MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: PeterChigmaroff on January 27, 2015, 15:59
-
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/2015/01/26/the-latest-hilarious-art-form-photobombing-cheesy-stock-photos-1/index.html (http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/2015/01/26/the-latest-hilarious-art-form-photobombing-cheesy-stock-photos-1/index.html)
-
5 stars. A new art form is born.
-
So funny!! The guy is great at photoshop too.
-
Nice way to open yourself to lawsuits... many of these can be considered "defamatory" by models. And as we've seen before, the photographer would be the one to get sued, too. Yeah, it's funny as long as it's not your images and he is not putting *you* at risk of being sued.
-
Nice way to open yourself to lawsuits... many of these can be considered "defamatory" by models. And as we've seen before, the photographer would be the one to get sued, too. Yeah, it's funny as long as it's not your images and he is not putting *you* at risk of being sued.
As long as you, the photog, have the original shot without the guy in it I don't think you are in danger of a lawsuit. These are so obviously photoshop work. I would still be laughing if it was my images. Funny is funny.
-
I thought those were hilarious. I don't see how the original photographer could be held liable for what somebody else did with Photoshop, especially when the intention is clearly humorous. I imagine some models might not like it, but hopefully they would have at least a rudimentary sense of humor. In any event they would have no grounds to go after the original photographer.
-
I thought those were hilarious. I don't see how the original photographer could be held liable for what somebody else did with Photoshop, especially when the intention is clearly humorous. I imagine some models might not like it, but hopefully they would have at least a rudimentary sense of humor. In any event they would have no grounds to go after the original photographer.
Sure, let's all hope the models have the same sense of humor as people laughing at these images... Like the old guy who's head is being vacuumed or the naked couple. Of course they'd have grounds to go after the photographer if they consider the use defamatory. It happened before many times and it keeps happening. This is the old one, but was also intended as something funny: http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/132543/ (http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/132543/) It doesn't matter if you put offensive text in the image or photoshop something or somebody in - if the end result is perceived by the model as defamatory, the photographer may get sued. Not so funny to me.
-
Funny not very offensive (can be for something...)
I see worst incorrect uses for stock photos...and he bought the images.!
-
Nice way to open yourself to lawsuits... many of these can be considered "defamatory" by models. And as we've seen before, the photographer would be the one to get sued, too. Yeah, it's funny as long as it's not your images and he is not putting *you* at risk of being sued.
There's nothing defamatory about these images, and the photographer is obviously not the one manipulating them. Nobody is going to get sued.
-
I thought those were hilarious. I don't see how the original photographer could be held liable for what somebody else did with Photoshop, especially when the intention is clearly humorous. I imagine some models might not like it, but hopefully they would have at least a rudimentary sense of humor. In any event they would have no grounds to go after the original photographer.
Sure, let's all hope the models have the same sense of humor as people laughing at these images... Like the old guy who's head is being vacuumed or the naked couple. Of course they'd have grounds to go after the photographer if they consider the use defamatory. It happened before many times and it keeps happening. This is the old one, but was also intended as something funny: [url]http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/132543/[/url] ([url]http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/132543/[/url]) It doesn't matter if you put offensive text in the image or photoshop something or somebody in - if the end result is perceived by the model as defamatory, the photographer may get sued. Not so funny to me.
That farmer thing all hinged on whether he had signed a valid release.
-
I was understanding the same
-
If this was a poll we could vote on whether they really are hilarious or not. I would vote not.
(I don't find clowns funny either)
-
Not trying to spoil everyone's fun, just considering possible consequences. Not saying there will be lawsuits, just being cautious. Some people don't have a sense of humor, one of them could be a stock model. Photographers did not modify the images, but they never do, and still get sued sometimes. The end user can cut out your model's head and put it on some other body (that scenario I've seen myself), and if the model finds it offensive, you may get in trouble. I guess it can be irritating that I didn't go along with "har har this is funny, lol!" theme of this thread, well, I just had a different thought.
-
I don't see that any of these uses are defamatory, and at least one of the original images is innately risible.
I've seen far worse in-uses which were deemed OK, these are mild, and IMO funny and very funny.
-
I don't see that any of these uses are defamatory, and at least one of the original images is innately risible.
I've seen far worse in-uses which were deemed OK, these are mild, and IMO funny and very funny.
Yes in your opinion:-) All I am saying the opinion of the old dude who's head is being vacuumed can be different. Or the girl's opinion in this "photobomb": http://stockphotobomber.tumblr.com/post/68800643767 (http://stockphotobomber.tumblr.com/post/68800643767)
-
Being "vacuumed" is "defamatory"? And the girl has already put herself out there - there's not much to do make it worse.
-
We take pictures and they get used a million different ways, including derivitive works. Some are flattering and some are not. Just the way certain images are taken, is enough for some models to cry foul.
-
from outside it seems that people from united states always try to retire and be rich denouncing and ruining someone...
The hot coffee burning ... burns!
Sliding wet floor ... slides!...
The sexy photos used with sexy purpose ... ARE SEXY!
Sorry for my english... but do not make me a lawsuit report for it...
-
Well, I thought I was using a fairly decent English, but looks like nothing I said was understood. People are arguing with me as if it was me who thinks the models should sue the photographer and the end user, when all I said was you have to be careful about this things, because some people may take this the wrong way and cause trouble. I don't take it the wrong way. I only say there are people who might, especially in the US, based on many similar cases I've read about during my 10 years working in stock photography. I don't agree with this kind of lawsuits, being a stock photographer myself (I didn't think that needed to be spelled out!).
But instead of a reasonable discussion we're going to argue here what the models should or should not be thinking or feeling or doing (that was sarcasm by the way, spelling it out just in case).
-
If you think this is funny and you are more than 11 years old - something is wrong.
Not to demerit the guy's job, he must be a great advertiser to make this into global news.
-
Now he has a Kickstarter project for a book:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1903893337/the-stock-photobomb-book (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1903893337/the-stock-photobomb-book)
I backed it which means I have a credit card and, therefore, am more than 11 years old and also found what he is doing (very) funny.