|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - panicAttack
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 25
426
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:53 »
My situation have been solved for now. Thanks everyone with constructive comments  Looks like they didn't even bought the picture. After not responding to my several emails/contact forms for several days with any evidence that they bought the photo I treated the case as stolen photo and image is removed. If they however show me that image is bought (or responded anything) I would check if usage was acceptably with that agency terms of use it and act accordingly.
427
« on: July 01, 2015, 03:28 »
So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this.
And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not.
You are telling me to stop being stock photographer (or at least microstock) and then you are acting like insulted child when I pointed out the truth that you mostly shoot object and yourself (on your microstock portfolios), and not only that, you in some way confirmed my opinion when you said that you stopped uploading model photos to microstock because of issues like that, so there is something there. You could be helpful roughly explaining some your cases but you decided to quote the part I was arguing with someone who tried to insult me. I'm not talking about my case anymore, just replying to you.
428
« on: June 30, 2015, 13:07 »
Interesting, even if I press "I understand" nothing happens, pop up is still open and I cant go to my page.
I'm using google chrome Version 43.0.2357.130
429
« on: June 30, 2015, 07:51 »
I tried to open your site to see/buy/download your program. It will not open on google chrome.
It will, http://stocksubmitter.com/
Indeed it does, I used the link in your signature and it wasn't working
430
« on: June 30, 2015, 07:28 »
I tried to open your site to see/buy/download your program. It will not open on google chrome.
431
« on: June 30, 2015, 06:09 »
This could be a nice PR opportunity for your model, who has the chance to laugh about it and explain that although he isn't gay, he's proud to have his image used for such a worthy cause.
I still think that this is the best answer on this thread.
If that doesn't work, one of our TV presenters once said, "I'm gay for professional reasons" (though in his case, it was a joke as he'd been 'out' for many years).
Yes, it could be that I agree, of course unfortunately it could be other way around because we are not all in well developed countries and if that happens (example: lose future project from some company because of that) that would be a completely different case where he would be discriminated about falsely presented sexual orientation. We can forget about this case from now on, let assume we all sorted everything out, but this topics is something to talk about. Wives or husbands of models can look it differently, and that's why I stand behind my words that his kind of usage is sensitive.
432
« on: June 30, 2015, 06:00 »
In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
Haters will alway hate and possibly attack anyone who is different. There have been homophobic attacks in the UK, but also people are attacked for being old/special needs/well-off/red-haired/a different race or religion from the attacker/female/whatever.
The point is that some agencies don't allow any suggestion of sexual orientation/or need a disclaimer for same, but others do. The fact that even one of the agencies holding images of the model allows it without a disclaimer means that effectively that the photographer, on behalf of the model, has accepted that usage.
I've found the licence agreement for 123RF (by googling, I failed to find it from the site) and it says:
You may not
"under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, offensive, political, racist, ethnically or culturally offensive, obscene or indecent, sexually explicit, immoral, defamatory, intrusive of privacy or illegal materials; or in a manner which endorses violence or acts of terrorism, is discriminatory towards race, gender, religion, faith or sexual orientation, or which purports to endorse products or services carrying sensitive mental/health connotations"
which, unless your usage was sexually explicit would almost certainly allow the use in the context mentioned in the OP, though we haven't actually seen the usage.
Now, you could try to argue that some cultures are unaccepting of homosexuality, but you could also argue likewise that some cultures are unaccepting of eating pork. And as we have established, German culture in general is not so offended.
And in fact, it could be argued that your putative legal attack on the buyer would be 'discriminatory towards sexual orientation'.
The OP chose to submit there, under these conditions; I can't see that they have a legal leg to stand on.
Your only hope is that the file wasn't bought, but stolen. Then you can have a different, and less controversial, legal case.
Even we have different opinion you were most helpful on this topic and I appreciate that.
433
« on: June 30, 2015, 05:45 »
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you.
