Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Business / Philosophy of Photography (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=136)
-   -   Woman discovers that her face photos have been used in advertising all over the world (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165826)

Steve M. 08-06-2018 13:40

Woman discovers that her face photos have been used in advertising all over the world
 
There are two things that strike me about this story. 1-read the model release if you allow a professional photographer to take your photos, even if you hired them.

2-people will stoop to anything to make a buck. While what this photographer did may be standard practice, it still stinks to high heaven. Personal ethics mean nothing to these weasels. I don't care what was signed or where, there are honest ways to make a living and there are devious ways, and a legally propped up scoundrel is still a scoundrel.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/check-t...und-the-world/

Huss 08-06-2018 16:24

What strikes me more is that this photo was so popular that everyone used it all over the planet.

Roger Hicks 08-07-2018 04:03

(1) is the important bit. What did she THINK he was going to do with her pictures?

Also, if she wasn't paid, why did she sign the release?

If she did not receive "valuable consideration" (payment, pics, whatever), it's disputable whether the release is a valid contract: a lot depends on the jurisdiction and on the law that was current when the release was signed.

Cheers,

R.

Bob Michaels 08-07-2018 06:08

In 1979 Lee Friedlander paid $25 for a nude photo shoot with a unknown struggling performer named Madonna Louise Ciccone. No one knows how much Friedlander collected for the publication rights in the 1985 bidding war between Playboy and Penthouse but individual prints now sell for $37,000.

Is $25 the only difference between the Friedlander / Madonna story and this one?

Deklari 08-07-2018 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks (Post 2826589)
(1) is the important bit. What did she THINK he was going to do with her pictures?

Also, if she wasn't paid, why did she sign the release?

If she did not receive "valuable consideration" (payment, pics, whatever), it's disputable whether the release is a valid contract: a lot depends on the jurisdiction and on the law that was current when the release was signed.

Cheers,

R.

Often people sign something without thinking (including myself :)).

JHutchins 08-07-2018 09:32

The thing that strikes me about this story is astonishment that it's actually a story. I don't see how the photographer is a scoundrel here. For whatever reason she agreed to model for someone who was a professional photographer and signed a model release -- these are seldom long or complex documents -- and he filled the pictures with a stock agency. When she asked him not to use them anymore he agreed. How is that obnoxious? What is borderline obnoxious is the fact that six years after he agreed to stop using them this is being run as a news story leaving the impression without actually saying that she was deceived by him when something was snuck into fine print. Which seems unlikely to actually be the case -- model release typically have no other purpose than the grant of permission to use the photo for advertising and the like. It's more a matter of "surprise! Of all the millions of stock photos of a woman's face out in the world this one actually sold a few times. And the woman isn't happy with that"

ptpdprinter 08-07-2018 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHutchins (Post 2826640)
The thing that strikes me about this story is astonishment that it's actually a story. I don't see how the photographer is a scoundrel here. For whatever reason she agreed to model for someone who was a professional photographer and signed a model release -- these are seldom long or complex documents -- and he filled the pictures with a stock agency. When she asked him not to use them anymore he agreed. How is that obnoxious? What is borderline obnoxious is the fact that six years after he agreed to stop using them this is being run as a news story leaving the impression without actually saying that she was deceived by him when something was snuck into fine print. Which seems unlikely to actually be the case -- model release typically have no other purpose than the grant of permission to use the photo for advertising and the like. It's more a matter of "surprise! Of all the millions of stock photos of a woman's face out in the world this one actually sold a few times. And the woman isn't happy with that"

I'm not sure why it is a story either. What's the point of getting a model release otherwise?

Huss 08-07-2018 11:17

The elephant in the room... anyone who has posted any images to any of the social media platforms has given up the rights to those images. FB, twitter etc can use those pics in any way they see fit, they can monetize them, sell them off anywhere. W/o needing to get the original creator/poster's permission.
Because they signed that away by using these sites. Check the terms of usage.

The photographer in question had her sign a model release form. If she read it, and didn't agree, she didn't have to do it. She got a free portrait session in return. She willingly accepted that.
This is all on her.

PKR 08-07-2018 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2826658)
The elephant in the room... anyone who has posted any images to any of the social media platforms has given up the rights to those images. FB, twitter etc can use those pics in any way they see fit, they can monetize them, sell them off anywhere. W/o needing to get the original creator/poster's permission.
Because they signed that away by using these sites. Check the terms of usage.

The photographer in question had her sign a model release form. If she read it, and didn't agree, she didn't have to do it. She got a free portrait session in return. She willingly accepted that.
This is all on her.

Yep !

In getting rid of some old gear in the past, I would often set up a 2 Ft bank light and fill, with a nice table top setup (background) and, do quality product photos of all the gear I wanted to sell. I got a letter from eBay (they are local) asking if they could include all the auction photos they collected from my auctions in their new photo library. I wasn't told they were collecting my photos. I told them no. A few months later they announced, under a new policy, that they owned the rights to any photo posted on their site.

Archiver 08-08-2018 03:38

My release forms specifically omit any mention of valuable consideration, and only say that the subject gives permission for the photographer to capture their image, and the photographer may use it for any and all lawful purposes. Subject signs, it's a done deal. Totally legal in Australia. The work contract also state that all images, footage and audio recordings, as well as final product, remain the property of the photographer. This clause has saved our bacon on a few occasions.

x-ray 08-08-2018 05:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKR (Post 2826671)
Yep !

