MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock image legs amputated for diabetes ad...NYT now looking for Getty model  (Read 12680 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.

RT


« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 12:29 »
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?

I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.

ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2012, 12:47 »
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?


I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.


Advertising Standards Authrority (UK)
http://www.asa.org.uk


« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2012, 12:55 »
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.

Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights.  Wish I could remember where I read that, so I could share it.

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2012, 13:05 »
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.

Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights.  Wish I could remember where I read that, so I could share it.

I had an old Amphoto book on food photography (at least 20 years old) which said that you can't use wax peas or larger fishfingers or suchlike in adverts, I think that was in the US (most likely for Amphoto, but maybe it was UK?) - other examples were perspex ice cubes, cigarette smoke instead of steam ...

RT


« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2012, 13:07 »
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?


I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.


Advertising Standards Authrority (UK)
http://www.asa.org.uk


Exactly, nothing in the CAP codes of practise say anything where the way the ad is made graphically has to be "legal, decent, honest and truthful" in a way that the OP's example would be an infringement over here, as I said earlier those rules are to stop the ad 'misleading consumers' by way of the message/information it's portraying.
The guy in the photo may have a case for defamation of character but that's another issue.

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2012, 13:15 »
0
I don't think it could be defamation of character.
But anyway, what good does this sort of usage do the cause? There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?
People who see this sort of fakery just use it as an excuse to put the message out of their mind, and it damages future campaigns, as people just think photos used are fakes. Yes, they want to believe that, but it just feeds into that want if a precedent can be established.
It's a serious message, and deserves not to be hijacked like this.

RT


« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2012, 13:22 »
0
There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?

From the link: But they said that doing so was not always feasible. Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors

Sometimes when I'm doing an outdoor shoot I want the sun to shine, it doesn't always happen so I use a big light  ;)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 13:25 by RT »

« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2012, 13:24 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2012, 13:34 »
0
There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?

From the link: But they said that doing so was not always feasible. Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors
So put "posed by actor"

But the question is has the cause received more widespread publicity through this and is any publicity good publicity, or does it turn people against the important message?
That I can't answer.

« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2012, 15:29 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm


That is pretty funny.

I looked at both images and it seems that the ingredients are identical, but the person taking the pics on the right is a. no food stylist  b. not a pro photographer because the lighting sucks. Of course when we buy the product it isn't going to look as good as the pro shot, but then I imagine the pros have the benefit of getting "perfect" food ingredients to photograph.

I'll bet one of us could make the same purchases and get those images to look a heck of a lot better, even if the sandwich has been mashed down.

Just a funny regional story...for some reason, some people in South Carolina think all sandwiches should be "mashed". You watch them build the sandwich and it looks decent, then when they wrap it, they mash it before giving it to you. Very annoying.

« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2012, 15:40 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm


That is pretty funny.

I looked at both images and it seems that the ingredients are identical, but the person taking the pics on the right is a. no food stylist  b. not a pro photographer because the lighting sucks. Of course when we buy the product it isn't going to look as good as the pro shot, but then I imagine the pros have the benefit of getting "perfect" food ingredients to photograph.

I'll bet one of us could make the same purchases and get those images to look a heck of a lot better, even if the sandwich has been mashed down.

Just a funny regional story...for some reason, some people in South Carolina think all sandwiches should be "mashed". You watch them build the sandwich and it looks decent, then when they wrap it, they mash it before giving it to you. Very annoying.


South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2012, 15:49 »
0
^^^ True! Of course the 'advert products', the burgers in particular, will be wonders of modern engineering and held in place with a variety of cocktail sticks, glue, vaseline, all just out of shot. They're certainly not for eating.

One thing I like about food photography is that you never stop learning little techniques to make food look absolutely mouth-watering __ although the food is often inedible.


« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2012, 15:50 »
0
South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

Mashing sandwiches is weird, but I wouldn't go so far to say South Carolina is weird. Or maybe I'm weird...I like it here. But I do agree with you about Newt...could NOT believe that happened.

« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2012, 15:51 »
0
^^^ True! Of course the 'advert products', the burgers in particular, will be wonders of modern engineering and held in place with a variety of cocktail sticks, glue, vaseline, all just out of shot. They're certainly not for eating.