434
« on: June 30, 2015, 05:21 »
Homofob people tend to attack the prides and even gay people on the street in many less-developed countries. While meateaters rarelly attack vegans nor creating situations where people can be hurt and policemen need to be involved. This alone clearly shows this is a sensitive topic... not because of the rights of the gay people nor because of their different sexual orientation but because of the society. In the current case the model is "lucky" because Germany is enlightened/safe but as I mentioned above it can even be dangerious in other countries. This is why I think it sould be left to the model to decide if he/she wants to take this risk and participate or not. This is not about the rights of the gay people!
I strongly believe that image usage rights should be more clearly defined in the licence agreements and the limitations should be more strict. Photographers, models and image buyers would profit from that. I believe it would stengthen this industry and not weaken it - at least this is my oppinion.
I couldn't say this better. This is only thing and all I want to say. Thank you.
435
« on: June 30, 2015, 04:56 »
Ok I see you are just a troll. 
It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used.
Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising".
If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.
You should really read first who started to insult here without any evidences (I was referring him as a troll because he acted that he know my conversation with my models), and not everybody is pointing that I am wrong and what is most important it looks like agencies are also sharing my thought that this is kind of sensitive usage of an image. You cannot close your eyes that some of agencies has this particular usage restricted. (Dreamstime). So looks like there is something there. Not everybody living in Berlin. My model definitely isn't. As i said before, world unfortunately is not perfect place and you all know that. I am talking with agencies legal teams now so this topic can be closed. I only thought that someone had similar experience but I guess I was wrong. I still do believe that sexuality topics (fetishes or orientations) are personal, intimate and sensitive especially if someone have a wife or family.
436
« on: June 29, 2015, 13:56 »
After seeing some of what iS deems 'acceptable use' (I don't follow similar threads elsewhere), I think a stock model must need to be a totally values-free zone, and be careful never to acquire any in later life.
Interesting that you and he wouldn't object to BDSM. Each to his own; but that's a sexual preference that many people wouldn't want to be associated with.
I didn't say we wouldn't, I said that would be the same problem as this is.
437
« on: June 29, 2015, 13:33 »
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
You completely missed whole point here.
I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out.
In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem.
Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about.
If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers.
We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable.
No you missed the point. If you had done your job your model, an obvious amateur, would not be surprised or bothered by the use of their image. If you find a model, explain the situation of how their image may be used and they have even the slightest apprehension,,, FIND ANOTHER MODEL. Easily offended people that want to somehow pre-approve the use of their image have no place in microstock. It has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or straight guys being deemed homosexual which you seem fixated on. That's not the point. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it. There are many things that images could be used for that might offend a model. These people should expect that, be prepared for it and accept it or they should not be modeling.
You also, mentioned consulting a lawyer a couple of times in this thread. I didn't bring it up. We as contributors should, if we have any sense, try to protect the industry we work in. Allowing models to even think about litigation for images that are legally licensed and used within the terms and conditions of the agency is a bad bad idea. Buyers will go else where if they are at risk of being sued by some offended model when they have followed the rules.
edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
No, just an actual professional working with actual professionals.
Ok I see you are just a troll. And sorry to let you down, you are not professional, just internet troll, but anyway I'll try to explain, not for you as you are trolling, but for others. If it is fine by agency terms of us, that's the end. end of discussion. Fixated with gay? I'm explaining my situation here. No fixation. As I already said same things go to BDSM/straight anything that sexual related, but this is not what happened so I don't talk about that. If I wanted those I would enjoy selling sensitive usage like you probably do, and that's fine to me. Why is there a problem consulting a lawyer about anything if I want his opinion? Is that same as to sue someone? You are just lost. We need to protect ourselves, industry is well protected. I maintain my advice to you but I go even further. You should close your accounts and take up knitting. There's far less chance of anyone being offended that way.
You sound like someone who is very afraid of other microstock photographers. This is not the way to cope with competition. Just try to be a better photographer.
438
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:55 »
Well, yes and no. If someone likes chicken and someone else likes beef, they are both entitled to their opinion. If one persons belief is that another person should be killed, jailed, or attacked for who they are, be it skin color, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever then no, I don't think we should just agree to disagree.