In getting rid of some old gear in the past, I would often set up a 2 Ft bank light and fill, with a nice table top setup (background) and, do quality product photos of all the gear I wanted to sell. I got a letter from eBay (they are local) asking if they could include all the auction photos they collected from my auctions in their new photo library. I wasn't told they were collecting my photos. I told them no. A few months later they announced, under a new policy, that they owned the rights to any photo posted on their site.

Good to know. If I ever sell on eBay again I'll put my copyright watermark across the image.

I don't see anything wrong with what the photographer did by selling the image. If the girl didn't take the time to read the release it's her problemu. The photographer spelled the terms out in B&W. He didn't try to sneak anything in on her.

gnuyork 08-08-2018 06:00

What? How is the photographer a scoundrel? That's absurd. He was even decent enough to stop using her photo, even though he presumably has the right to continue doing so. That's admirable.

Steve M. what planet do you live on?

kbg32 08-08-2018 06:57

Friedlander certainly exploited the situation on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels (Post 2826606)
In 1979 Lee Friedlander paid $25 for a nude photo shoot with a unknown struggling performer named Madonna Louise Ciccone. No one knows how much Friedlander collected for the publication rights in the 1985 bidding war between Playboy and Penthouse but individual prints now sell for $37,000.

Is $25 the only difference between the Friedlander / Madonna story and this one?


kbg32 08-08-2018 07:02

Quite agree with below.

Unless of course he told her the MR was for a certain purpose. I worked for a well known photographer who used to do beauty, fashion shoots. He would have the model sign the release with the name of the shoot printed cross the top of the release. When the model left the studio, he would walk over to the guillotine cutter and chop the header off. "Now," he would say, "I have a blanket release."

I never went back to work for him after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-ray (Post 2826747)
I don't see anything wrong with what the photographer did by selling the image. If the girl didn't take the time to read the release it's her problem. The photographer spelled the terms out in B&W. He didn't try to sneak anything in on her.


PKR 08-08-2018 07:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-ray (Post 2826747)
Good to know. If I ever sell on eBay again I'll put my copyright watermark across the image.

I don't see anything wrong with what the photographer did by selling the image. If the girl didn't take the time to read the release it's her problemu. The photographer spelled the terms out in B&W. He didn't try to sneak anything in on her.

X ray, see the last entry.. EBay wants to reuse quality photos (own and charge for them?).

Not allowed
Including photos that don't accurately represent the item for sale
Placeholder images used to convey messages, such as no image available, or out of stock, or other marketing messages
Stock photos for used, damaged or defective items
Adding borders to your photos
Using a picture that is less than 500 pixels on the longest side
Adding additional text, artwork, or marketing to photos
Watermarks of any type, including those used for ownership attribution

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/l...policy?id=4370

Bill Clark 08-08-2018 10:43

It would only bother me if I saw a photo of my face in the post office.

PKR 08-08-2018 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Clark (Post 2826786)
It would only bother me if I saw a photo of my face in the post office.

Bill. If you're commenting on my above post..

If my neighbor, who I like, wants to come into my yard weekly, and pick 10 avocados off my tree, I'm fine with that. If the AH down the street wants to do the same, and pick all of them and.. then sell them, it's a problem and, I'll prevent it.

The AH is the kind of guy who, if one of his customers for the stolen avocados had a problem with the quality, would refer them back to me.

Recently. MS hosted a private roll out for their best customers. There were about 80 people total. Several beta testers gave presentations of their experience with the new software. Among them were, UPS, Adobe, Fed X, Union Bank, Sales Force and several others including eBay. The people in attendance were all high end company executives. Everything was cordial until the folks from eBay took the stage. The attendees, all dressed in their $3k suits, booed the eBay people, like the bad ball team known for cheating. I've never seen that kind of behavior in a Silicon Valley executive gathering, until that conference.
pkr

Bill Clark 08-08-2018 13:07

Only avocados here are found in a grocery store! Ha!

No, I didn’t read your comment. 15 lashes with a cooked spaghetti noodle.

My comment was trying to show a little bit of humor. As far as ownership of files, my clients paid for the rights. The cost was in my fees. I didn’t broadcast them around.

I wasn’t concerned much about showing off my work. I was pretty busy without doing this. Sorry, I say this with tongue in cheek. You have to remember this is before facebook, even before the www got going. I guess I’m an oldie moldie. But I still like making beautiful portraits.

As far as showing off a particular file on the www, well that’s the way things can go now in the 21 century. I’m beginning to like my iPhone for making photos. Going to L.A. to see our daughter, her husband and two kids (grand for wife and I). Maybe take my M3 plus iPhone. I’m really going to enjoy that. They have a Nissan Leaf I enjoy scooting around L.A. They have a nice home in La Canada, near Pasadena.

Huss 08-08-2018 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbg32 (Post 2826767)
Quite agree with below.

Unless of course he told her the MR was for a certain purpose. I worked for a well known photographer who used to do beauty, fashion shoots. He would have the model sign the release with the name of the shoot printed cross the top of the release. When the model left the studio, he would walk over to the guillotine cutter and chop the header off. "Now," he would say, "I have a blanket release."

I never went back to work for him after that.

I always have duplicates of my model releases. One the model gets to keep , one for me. So nothing can be changed by either party after the fact.

Roger Hicks 08-08-2018 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2826813)
I always have duplicates of my model releases. One the model gets to keep , one for me. So nothing can be changed by either party after the fact.

Same here. Auto-carbon, or whatever it's called, with two layers. It never occurred to me to do otherwise.

Cheers,

R.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:23.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.