pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Katja

Pages: [1]
1
123RF / Re: Is the site down?
« on: May 17, 2015, 03:15 »
In my 123RF processing queue other people's images are processing. Anyone else same problem? I've deleting all morning. Contacted support already.

2
Never heard of it, will take a look :)

3
I rarely submit footage and sales are even more rare. However, I always retouch it (prefer the word "edit", since retouching is more applicable to handwork with  photos). Brightness, contrast, white balance, selective color correction as well as skin filter on models. Often I would do it in AE 16 bit to avoid noise after manipulations.
To me it is the same as with photos: commercial value could and should be enhanced during manipulation. Greener grass sells better :)

5
How sad is it that photographers have to be the ones to explain the Internet to models? Because ultimately that's what this boils down to. On the web, anything can be taken by anyone and used for whatever good or bad purposes they want. When did it get to be the responsibility of the photographer to educate models on how the Internet works?

I'd like to add something to the discussion :)

As far as I understood from my lawyer, here where I live it boils down to a simple "who did what" question. We can romanticize and dramatize lots of things, fantasize about huge responsibilities and even bigger expectations, but this approach won't get us near justice. What does is the understanding of "who did what" and establishing if it was within or outside the law. For as long as we stretch photographer's professional ethics to a nanny's job with prosecutor's powers, models will keep on trying to sue wrong people. "Explaining Internet" happens (otherwise should for sure) at school.

It's also worth noting that my model (what a wonderful exhibit) used to have "less favorable" publications in past, which did not hold her from continuing to shoot stock. In the end it didn't even matter, because all the judge needed to know was "whether photographer was allowed to place images on stock agency, or was it a big surprise to a model".

So believe me when I say the issue here is not models' dementia about how Internet works or what MR means.

7
Congratulations, Katja! Thank you for posting this!
Wonderful news Katje!!  Congratulations!   So happy to hear common sense won!

Thank you guys! :)

9
Did you recover your legal fees from the accuser?

For 80%, she's ordered to pay within 2 weeks.

10
Thank you very much Elena! :D I hope so too, for all honest safe photographers.

11
:)
Hi guys, I know many of you were curious about the similar case in Europe. I'm glad to say that today we got good news from our lawyer: we won the case. The international character of the case did not hinder the Netherlands process being possible.

So here is just briefly on what grounds we won (in my own words):
1. Model failed to prove images were bought from stock agency; judge agrees they could be stolen from her own social/modeling profiles, from her computer or from publications elsewhere.
2. Even if they were licensed, still the agency's license was breached by end-users, which is not photographer's fault. Photographer handled correct selling images through a platform with a clear prohibition of damaging use.

I'm still a bit in shock, in a good way this time! This is a huge relief after 2 years of unfair game, full of peculiar details showing true colors of lawyer practices and some people we let into our life and work.

I sincerely hope that my American colleague will win his case on the same obvious grounds as we did and can continue to be a providing father and a professional.

A digital online record of my case should be available shortly I assume, it's not there yet, but those of you interested can simply send me a private message by that time  :)

12
Reading some of these news stories, it's amazing how totally incorrect they are!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws

Sorry they have such incompetent reporters that they can't take a few minutes to find out how stock works.

Incompetent reporters currently cause much more... like wars. It's new kind of criminals. Luckily, these articles are not really useful as exhibits in court.

The word "he promised" in the times of Internet sounds amazing. My Release with model does exclude pornographic use (what my model's case is built upon btw), although no "promise" was ever in place. Release does not include wording like "photographer guarantees". Who can guarantee what?! Release is in line with License: no defamatory use. Publishers are to  respect it. Photographer is to assure images are sold with correct license. He is not to assure or guarantee end-users respect it. That's what prosecutors are for. A stolen car that's been bona fide locked is not a responsibility of a car's owner, but is a case for police to handle. 

13
That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.

That's exactly what it's all about! Ridiculous. In these cases it is to be proven at very least that a photographer actually helped someone to mis-use images. Like, for example sold with a note "please make a porn-book-cover, would look nice". And even then, the publisher is ultimate responsible because he didn't check with a model.