One thing I like about food photography is that you never stop learning little techniques to make food look absolutely mouth-watering __ although the food is often inedible.

I love food photography.

« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2012, 16:23 »
0
South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

Mashing sandwiches is weird, but I wouldn't go so far to say South Carolina is weird. Or maybe I'm weird...I like it here. But I do agree with you about Newt...could NOT believe that happened.

Yeh...you're right!  I live in California and our weirdness beats the entire nation!   :D

« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2012, 16:37 »
0
If the model doesn't have a problem with it, there's no problem...

« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2012, 17:25 »
0
If the model doesn't have a problem with it, there's no problem...

If there's a proper model release, there's no problem.

« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2012, 20:59 »
0
How come the photographer says he never knew the man's name and yet, according to Getty, it has a signed model release?
Privacy? I would say exactly the same.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2012, 21:21 »
0
I wonder why the photographer lied? That is probably the part in this that is most creepy. He shot the guy in a studio, so he probably spent a few hours with the guy, certainly had a signed release, and should be able to find it fairly easily. Perhaps he panicked and instead of saying "no comment" the lie came out first.

« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2012, 16:13 »
0

« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2012, 18:13 »
0
Waaah...

« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2012, 19:05 »
0
Model not happy but admits to signing release.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/actor-beyond-shocked-ad-altered-leg-appear-amputated-173035069.html


He signed it __ therefore he didn't have a leg to stand on.


« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2012, 19:24 »
0
He's definitely trying to put his best foot forward by promoting himself with the publicity.

« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2012, 19:31 »
0
True. Any decent lawyer would tell him to hop it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2012, 00:03 »
0
Waaah...

Yes, anything to get into the news. Society of victims.

And anyone who thinks advertisements are the truth, needs some serious reality education. It's selling something, I assume they aren't telling the whole truth, or are embellishing the facts.

As many people have pointed out, every photo we take, unless we get real people from that profession, are subject to the same complaint about truthful advertising. Every woman shown with children must be the real parent? Anyone photographed with an item, must actually own that item...

Yes, food photos on packages must be the same as the contents. Look closely at the packages, it often says, image enlarged to show detail.  :)

It's an illustration on a public service informational poster. Must be a shortage of real news?

« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2012, 00:55 »
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.

haha great quote, and well stated by John Kelly

« Reply #51 on: January 31, 2012, 09:12 »
0

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2012, 17:00 »
0

He signed it __ therefore he didn't have a leg to stand on.

ROFLMAO!!  ;D

« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2012, 19:52 »
0
I've was following this story elsewhere for a bit at the beginning, but its just such crap all around. The photographer definitely knew who the guys was and lied about it. It should simply be labeled as an illustration and left at that - isn't that what stock photography is all about... using images as source material???  All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

What's this saying to amputees, by the way? The model's disgust seems to say a lot.... although one look tells me he could've been depicted in MUCH more unflattering terms. Maybe surrounded by a mound of cheesburgers? Sitting on a crushed treadmill?

« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2012, 20:27 »
0
I think the model better shake a leg if he wants to get a leg up on Getty's lawyers. Personally I think they'll walk all over him.

ShadySue

« Reply #55 on: January 31, 2012, 20:34 »
0
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2012, 20:34 »
0
Really the whole story is just odd - someone uses photoshop as part of an advertising campaign? I'm shocked!

Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this? If he's a busy commercial photographer then he probably can't remember, and isn't going to go digging around in his file in response to a question that's probably over the phone. They don't go and call all the attractive people who act in McDonalds advertising to see if they really eat McCrapburgers do they? Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

Why should the standards be different just because someone is promoting a health issue, rather than trying to sell children sugar?


« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2012, 20:37 »
0
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big * deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"?  Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2012, 20:40 »
0
Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this?

He shouldn't, but he shouldn't lie either. Simply saying "I'm not willing to share the model's name." would be a truthful answer. He makes himself look bad by saying he didn't know who the guy was. I've shot thousands of models going back a decade and can pull a release for every single one within a couple minutes. Anyone who can't do the same should re-examine their organizational skills and business policy.