This is what I am talking about, you put in same context skin color, religion and sexual orientation, because there are delicate and sensitive topics.
439
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:53 »
 Holy cow. I went to submit uploads and I'm getting errors that they have KW limit of 30 now. I average 35-40. Their process is already too long. Now this? 
I submitted some images yesterday and it was all good. So that's very new change.
440
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:28 »
When a buyer licenses a stock photo and uses it according to the terms and conditions, as is the case here, they do so with a certain trust that the agency is professional and that the photographer and model at least behave in a professional manner. If a buyer has to contend with the possibility that they may be sued and dragged into court because some amateur model disagrees with the image use, how long will it be before they stop using microstock?
And who could blame them?
This is not a failure on the part of the buyer or the agency. It is the photographer who failed to explain properly how things work to an amateur model. he was more than happy to collect the money for hundreds of sales of that model's images as long as both he and the model agreed with the usage but as soon as they don't, they want to talk to a lawyer.
Remove ALL images of this model from all agencies and in future DO NOT shoot photos of models without first explaining fully how things work. Now that you have this experience you have a slightly better idea of what you need to talk about.
You completely missed whole point here. I will not remove ANY image from ANY agency and I did and always do explain about possibility that image can be used even in much more inappropriate matters (such as pornographic sites, escort, dating, and all other that are not allowed by the agencies) but if that happens that I will contact agencies and if necessary lawyer to sort that out. In this case, it is about (wrongly) portraying someone his intimate sexual orientation and only questionable thing here is if it needs some kind of sensitive case (I am not selling those) or any kind of permission. This is not about eating meat or posing for butchery, and if you dont see here anything questionable about how intimate and private is human sexuality that's not my problem. Maybe (just assuming) he is professional and agree with that, but being a sexual or in this case some kind of gay icon symbol for a pride sponsored from gay party can be problem at least for his family, if not for him. The same apply the other way around. If some BDSM party or heterosexual party does it. It has a sexual connotation in it. So that's why I think that it is something to discuss about. If we stop seeing models as persons at least in those tree delicate issues (political, sexuality, religion) as well as health/mental issues then we will not see many models wanting to pose for stock and if that happens I don't care about buyers. We are not in any court and I didn't even talked with any lawyer, waiting for agency to reply to see if it is all cool and acceptable. edit: in this case, you sounds like person who only thing about being happy when collecting the money for hundreds of sales and not caring about your model.
441
« on: June 29, 2015, 04:26 »
NitorPhoto, I absolutely agree.
It's not about sexual orientation, it's about right of a person (model) in the first place. Not only low values of a photos, but low values of a real people who are stock models.
Reading between the lines here it looks like some people here want to say if someone poses for model they are stripped of all their rights or even dignity. It's perfectly fine if someone is even portrait as a pedophile (without any explanation of illustrative purposes only), and what is most scary that those are coming from stock photographers.
I am pretty sure this will be better controlled as laws (and embedding/jpeg technology) advance in next five or ten years, and "wild west" of internet times would be over.
442
« on: June 29, 2015, 03:12 »
I received positive response for Shutterstock about this and I'm glad because of it.
For few guys who reply in this topic, it's not about his personal opinion about anyone. Sexuality orientation is intimate and personal thing, even if he was a homosexual person, portraying someone as some kind of icon of any sexual orientation (even heterosexual) is at least for sensitive case licence (which I have never and will never make an options for photos with models).
For one comparing it with acting. completely different thing, actors agreed to act as for example particularly gestapo in some project and even there they are credited as actors before or after the movie.
443
« on: June 28, 2015, 17:12 »
There was also an iS case when a model was used to illustrate an editorial article about 'escorts'. She wasn't a full time model, but an educator, and the publication was widespread in her home city. IMO, it should have had 'posed by model', but I certainly didn't read about any good outcome for her. Why she was part-time modelling I have no idea. There are so many apparently-legitimate usages that could make you a source or ridicule amoung your students and their parents.
