|
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 - bpepz
76
« on: November 01, 2013, 17:22 »
looks like its happening again this month. Anyone else not have their RC totals updated yet?
77
« on: October 27, 2013, 11:22 »
same here, sales taken away from the last 4 or 5 months, just great!
Well, if its happening to other people, it seems like this is some sort of wider problem. Hopefully this gets sorted out!
78
« on: October 27, 2013, 11:19 »
I logged into my account today, and found my portfolio is empty, my earnings in the negative, and my contributor level at 1, when it was at 4 and well on its way to 5 a few days ago. Also it has my monthly earnings, but they are all dramatically skewed and wrong. I am hoping this is some kind of glitch, is anyone else experiencing this?
79
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:42 »
To get her off your back, you might offer to take them down if she pays you back the money you paid her. But point out to her that the pic can be easily lifted from her MM profile.
BTW, you're still assuming the 'in uses' all came from SS - is there a reason you think they didn't come from the other agencies, or were lifted from Fb, MM, or from a site which licensed them?
Really it could of came from anywhere, just take a look at this http://allpolus.com/cliparts/raster/318337-stock-photo-attractive-brunette-woman.htmlhttp://lightpic.net/photo-stock/40351-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.htmlhttp://xtragfx.com/stockimages/1341515-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.htmlhttp://www.gfx4you.com/30090-4-hq-images-sexy-brown-haired.htmlI downloaded these and sure enough, they are all full 39mp resolution original images these guys got somewhere. Probably by buying from a stock site. Looks like some pirates bought, or used credit card fraud to take these images and distribute them. This is a major problem, and makes taking my images down pretty pointless. Anyone could be using those images because of those pirates. I looked at the TOS on the othersites beside SS I have my images of her uploaded, none of them would allow it to be used like that. The majority of the sales of her image was on SS though. Also the other sites I had it on, it either never sold there, or I uploaded it there in the last few weeks. Its really down to fotolia and shutterstock. Although I have never gotten an EL for her image. Furthermore, there is the fact she has the images on her facebook and model mayhem account free for anyone to download, although not in 39mp, but still easily high enough to grab for something. I even found my images of her being sold on deviant art, this guy was taking stock images and claiming he was the photographer who took them, I am currently working to get those taken down too. Basically its one hell of a popular image, its been seen and liked probably thousands of times on her facebook, its been pirated and stolen to every corner of the internet. Whether I take them down is really irrelevant at this point, and despite its popularity on SS I doubt any abuse came about from it being there asides from people buying the full resolution image to give away. Basically I don't think someone looking to find a cover for their erotic novel went to SS and legitimately bought it. Nevertheless I contacted the relevant agencies and I'll see what I can find out.
81
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:07 »
Who's abusing who here? What is a book cover? An EL or not even allowed by SS terms of use?
Surely if the photo on a cover was obtained improperly the copyright holder can issue a take down on Amazon? A trifle damaging for sales?
A book cover is a SL under most agencies' license agreements, unless the book sells a certain amount of copies. Please, no one contact Amazon about an author who probably didn't do anything wrong.
No-one was suggesting contacting Amazon. I'd think this use would need a Premium Licence for 'sensitive use' if bought from SS - but I suspect this would be breaching their ToS.
I was illustrating the 'sort of use' this photo would get, which OM seemed to think unlikely. Other than one slightly bizarre advert, the in-uses I saw were either like these book covers, escort agencies or sex toys. These would seem to be prohibited by SS's terms of use; but my point is still, what else could the image be used for?
Nevertheless, as I said above, the OP dripped up the facts about this issue. He even said at one point, "...I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore", which implied at that point that the original shoot had been TFP, but later we find she was well paid.
In any case, I now definitely don't think the OP has anything to worry about re being sued; but IANAL and definitely not a US lawyer.
Sorry for not laying out all the details first, I just did not want to wrote a giant 1st post. As for the images, I was going to take them down if she could help me out a little. I really don't feel it is fair to make me take down the images, especially ones I paid her well for, and get absolutely nothing in return. I thought asking her to do a shoot would work out well for both of us. She could use them for her portfolio, it would possibly but not completely replace the images she had me take down, I was willing to make that compromise, and it would not of cost her anything, except 2 hours of her time. Basically her attitude is worrying, she thinks I am trying to get TFP shoots out of her for nothing, she is getting me to take the images down, and the alternative is asking her if she wants to buy the rights to the images, which will definitely cost her more then 2 hours of her time.
82
« on: September 25, 2013, 09:58 »
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!
Thanks for your advice. taking her images down will not destroy my livelihood or anything, but it would probably impact my sales 20% for a while, which is not good. Also I paid her $185 for the two hour shoot, so she did get compensated. I think what I am going to do is give her the courtesy of being given opportunity to buy the rights to the images. If her and her company are THAT concerned about it I do not see the problem. As for her glamour photography, that is exclusively what she used to shoot and has shot the same or even more risque pictures before and after my shoot with her on a regular basis, so did not think it was going to be an issue with her. She also gets upset when she sees her image used without her people crediting her. She is basically living in a different universe when it comes to this stuff.
83
« on: September 25, 2013, 09:26 »
So she signed a contract (got paid?) and now she wants out because of greener pastures? Typical. She sounds gullible, also because she thinks she can sue her way out of her own mess.
I am not a lawyer but my ( limited) understanding of Canadian contract law ( don't know about other countries) the important thing is the being paid part of this sentence. For the contract to be valid she has to have received something of value in exchange for the images....Is TFP equal value for a glamour shoot?
Not in the US, if compensation is not mentioned in the contract, none has to be paid. But I doubt any model would work all day without some from of payout. So prints or access to the JPEGs could be considered something of value. A model release is a form of contract too, it is also a release of your rights to allow the photographer or who ever is commissioning the photographic session to use the photographs in a commercial or editorial use.
When I used to shoot weddings, my contract stated that had the right to use their likeness in my portfolio or in advertising my services. It did state that no third party could use the photographs. The contract also stated that they did not have any photo rights or ownership of the images.
I have texts, and paypal records proving I paid her. I actually paid her through her old agency, she even confirmed she got the payment via text and email.
84
« on: September 24, 2013, 20:00 »
[/quote]
Dude, you should select your models more carefully. This girl seems to be really, ehhh, volatile.
I know some girls who would kill for being in the Playboy BTW.
[/quote]
From now on I will only shoot actual porn stars. Not much chance of them getting upset about anything. Also, they are actually dramatically cheaper then "normal" models and are way more professional.
85
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:53 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.
I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention.
She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples?
"No further questions m'lud"
LOL, I know what you mean, believe it or not I thought it would never sell precisely because there is not much use for it. I believed it would go unsold but rack up tons of traffic for my port. I based this off of a similar shoot I had done before, it got zero sales, but I got a huge number of port views and indirect increase in food image sales, so I thought the same might apply here. For the record though, her images really did not sell that good, a few sales here and there, but nothing to special, my traffic did increase significantly though.
Can you really make a definite link that people came to your site to see a soft-porn photo then decided to buy a food image instead?
Are you sure the food images didn't sell on their own merit, while a lot of adolescent boys gawped at the burd?
Well, she complained before one of her shots ended up on playboy soemhow, and I took all the images down as soon as she asked. my gallery views and sales plummeted. she called me a few days later and said she over reacted, and to go ahead and put the images back up. as soon as I resubmitted the images, gallery views saw a huge spike, sales went back up.
86
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:47 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.
Hey, but your food shots are great!
I don't know if this makes much of a difference, but she also used the images on her facebook and got like 2k likes on it, the picture got alot of attention so it can't just be from shutterstock that all these improper uses came about.
Get a screen shot of that if you can.
done
87
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:41 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.
I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention.
She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples?
"No further questions m'lud"
LOL, I know what you mean, believe it or not I thought it would never sell precisely because there is not much use for it. I believed it would go unsold but rack up tons of traffic for my port. I based this off of a similar shoot I had done before, it got zero sales, but I got a huge number of port views and indirect increase in food image sales, so I thought the same might apply here. For the record though, her images really did not sell that good, a few sales here and there, but nothing to special, my traffic did increase significantly though.
88
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:23 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.
Hey, but your food shots are great!
I don't know if this makes much of a difference, but she also used the images on her facebook and got like 2k likes on it, the picture got alot of attention so it can't just be from shutterstock that all these improper uses came about.
89
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:11 »
Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.
Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.
Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?
I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.