ShadySue

« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2012, 20:47 »
0
Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00046304.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/photoshopped-julia-roberts-advert-banned-in-uk
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 20:55 by ShadySue »

« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2012, 20:53 »
0
Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this?

He shouldn't, but he shouldn't lie either. Simply saying "I'm not willing to share the model's name." would be a truthful answer. He makes himself look bad by saying he didn't know who the guy was. I've shot thousands of models going back a decade and can pull a release for every single one within a couple minutes. Anyone who can't do the same should re-examine their organizational skills and business policy.

Well to be honest if someone asked me if I knew the name of a model I'd shot 2 years ago, and I didn't know, and I was wanting to be polite, that's exactly how I'd answer. Maybe his answer was "I don't know, I'd have to look it up, but I couldn't tell you even if I did look it up". I wouldn't necessarily trust everything I read from a journalist as being a 100% account of events. Probably I wouldn't be quite so polite - its none of their business.

« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2012, 20:55 »
0
Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing


Its different when you're selling a product and claiming that it has that result. They don't apply that standard with food or beverage advertising.

ShadySue

« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2012, 21:04 »
0
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big  deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"?  Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.

« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2012, 21:40 »
0
The nice thing about this story is that the $500 model fee would have paid for enough fresh salads to last several months  __ which is probably what the young chap spent it on! Another happy ending.

« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2012, 01:03 »
0
Nor do they try to work out who appears in other advertising to see how many blemishes have been photoshopped out.

They absolutely do:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00046304.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/photoshopped-julia-roberts-advert-banned-in-uk


It was pretty extreme retouching: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/58821
Even so, the basis of the objection to that advert is at least as ridiculous and misleading as the advert itself. The 700 people who objected to the PS work around her eyes are indicating that they believe that "Olay is the secret" to whatever the appearance of her eyes actually is, as long as there isn't any retouching. Does anyone really believe that celebs/models genuinely prefer whatever they endorse? If so, why don't they announce it before they get their fat cheques from manufacturers?

« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2012, 17:17 »
0
I sure won't hire that model - complaining about contracts and making trouble.  ::)

ShadySue

« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2012, 17:56 »
0
I sure won't hire that model - complaining about contracts and making trouble.  ::)
Clearly he was put up to it by the paper, and may even have been misquoted. Or words 'put into his mouth'. You know how it goes.


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2012, 05:27 »
0
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big  deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"?  Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.


lol. you really want to start telling people they might end up as the face of a new hemorrhoid product?

ShadySue

« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2012, 06:20 »
0
All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

I wonder how many stockers who use models have explained anything like this sort of potential use.

There's no way to know, I guess but really - what's the big  deal? Being depicted as missing half a leg is offensive or something? He's a model - isn't he supposed to be "playing a role"?  Or does he just expect to be cast as the "generic fat guy doing nothing" for the rest of his career?

I wasn't thinking about him in particular, or even this exact use, but the other people (family, friends, strangers in the street) who model for far less than $500 a shoot and wouldn't really consider themselves actors or even models.


lol. you really want to start telling people they might end up as the face of a new hemorrhoid product?
Everyone I've ever asked has refused and fall about laughing when I mention the slight possibility of Viagra ads or "They could photoshop you in any way they want" and wonder, as I do, why anyone would agree to that.
If I didn't tell them and they end up used like that, only the lawyers would get rich, and I'd get poor, arguing about whether "you should have carefully read the release and thought about the implications before you signed" really fulfils the notion of "fully-informed consent". And even then, it's your word against theirs, and only the lawyers would get rich arguing that out.

RacePhoto

« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2012, 06:38 »
0
lol. you really want to start telling people they might end up as the face of a new hemorrhoid product?


They would probably be concerned that they would be the butt of a joke.

Every model starts at the bottom?


.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4899 Views
Last post December 16, 2008, 19:30
by grp_photo
38 Replies
16128 Views
Last post March 02, 2010, 19:08
by RT
1 Replies
1291 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 14:16
by ann
3 Replies
2578 Views
Last post January 27, 2018, 12:32
by stockastic
1 Replies
1804 Views
Last post October 10, 2018, 11:32
by fotoVoyager

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results