That's also a case for a lawyer if there wasn't text explaining it is only "posed by model" or "for illustrative purpose". Ok. no more internet for me today. Thank you and good night!
444
« on: June 28, 2015, 17:05 »
What happened in Turkey?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33305390
Disaster. It would be very bad if my model is living in Turkey. This is of course human right in Turkey problem at first place, but it could lead to stock models problems from countries like that.
445
« on: June 28, 2015, 16:35 »
Where do you draw the line? In some countries you will be thrown in jail or killed for being gay. So it really is a human rights case. Just look at what happened in turkey today.
In the exact same way to what black people had to or still have to suffer. There will also be white models, when if their face is altered in photoshop to look black, will consider this an insult and worry what their friends and family will think.
Somebody else will get insulted if the designer adds a turban or a beard and he looks like a follower of a different religion.
But this is the thing with stock, you really dont know what will happen.
What happened in Turkey? Political and religion orientations are all against terms of use in all agencies.. Sexual is not in all agencies, only Dreamstime, and IStock demand text "Illustrative purpose only" or something like that.
446
« on: June 28, 2015, 16:08 »
But when the media publish a lawsuit against this usage, he could just as likely have trouble for seeming to be a homophobe.
I understand you completely. I'm trying to find some logic here. Not your, you are very helpful, but laws in general. What if that person have a wife and kids? It is very delicate issue. I know he isn't a homophobe, but that doesn't mean that he need to be all over some big European town falsely presented as gay person if he isn't. This is also one "what if", but what if his wife divorced him because of that... we still don't live in ideal world that sexual or any other orientation doesn't matter. Now I'm just thinking out loud...
447
« on: June 28, 2015, 14:09 »
Like I said above, even if the image was bought from iS, which forbids such use, a lawyer for the defence of the buyer could reasonably argue that you made the image available to SS and FT, which allow the use (unless you see something different there), so presumably you and the model agreed to that use.
The way I understand it is that IS allows it with a disclaimer on the photo or ad
Yes, but I'm guessing that there is no disclaimer in this case.
Yes, you guessed right. Nothing. I wouldn't say anything if it was.
448
« on: June 28, 2015, 14:02 »
In my opinion, reasonable person who like Adidas and find himself in ad for Nike would't care.
See, as you say that's an opinion.
Not so much Adidas vs Nike, but when I first saw the model release before I thought of all the other possibilities, my first thought was actually, "Oh, Nike or Nestle could use your image" (I try to boycott both of these and many others). In reality, these particular brands probably don't buy stock, but that was the first 'objection' I thought of.
I fully agree, but taste in food, brands or music is not same as sexual orientation. It's much more intimate and sensitive. Maybe I am wrong, but I would not end at least until I speak with some lawyer about those issues. If he says we can't do anything, that's it.
449
« on: June 28, 2015, 13:37 »
I don't remember what the model said; the photographer was very unhappy, as I would have been, as she had had to persuade him to sign an MR. Most people thought it was perfectly OK. It was back around 2008 IIRC, so I don't have the link.
May I suggest to your model, if he wants to go on modelling, that he signs up with a proper model agency rather than modelling for stock. I don't know how it is in your country, but here the registered agencies must always tell the model exactly what any job is for so that they can choose whether to go forward with it or not.
I do understand that, it is same in my country with modelling agencies, but this is kind of reputation for all models to never shoot for stock. The thing is, I believe if images are used even in forbidden contest such as medical or political usage it would also be impossible to do anything against it. It's not only model problems, but for us photographers who works with them too, even if photo is used in countries like Germany... not some third world countries. You were very helpful so far so thank you for that.
450
« on: June 28, 2015, 13:11 »
The photo you linked to above, not your model, was pretty much like the famous pic from years ago with the old man photographed outside his garden shed, but taken out of that context an into some party poster where brightly coloured condoms were being handed round on trays and he seemed to be leering up a girl's skirt. I thought that was subjecting the old man to ridicule, but I was in a tiny minority in that view, and iS seemed to think it was OK.
What did that model said about that usage? Was he Ok with that?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
