MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: tab62 on May 12, 2013, 22:02
-
Hi MSG Folks,
Do I have to remove the doctor's name tag even if I have his/her Model Release? For example say his name reads -
Er John Smith DDS, PhD on both the Name tag and embroiled on his work jacket as well. That is the exact name on his Model Release as well. I thought it would add to the photo but not sure since I don't see any name tags on the majority of photos. He is an actual doctor- no model.
Thanks
Tom
-
.
-
i would just to be safe
-
I would use an actor, is your doctor friend fully aware of the way these images can be used?
have you read what Tom said? he haven't got any issue with the model release, if you read again you will see he is asking if he should remove the doctor name on the tag (hanging on the jacket)
I would clean it, buyer/designer can write it afterwards
-
.
-
Interesting- I will remove the tag. He owns his own business- could RF hurt him professionally? Now I very very confused? Guess I don't fully understand the RF world thus please educate me so I don't do something bad to my friend.
Thanks
-
.
-
I see. I would hate to see this happen to this nice guy. I will use only pics that don't show his face or name tags for sure. Thanks
-
.
-
Yep I read the question (but you didn't, he said does he have to not should he).
sorry? what are you talking about? Tom haven't said that, he never talked about the MR but the tag on the jacket
-
I just looked at the Shutterstock release and it basically says you can do whatever you want with the image, at least the Istock one says it can't be for pornographic or defamatory uses. There are many ways an image of a doctor can be used to illustrate a negative story.
wrong! there isn't an agency allowing that even the sensitive use doesn't allow that, again you are trying hard to pick stuff that doesn't exist
-
.
-
.
-
I just looked at the Shutterstock release and it basically says you can do whatever you want with the image, at least the Istock one says it can't be for pornographic or defamatory uses. There are many ways an image of a doctor can be used to illustrate a negative story.
wrong! there isn't an agency allowing that even the sensitive use doesn't allow that, again you are trying hard to pick stuff that doesn't exist
Great can you give me a link to the sensitive use license.
What is a sensitive use?
A sensitive use might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject of the image suffers from a physical or mental health condition; endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular product, service, cause or opinion; or is otherwise associated with an issue that some might consider controversial or unflattering.
Sensitive uses are subject to specific and important restrictions:
Customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only.
Images may not be used in tobacco ads; in materials that are pornographic; or are used to market and/or promote adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or escort, dating or similar services.
There will be no change in our policy regarding the use of editorial images.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq)
-
Yep I read the question (but you didn't, he said does he have to not should he).
sorry? what are you talking about? Tom haven't said that, he never talked about the MR but the tag on the jacket
This is what he said Luis "Do I have to remove the doctor's name tag even if I have his/her Model Release?"
You amaze me sometimes Luis.
no man YOU amaze me, you are really the rock star here nobody else! pretty much you went where you wished, not exactly what Tom talked about ;D
-
.
-
I just looked at the Shutterstock release and it basically says you can do whatever you want with the image, at least the Istock one says it can't be for pornographic or defamatory uses. There are many ways an image of a doctor can be used to illustrate a negative story.
wrong! there isn't an agency allowing that even the sensitive use doesn't allow that, again you are trying hard to pick stuff that doesn't exist
Great can you give me a link to the sensitive use license.
What is a sensitive use?
A sensitive use might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject of the image suffers from a physical or mental health condition; endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular product, service, cause or opinion; or is otherwise associated with an issue that some might consider controversial or unflattering.
Sensitive uses are subject to specific and important restrictions:
Customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only.
Images may not be used in tobacco ads; in materials that are pornographic; or are used to market and/or promote adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or escort, dating or similar services.
There will be no change in our policy regarding the use of editorial images.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq[/url])
I hope this is a case of you just not understanding English or maybe you didn't read any of this. I said the picture of a doctor could be used to illustrate an article on doctors who don't wash their hands and you quote something that says "A sensitive use might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject of the image suffers from a physical or mental health condition; endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular product, service, cause or opinion; or is otherwise associated with an issue that some might consider controversial or unflattering." It's obvious that there are many ways to use a picture of a doctor that could him harm in his business what doctor wants to be associated with selling some product or be involved in a controversial or unflattering issue. That is bad for business and that is my point.
again you are putting stuff out of context, Tom never asked here if his friend should model for him as doctor or not, you talked about that not him ;)
BTW are you an English teacher? how many times more will I hear that crap?
-
.
-
The funny thing is that I wanted to use a 'Real' person like the MS companies keep telling me but than when I do get a 'Real' person I now have to fear that he could ruin his reputation? So I am forced to use a model along with another model to play the patient? I don't get it at all? I guess maybe this business isn't it for me- The longer I stay in the it the more I learn how things are...
-
.
-
The funny thing is that I wanted to use a 'Real' person like the MS companies keep telling me but than when I do get a 'Real' person I now have to fear that he could ruin his reputation? So I am forced to use a model along with another model to play the patient? I don't get it at all? I guess maybe this business isn't it for me- The longer I stay in the it the more I learn how things are...
that was the help our rock star sir knows everything gave you, less competition ;D
-
I'm pretty sure you don't have to remove the name when submitting it to the micros.
On the other hand, I certainly would - to protect his identity and to avoid any extra confusion when he is used in an ad or article for something.
