Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 00:21

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 13, 2013, 00:14

Quote from: tickstock on May 12, 2013, 23:49

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

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.

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