14
Hey Joshua, we spoke a little in your other topic. I'm also being sued on very similar grounds in Holland.

I donated what I could, and the PayPal window wouldn't let me finish my message, so here again: I wish you much strength and luck and good wise people around you, and I'm pretty confident you and I will win. She cannot prove you personally sold images to adult sites. She cannot prove you're a millionaire (how ridiculous, you have all sales statements don't you!). She only has to lose, I'm afraid. Our model was warned and didn't listen. She went after our house, but only managed to get my bank account blocked. While I have 2 little children and mortgage.

Our cases on both sides of the ocean are very important for the industry and even for overall justice in creative world where people (even most professional and experienced) do many things based on trust and common sense. Let's see what those are worth. I believe your model is wrong: YOU trusted her when going into professional relationship. She signed a clear paper stating you MAY sell images, and she was very okay with getting nice publications from stock and getting jobs thanks to your labor. She broke your trust and she is the one fraud. She caused you emotional suffering and huge financial impact. I personally got heart and sight problems after our case began... Well, it is still to be seen if we may continue this "hazardous jobs" as photographers )))) , what they seem to be...  but for now we should keep fighting against the ridiculousness of the situation.

I'll keep you posted when we hear from our judge. It shouldn't be long now.

15
General Stock Discussion / Re: model might try to sue me
« on: December 10, 2014, 06:56 »
I am very sorry to hear that. Indeed it will be a very important decision from the court for all stock photographers. Im do not think that this is related directly to the style of photography (glamour in the OPs case), but a general legal situation.

You are from the Netherlands, right? It will be also interesting to compare the US vs the NL decision.

Thank you! Yes, NL.
As far as I understand this, an agency is basically not really required to "protect" anyone until it is actually proven an image was purchased from that agency. Especially if a photographer is not exclusive. At least I've been selling her images exclusively on iStock for past years, so one can safely assume a bigger chance iStock could be involved (or not). However, with easy "copy-paste" on the Internet and model having her laptop been stolen in the past we really don't know how images got to adult sites. There are millions of possible ways.
It is very regrettable that even normal portraits are mis-used like this all over. Every job on this planet has risks. I believe we all should educate ourselves and models about our risks, because they won't go away any time soon. Not like you start a shoot with a mention of pornsites :) , but... 
The lnternet laws are still making baby steps (if any at all), and the publishers just get away with anything. It makes me angry, even more so when I'm put on a stand instead of an actual criminal.

16
General Stock Discussion / Re: model might try to sue me
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:17 »
I'm very sorry for your situation developing like this. I'm being sued as well on very similar terms as you.

Like I said before, I was never planning to satisfy model's requirements without hearing it first from a judge. Firstly, because I did not publish or sell anything to anyone on terms of "for pornographic purpose", and no one has yet proved the "bad websites" even obtained images the legal way (from me or from agency). I don't consider myself guilty of anything. Secondly, because I'd have to close my business since every model would think she can break a Model Release just like that.

I am currently in a final stage of awaiting the order. I suspect the outcome will mean a lot for stock photographers, at least in my country. So I'm very curious how our judge (and yours) will rule.

17
General Stock Discussion / Re: model might try to sue me
« on: September 25, 2013, 06:58 »
As someone who has been in a similar situation, I would like to express my support and full understanding of your concerns. It is not fun at all. I've had a situation with a model who's been giving me kisses before and after shoots for years, until I very suddenly received a letter from her lawyer with an amount request you'd laugh at (think like a million euros, just less). It gave me a heart condition and a huge disappointment in what I do and in people I work with.

What I can say we've learnt from contacting various law firms (Europe, so please note it's not a final word of law for you at all):
1. The one at fault is a publisher, not a photographer, and not an agency. A publisher should have verified what use is allowed and what use is prohibited.
2. A Model Release covers you pretty well.
3. Fact that the image is for free on the internet (like FB or piracy sites) covers you well.

On a question of "delete or not delete photos", I'd say it depends. If the images make your livelihood and you don't want a line of other models demanding the same joke from you after this lady succeeded, I'd advise you not to delete anything until you hear it from a judge.

I consider the discussion on glamour photography safety pretty laughable. Adult model doing things at her will (i.e. going as far as she wants for professional free images)  is not your problem at all, unless you had a gun to her head. You said yourself she got her gig thanks to your pictures. Don't be shy, ask for a share!

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors