pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock image legs amputated for diabetes ad...NYT now looking for Getty model  (Read 12497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2012, 17:04 »
0
"When city officials announced the campaign on Jan. 9, they did not let on that the man shown whose photo came from a company that supplies stock images to advertising firms and others was not an amputee and may not have had diabetes. The city did not identify the man, and efforts to reach the agency that supplied the photo were unsuccessful. The photographer who took the picture, Morten Smidt, said he did not know the mans name.

Mr. Smidt said on Tuesday that he had not seen the advertisement. In response to a description of it, he said, Well, it is an illustration now, clearly not the picture I did.

Ed

« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2012, 17:11 »
0
Getty images accepting a commercial image without a model release?  Bwaaaahahahahahahah...the photographer knows who the guy is and lied outright to the media.


« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2012, 17:15 »
0
Heres what we know so far: the photo seems to have been taken in a studio in 2008 by a New York-based photographer, Morten Smidt, who sold it to the stock photo agency Image Source, which has it listed in its portfolio as portrait of overweight man.
A poster of a man who supposedly lost his leg to diabetes has been going up in the subways of New York.ReutersThe more familiar version of the photo.

Mr. Smidt says he never knew the mans name. Image Source says it cannot divulge it.

Image Sources portfolio of the man includes 12 photos of him. He is fairly flexible: in one of the pictures, hes doing a modified split.


What do they mean he "sold" the photo to Image Source?  I'm not familiar with that agency. 

« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2012, 17:17 »
0
Is Image Source a Getty-owned company?  Because the original article has a Getty copyright for the same photo.

« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2012, 17:20 »
0
Is Image Source a Getty-owned company?  Because the original article has a Getty copyright for the same photo.


Yes.  Image Source has a collection on Thinkstock, too.  I don't know if the collection is wholly-owned by Getty, but I would suspect it is or that Image Source wholly-owns its collection, given the photographer's comments.  Image Source probably handled all the administrative details, like a model release.

Edit:  Here's a link to Image Source's "About Us" page.  http://www.imagesource.com/about-us
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 17:23 by Karimala »


« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2012, 17:24 »
0
OK...so the photographer is covered. 

« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2012, 17:43 »
0
It's an illustration.  Big deal.  There's no "testimonial".

« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2012, 17:44 »
0
I liked this quote;

Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors, said John Kelly, a health department spokesman. We might stop using actors in our ads if the food industry stops using actors in theirs.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2012, 17:52 »
0
Why don't these people just put 'posed by model' and avoid this sort of publicity?

Unless any publicity is good publicity.  ;)

« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2012, 17:54 »
0
I find it interesting...and disconcerting...that the New York Times is putting out an "all points bulletin" to identify the model.

« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2012, 17:59 »
0
How come the photographer says he never knew the man's name and yet, according to Getty, it has a signed model release?

« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2012, 18:27 »
0
How come the photographer says he never knew the man's name and yet, according to Getty, it has a signed model release?

If the shoot was set up by Image Source and the photographer just handled the image side of the shoot, it's entirely possible he wouldn't know, no?

« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2012, 18:49 »
0
It's an illustration.  Big deal.  There's no "testimonial".

I would agree 100%, if the illustration wasn't depicting a fake disabled person.  As the mother of a disabled young woman who models for me, it's frustrating to see disabled models bypassed in favor of a Photoshopped version or an able-bodied model who just uses props.  Unemployment runs extremely high (well over 50%...about 70% for the blind) among the disabled, and it would be so much better if more photographers and agencies would seek them out for modeling gigs so they can actually earn some money instead of relying on government assistance or family.  

But you are right about the fact that this should not be that big of a deal, because as you said there isn't a testimonial.  This isn't the same thing as the NY firefighter who modeled prior to his employment with the NY Fire Department, and whose photo was altered and featured in an ad for a law firm seeking to represent 9/11 victims.  That ad contained a testimonial and made it appear he was there, when he clearly was not.    
    
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 18:51 by Karimala »

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2012, 18:56 »
0
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?


« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2012, 19:23 »
0
How come the photographer says he never knew the man's name and yet, according to Getty, it has a signed model release?