And to echo what tickstock is saying, I never use a person in his own profession. If I have a doctor friend I'll use him as a contact and use his location for the shoot but stick my architect friend in the shoot as the doctor. Then maybe use the doctor as an architect in the architects office. When someone models within their own profession it creates so much more ambiguity to wether they are actually just a model or actually support the cause / thing they are advertising. Your doctor images WILL show up in a medical publication and his co-workers WILL see him advertising medical glove X or medication Y or malpractise insurance Z. He could show up in an ad saying "When you make a big mistake and the patient dies in surgery.. like happened to me, who has you covered". would you rather have your doctor friend or architect friend in that ad? If it is the architect friend, first no one in the industry will recognize him and if someone does they will know he is just an actor.
-
There are other 'real' people that wouldn't have a problem if their image was used to illustrate an article about bad doctors.
sure they may be 'real' but they usually are a) much younger b) better looking c) better dressed d) tidier than real doctors.
I get Tom's point, he wants to use real people. Leaf's solution is pretty clever.
-
Excellent advice Tyler
-
Interesting- I will remove the tag. He owns his own business- could RF hurt him professionally? Now I very very confused? Guess I don't fully understand the RF world thus please educate me so I don't do something bad to my friend.
Thanks
E.g. your friend could be used to advertise some drug which later turns out to have bad side effects. In some countries, he could be sued for that. In other countries, he could be struck off for advertising a medicine. It may be that neither of these is a risk in your country.
He could be used to advertise just about anything. Did he really think that through? Including e.g. a political party, a pro-life/pro abortion/pro euthanasia group.
He could have his image caricaturised, making him look stupid, menacing or incompetent.
In Sean's early days, he had a photo of a real pharmacist illustrating an editorial article entitled, "Is your pharmacist poisoning you?" or somesuch.
Some of the micros have clauses saying models must not seem to endorse a product/service/clause, but in fact that is how many are shown in adverts.
Some micros have clauses saying that a model should not be held up to ridicule, but that is so subjective that it's unlikely they would back you up in any claim.
Did your doctor actually read the MR?
-
.. like what ShadySue says..
what an advertiser is allowed to do and what they do do are two totally different things. If they do something they are not allowed to do you could probably get the ad taken down but after you / the model / his co-workers discover the ad, the damage is probably already done.
-
I just looked at the Shutterstock release and it basically says you can do whatever you want with the image, at least the Istock one says it can't be for pornographic or defamatory uses. There are many ways an image of a doctor can be used to illustrate a negative story.
wrong! there isn't an agency allowing that even the sensitive use doesn't allow that, again you are trying hard to pick stuff that doesn't exist
Great can you give me a link to the sensitive use license.
What is a sensitive use?
A sensitive use might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject of the image suffers from a physical or mental health condition; endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular product, service, cause or opinion; or is otherwise associated with an issue that some might consider controversial or unflattering.
Sensitive uses are subject to specific and important restrictions:
Customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only.
Images may not be used in tobacco ads; in materials that are pornographic; or are used to market and/or promote adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or escort, dating or similar services.
There will be no change in our policy regarding the use of editorial images.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/tos-update-faq[/url])
Nevertheless, stock images are used in ways against the rules, maybe because the buyer just thinks they won't get caught, more likely they never read the terms and conditions, but just saw that they are model-released (sometimes the agencies advertise that their MR images are 'safe to use') and don't read the Licence Conditions.
If they are used wrongly, firstly the horse has bolted and the misuse is out there.
Have you ever heard of a decent settlement from a misuse of a micro image? The only two I know the details of resulted in apology, withdrawal of the ad (in one case after it had been used widely in magazines and billboards) and in one case no financial compensation, the other very, very little.
Added: Leaf beat me to it.
Also, the world of private medicine is totally foreign to me, but how would your doctor feel if his photo was used to advertise a rival practice?
@OP: I know that you have now stated that you are not going to use his face, I was just responding to your statement, "Guess I don't fully understand the RF world thus please educate me so I don't do something bad to my friend."
I'll just add that it has nothing to do with RF; RM would in general be the same. Some RM agencies might be more likely to assist you in pursuing any misuse, with other RM agencies, you'd be on your own, just the same as micro.
-
.
-
To the OP, IS does not want any name on a nametag, fake or not.
What everyone else said is more important (directly answering the above question or not). Do not use a professional as a model in their own profession, due to the likely chance it will be used in a way that could damage their livelihood. My SIL's image at work was used in an article titled "Is your pharmacist killing you?" . My surveyor friend who let me shoot him working, in return for an MR, soon found a few of the series on a competitors web site.
"Real people" does not necessarily mean people doing what they really do. Just people who do not appear to be staged models doing things.
-
ShadySue the thing that Luis posted is a FAQ not a license so it probably doesn't mean very much legally. Shutterstock (like all the sites I think) have a clause in their terms that they can change things any time they like. The important part to me is that the model release itself says that any use is allowed, there are no restrictions. I'm not sure the model could sue if someone violated Shutterstock's terms because the release they signed allows that use.
They probably wouldn't be able to sue the agency as the agency will have specified under which legislation their releases are valid. However, in some legislations, e.g. UK, you can't 'sign away your rights', so the model could go after the end user, possibly the tog. I don't 'think' that would be valid in this exact case, but certainly, you can't give up your legal rights in the UK just by signing a waiver.
One of the problems on forums like this is that legislation is so different in different countries, and most people only partly know even their own legislation, and seldom anyone else's. E.g. I've learned since starting stock that e.g. US and Australian advertising legislation is far looser than ours.
-
This is probably my best question being answered by the best of the best- great education. I will not use his photos but I do have new ideas. Plus I kind of blew the photos session anyway- I under estimated the lighting for his office thus too dark on most shots. The actual dentist chair area was very difficult to move around and setup lighting and I had some equipment issues as well.
Overall, a great eduction and great advice from all of you!
T