Does "Glamour modeling" mean nekkid pictures or lingerie? If so, there should be no surprise they ended up on an escort site.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=130911773&src=idthe image in question
90
« on: September 24, 2013, 18:16 »
I think from a legal POV you should be fine, but nevertheless I would delete the Shots.
No one is really safe from stuff like this, but I never ever shoot with people who are not 100% sure what they are doing. I always explain the concept of stock before and make clear that I have no control over the pictures once they are purchased.
I am hoping deleting the images would even be enough. They are apparently very popular with pirates, she is going to keep seeing the images misused whether I take them down or not, I am worried she will somehow try to sue me for that too.
91
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:40 »
Hmmm, you might find it very difficult to find out where the sites got the images. Even if they bought them, where did they get them from to know which agency might help you. If they stole them, it's going to be difficult to establish that - they're hardly going to get back to you to admit it.
Depends on your country. A contract doesn't always protect you from legal proceedings, just as a disclaimer doesn't. There's also 'fully informed consent', in my country at least. But how you could establish that you did tell the model that you have no ultimate control how a file may be abused (assuming you did), I'm not sure.
Good luck.
Think carefully before doing this sort of shoot in future. How would you like it if it was your sister in this position?
I am in the US. Glamour modeling was what she did for a living, its just recently she "made it big" supposedly with a local cosmetics company doing promotion. She has no problem with the images themselves, she even got the contract with her new company because they saw my images and wanted to know who the model was. I told her I would have no problem taking the images down in exchange for a compensation shoot with something less likely to be abused, like some sort of lifestyle type shots. She refused, said she "does not do TFP anymore" and is "making big money" promoting that cosmetics company.
92
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:37 »
A model release is a form of contract, your contract with her supersedes any future contract. As long as your contract does not limit where and how the photos can be used she does not have any case against you. This is just basic contract law, any first year law student would be aware of this.
Yes. The problem now is that I just checked Yuris release and it excludes, like the Getty one, "defamatory" use. The model may have a case if a escort site is considered "Defamatory" (i would). Nevertheless the client has to accept the TOS of the site where he bought the image. He did not get it from the photog himself. So the Agency has to make sure their TOS are not violated. The case is not against the Photographer since he uploaded clearly to a site who prohibits such usage to its custumors. So he did nothing wrong (if SS prohibits this - I have not read the TOS regarding this yet).
I used yuri's old release, I can paste the text in here so you can be the judge on this In consideration of my engagement as a model, upon the terms herewith stated, I hereby give to ____________, his/her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom ______________ is acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission: a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever. b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith. c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied. d) I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer], his/her heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and all persons functioning under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is functioning, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy. e) I hereby affirm that I am over the age of majority and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release and agreement, prior to its execution; I fully understand the contents thereof. This agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives and assigns.
93
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:27 »
She signed a model release. What does the model release say?
I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.
I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?
I hope your right. I used yuri's model release template. She says she got signed on to a big cosmetics company and these images could destroy her career, she also cited that the contract she has with the cosmetics company forbids her from doing any work the would end up in an escort ad, problem is she modeled for me and signed my release long before she became part of that cosmetics company. Also I don't see how its my fault other people other misused the images or stole them.
But you did tell her that images can be stolen from sites which legitimately purchased them and be abused then.
But also, Ron's right - what did she think those images could be used for?
If the images are only on SS, you could see if they will help you with the abuses, whether directly purchased from them (in which case, they should help you, unless you allowed 'sensitive use') or stolen from another site (don't know what their policy might be).
I did allow sensitive use, but the sensitive use, but the sensitive use still does not allow it to be used for something like a an escort ad or strip club. As far as the wording of the MR, it does not say anything about defamatory use either way, it just says it can be used for anything. I did submit the images to a few other sites besides shutterstock, but it was istock, fotolia, 123rf, and dreamstime. I am pretty sure they also do not allow images to be used for an escort ad.
94
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:15 »
She signed a model release. What does the model release say?
I dont think she can sue. Well, she can, but not sure if she would win the case.
I always wonder when someone does glamour shots, what they think the images are going to be used for? Selling apples?
I hope your right. I used yuri's model release template. She says she got signed on to a big cosmetics company and these images could destroy her career, she also cited that the contract she has with the cosmetics company forbids her from doing any work the would end up in an escort ad, problem is she modeled for me and signed my release long before she became part of that cosmetics company. Also I don't see how its my fault other people other misused the images or stole them.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
