm sure google will find it if you play around with some searches. There might even be a thread right here on MSG.
There was a thread here. A photo (iStock?) of a young woman was used with a "quotation" actually "saying" she supported the (Northern Irish) party concerned.
A rival party licensed the same photo, and used it similarly, but with a "quotation" saying, "I've changed my mind"!
Even more worrying was the case where a photo of a family from iStock was used, with a quotation stating why they supported the National Front, an extreme Right Wing/Fascist/jingoistic party in the UK. Ironically, the family in the pic was Italian; but just as well, as membership of the NF can be a sackable offence here, and it would have been extremely awkward in working and social life.

OM

« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2010, 10:50 »
0
Mother and son is exclusive (link)

So is the family (link)

I didn't look up the others. Maybe we should all email her to let her know that there are other agencies out there!


Judging by the name of the photographer (Dutch) and that a lot of his photo's are made in Berlin and the Netherlands, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that featured female is not a US taxpayer! :D

« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2011, 12:47 »
0
I'm torn between whether or not I think this is a breach of the contract terms.  While a quote is not attributed to any of the people in the ad, it does strongly suggest that all of these people are of a certain political mindset.

It's a poor investment in my opinion.  The risk far outweighs the reward.  Even if it is not a breach, stuff like this gets "outed" in a hurry on the internet.  It is very disingenuous, and it ruins whatever message they were trying to get across. I feel the same way about companies who use stock photos which suggest "these people work here" on their website or in their printed materials.  Especially if those people are suggested to be in positions of power.  It's disingenuous.  If the actual managers can't show their faces, why trust the company?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2011, 13:24 »
0
So I guess political advertising is perfectly fine for model released content. I consider advertising for republican candidates defamatory however.

lol, I agree! but jokes aside...this could be considered a breach of the license agreement. AFAIK people cannot be depicted to endorse a product or party or what have you without a disclaimer on the ad that indicates it is dramatization.

« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2011, 15:40 »
0
Old thread alert!

grp_photo

« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2011, 16:09 »
0
Good thread alert!  ;D

« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2011, 17:25 »
0
Good thread alert!  ;D


I'd agree.

I was in the dentist this week and the TV screen in reception was showing a slideshow of adverts for various dental treatments, etc. One of them was an advert for dental veneers which featured this image of Yuri's, cropped closely so that the model's superb nashers were extremely prominent;



The way that it was displayed, although not explicitly stated, I'm sure anyone viewing the advert would have assumed that the photo was of someone 'wearing' the dental veneer product.

« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2011, 05:39 »
0
A lot - probably most - of the usage of stock photos of people must imply the use and endorsement of a product. Otherwise, what do people buy them for? Put a slim girl on a skimmed milk carton and it implies that she's thin from using that product. Show a happy "business team" in a company report and it implies they are members of that company's staff. Show a pregnant woman in a pregnancy health article and the implication exists that she is following the advice and endorsing it with her smile. Show a bride in an ad for wedding dresses and it implies she is wearing that company's gear. The whole idea of stock is based on pretending things are what they are not. Even a restaurant menu showing a stock food photo is mildly deceptive.
Anyone who signs a model release should know that their images is likely to be used to imply they use and approve of some product or other.

« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 05:45 »
0
A lot - probably most - of the usage of stock photos of people must imply the use and endorsement of a product. Otherwise, what do people buy them for? Put a slim girl on a skimmed milk carton and it implies that she's thin from using that product. Show a happy "business team" in a company report and it implies they are members of that company's staff. Show a pregnant woman in a pregnancy health article and the implication exists that she is following the advice and endorsing it with her smile. Show a bride in an ad for wedding dresses and it implies she is wearing that company's gear. The whole idea of stock is based on pretending things are what they are not. Even a restaurant menu showing a stock food photo is mildly deceptive.


Exactly.  The photos support and endorse the ad, inferring that the subjects are that way or are there because they back up the content.  I'd say the general idea of this is different than explicitly saying "Bob like Crest Toothpaste - see him smile?!?".

That said, check out this ad, which I'd say is over the line:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/03/law-firm-ads-911-firefighter-wasnt-at-911.html

rubyroo

« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 05:46 »
0
The art of artifice...

« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2011, 05:54 »
0
That said, check out this ad, which I'd say is over the line:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/03/law-firm-ads-911-firefighter-wasnt-at-911.html


That is an outright endorsement, putting words into the model's mouth. The concept is also incredibly tasteless and inconsiderate but I guess that's what happens when lawyers and ad agencies put their heads together. Perhaps they should change it to show Mike Ledray in his gas mask with a photo of Fukushima nuclear power plant.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 05:56 by BaldricksTrousers »

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2011, 06:20 »
0
That said, check out this ad, which I'd say is over the line:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/03/law-firm-ads-911-firefighter-wasnt-at-911.html

Are there no advertising standards at all in the US? I just don't understand why they said this:
"When creating the ad, we purchased stock photography of an actor dressed as a firefighter, and we obtained all required model releases and real property owner releases, specifically including use for any purpose (such as advertising) as well all rights regarding the manipulation and/or alteration of the image. This is standard procedure for advertising agencies. At no time did we have any idea -- nor could we have had any knowledge -- that the person in the photo, Robert Keiley, was an actual firefighter, much less a New York City firefighter. This unfortunate coincidence makes the ad into something we never intended it to be."
I just don't get this. The issue is that the advert is a lie. The MR issue is largely irrelevant. So is the fact that the model is a real firefighter, though that is acutely embarrassing for him personally and professionally.
Are there really NO advertising standards regulations in the US?
I guess the moral is, "never sign an MR unless it is very tightly worded".

rubyroo

« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2011, 06:26 »
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.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 06:33 by rubyroo »

« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2011, 06:29 »
0
Well, exactly.  They've completely missed the point of the outrage.

« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2011, 22:08 »
0
That said, check out this ad, which I'd say is over the line:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/03/law-firm-ads-911-firefighter-wasnt-at-911.html


That is an outright endorsement, putting words into the model's mouth. The concept is also incredibly tasteless and inconsiderate but I guess that's what happens when lawyers and ad agencies put their heads together. Perhaps they should change it to show Mike Ledray in his gas mask with a photo of Fukushima nuclear power plant.



LOL!

you mean like THIS?

Thanks for the mention
:)


« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2011, 08:02 »
0
You're welcome. But I was thinking of a close-up shot ... I'm sure you'll feel free to pimp away  ;D

I don't know if image pimping is allowed, though.

« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2011, 07:44 »
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.

« 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
10335 Views
Last post July 24, 2009, 20:20
by microstockinsider
3 Replies
2100 Views
Last post October 04, 2012, 15:26
by Perry
41 Replies
6516 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 04:15
by gillian vann
2 Replies
1998 Views
Last post March 27, 2014, 06:11
by ShadySue
19 Replies
4830 Views
Last post December 18, 2015, 16:59
by max headroom

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results