If the shoot was set up by Image Source and the photographer just handled the image side of the shoot, it's entirely possible he wouldn't know, no?

But apparently the photographer 'sold' his image to Image Source. Someone had to direct the model too during the shoot. If it had been an IS arranged shoot, with their own art director who spoke to the model, then the photographer could not have owned the image. The 'facts' as stated so far don't make sense.

« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2012, 19:30 »
0
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?

they'd be wrong - just like everyone in a lab coat didnt go to medical school - most model images would be banned if the models had to asctually have experience in the area depicted

i saw the ad and there's nothing wrong - it shows a man with 1 leg but makes no claims

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2012, 19:35 »
0
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?

they'd be wrong - just like everyone in a lab coat didnt go to medical school - most model images would be banned if the models had to asctually have experience in the area depicted

i saw the ad and there's nothing wrong - it shows a man with 1 leg but makes no claims

I do realise that laws in the US are pretty lax about this.

« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2012, 19:44 »
0
It will be interesting to see how the NYT's report their interview with the model if/when they locate him.  Is this type of editing in the realm of "sensitive use" or no?   I suspect since they want to interview him so badly, they are looking for him to say how he is outraged and angered by the manipulation of his photo.  But in the stock world, this is fair use. 

« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2012, 00:10 »
0
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?

they'd be wrong - just like everyone in a lab coat didnt go to medical school - most model images would be banned if the models had to asctually have experience in the area depicted

i saw the ad and there's nothing wrong - it shows a man with 1 leg but makes no claims

I do realise that laws in the US are pretty lax about this.

Lax? The whole stock industry is about peddling lies, how is this any different? Lets start by being strict about "business team leaders" who have never been business team leaders in their lives. Or doctors with stethoscopes who've haven't even got an O-Level in biology. In fact, anything with a model posing as anything except a model. Or fabulous spas giving beauty treatments, when the premises are nothing like those the image gets sold to to advertise their business. Or food that wasn't cooked by the establishment that uses it in its adverts.

Even nature shots could be used to pretend zoo animals are free while outdoor scenes are often falsified by the deletion of logos, etc.

In stock and advertising, nothing is what it pretends to be. The only possible legal objection to a model's photo being doctored to make someone look like an amputee would be that it is distressing for the model, like putting them in a porn advert, but then you are suggesting that being disabled is socially unacceptable. 

« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2012, 00:24 »
0
I could easily get that kind of information from my records in less than a minute, complete with last known address and phone number. It's likely that the photographer didn't want to reveal the model's name and "I don't know" was an easy way to avoid the question.

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2012, 06:56 »
0
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?

they'd be wrong - just like everyone in a lab coat didnt go to medical school - most model images would be banned if the models had to asctually have experience in the area depicted

i saw the ad and there's nothing wrong - it shows a man with 1 leg but makes no claims

I do realise that laws in the US are pretty lax about this.

Lax? The whole stock industry is about peddling lies, how is this any different?

I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.
I get furious when I see zoo animals in stock agencies labelled as wild, perhaps to avoid getting a zoo rejection; though bizarrely I've seen some taken in the wild which are tagged 'zoo', which beggars belief. I know it's caveat emptor if they don't want to look stupid, and I know it's why most users of wildlife images buy from the specialist macros.
I son't like it when I see one of my photos used in a lying way - even actually saying that my photo is an example of a company's work.
Yeah, I guess that's the nature of stock.
Google Image Search is just one more check a prospective buyer of a product/service has to do nowadays, limited as it is.

« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2012, 07:19 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.

What 'system' is that? It might be good theory but it doesn't work in practice and never will. If you go to MacDonalds does the burger you are served look anything like the picture on the menu? Same with any processed food you buy from the supermarket. Isn't photoshopping of any models 'false advertising'? What about them being plastered with make-up to hide blemishes?

Photoshop exists to make things look different to how they really are.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4816 Views
Last post December 16, 2008, 19:30
by grp_photo
38 Replies
15823 Views
Last post March 02, 2010, 19:08
by RT
1 Replies
1244 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 14:16
by ann
3 Replies
2509 Views
Last post January 27, 2018, 12:32
by stockastic
1 Replies
1439 Views
Last post October 10, 2018, 11:32
by fotoVoyager

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results