|
Forums >
General Industry >
"Photographers" who decieve
Posted by Justin N Lane: I agree with your statements. The key point is, this photographers ethics, or lack of ethics. He should have made his intentions clear up front rather than decieve the model by deed or omission. Jun 21 05 07:54 pm Link Posted by studio 51: Posted by nyx: Ok u hit me in the head with a tripod and then tell me i rock? Geez, what u gonna do to this @$$hole when u get ur hands on him? Ok, so maybe I made up the part about the assault with a tripod... Jun 21 05 08:24 pm Link Erotic, erotica, porn, pornography, porno, and smut are all synonyms. I am not absolutely postive about the photographer in question, or the thread, but I would venture to guess that the photographer was looking to art history to describe his own work. Many, many, many classical works of art were described as pornography. To align oneself with those artists does not lessen ones work. Contemporary art works have been called porn. My mother calls my work porn, and also finds it to have artistic merit. You are angry about an artist classification, which is a synonym for the work that you stated you agreed to shoot in your original post. I can see why the photographer would have felt and responded the way he did. Your arguement is over semantics, and has no merit. You also state that you have no desire to be affilated with porn or any sort. If that is true, then you should never shot "mild nudity and bondage". This will be considered porn by just about everyone that is not involved in it. Fetish (which you stated as the type of shoot), is defined as: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification or an abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation. So not only is the shoot you intitial agree to sexual, but it is, by definition abnormal; deviant. You are also stating that the protographer has decieved you and his intentions were never mentioned or implied? But you agreed to do a fetish/erotic shoot with mild nudity, (an ambiguous term), with bondage. so..... Bondage: The practice of being physically restrained, as with cords or handcuffs, as a means of attaining sexual gratification. Now, it seems from your posts that the shoot went well, there are no acusations of inappropriate behavour. Was the shoot a means of sexual gratification for you or the photographer? If not then is it for those viewing the images? Isn't that also a definition of pornography? Did the photographer define his work as obscene? Did the photographer coerce you into doing work that you had not agree to do? Did the photograper take you images and use them for the promotion of hard core pornography? (were they taken as art then used to promote some sleezy sex 900 #?) The only fault I find with this photographer is not being overly clear with how he knows his work will percieved in this overtly politically correct atmoshpere we live in. I'm sure he will learn from this mistake, however. Now, if your still with me here and haven't fired out an angry responce, read on. I completly understand why you are upset. I wrote all of what I said above because I disagree with how you are upset with the photographer and not yourself. The choice you made to work with the individual, classified the subsequent work from its creation, not at some later date when it was labeled. It also seems that this photographer has or had planned to treat you very well. He agreed to a joint copyright of the completed work, which is virtually unheard of. What if this work is someday work thousands per image? And you share the rights? Advice: -Apologize to this photographer immediately for the misunderstanding. -Make further judgements of work on the actually images and how they are displayed. -If you choose to continue modeling, never again pose for any images containing nudity, partial nudity, fetish, erotic, erotica, or suggestive poses as they would be considered pornography by the general population. Jun 21 05 11:20 pm Link I am glad you know more about the shoot than I do, and know enough about me to decide what I should and shouldn't do with my future in modeling. Tomorrow, when I am awake enough to be coherent, there will be a lovely response here. Jun 21 05 11:51 pm Link Nyx, 1. Did you NOT sign a model release? 2. Did you NOT agree to shoot what you shot? 3. Did you NOT think that bondage, nude, etc.? 4. Why didn't you STOP during the shoot if you had problems? 5. How long have you been modeling? 6. How many photographers have you worked with? 7. How long have you been doing bondage, nude, etc.? 8. Re-read your description...it describes PORN. 9. What is PORN to you? 10. I think you're over reacting. Jun 22 05 12:06 am Link tomayto, tomoahto, pornography, erotica... There doesn't seem to be any deceit on the part of the photographer. jstill appears to be right on the money. The content of the shoot was as you agreed? The actual usage of the final product is as you agreed? The only difference is one of semantics. You want to call it erotica; he wants to call it porn. The distinction between the two (if there even is one) is completely subjective. Fetish and bondage work is sexual by definition and therefore will be called porn by someone, somewhere. If you don't want someone somewhere thinking you do porn, don't pose for any pictures of a sexual nature. Once again, not a lot of pity from the theda gallery. Let's call the whole thing off. Jun 22 05 12:32 am Link Now, you tell US...why should the photographer understand why you're upset? Obviously we don't understand so please clarify why you think that he would understand. If we understand why you're upset about something you agreed upon then maybe we can understand how you need advice. Understand? That's the weirdest word ever. lol Seriously...step BACK...WAY back and take a look at what you wrote. Read it over and over...little by little...UNDERSTAND what YOU wrote. Then tell us you're going to quit modeling because you don't want to be classified under porn even though you agreed to do porn-type images. Jun 22 05 12:39 am Link Posted by Venus: You are entitled to your own opinions. However, do not act as though you are speaking on behalf of everyone on this forum, because you are not. If you think your viewpoint is shared by everyone else, then you have not read a single post on this thread. Jun 22 05 01:02 am Link Oh, I've tried to understand it. I'm not speaking in behalf of EVERYBODY. Just people who think the same as I do. My opinion is just that...an opinion. But you asked for advice. My advice to you is...if you want to do something about it...discuss it with the photographer nicely and professionally. I can't give you any other advice since you're basically not making any sense and you don't want to help me understand. But from one model to the other....it's not worth stressing over. Hell, I've done porn...and I'll tell people that if they ask. It doesn't make me less of a person and it doesn't mean that I'll do porn for everybody. If I don't want to be associated with something such as porn, then I simply won't shoot those kind of images. I read through all the messages...and didn't see my questions answered. So please point out to me where I can find these answers. I don't care what anyone thinks of my images. Unless they tell me why they think it's not a good image or what I can do to make it a better image. Then I care. But I post images that I like and that make me look good. If people don't like it, then they don't have to look at it and we don't have to argue over an image. Everybody's eyes see different things. Everybody's lighting is different, everybody's techniques are different, no model is the same, no photographer is the same. I know that I sound like a real bitch. But I don't see how you could fight this unless you discuss it with the photographer to categorize your images as erotic or fetish or whatever category you want them to be under. However, category is a category. Nobody pays attention to them. People look at the image, not what category it's under. Everybody has a different definition for fetish, bondage, erotic, etc. I'm not trying to bash you and I don't hate you. Jun 22 05 01:18 am Link Ok IN CA the law has it that images taken of you, unkless the release specifically states you will hold blameless the photographer, cannot be used to cause you ridicule or harm. (I read NOLO) If you could make a case that this was not a porn release, which are differant than regular model releases, check out adultjobs.com, you could make a case of being decieved as to the content and that your life will be harmed by these pictures being marketed the way they are. I don't know. For $35 (look in the white pages of you phone book, it is a service most cities provide) you could talk to a lawyer for an hour, show the release (draft a demand for the release stating you believe the release did not cover this and you wish proof you signed away your life) to the lawyer, and the marketing of the photos(i.e. the new advertising the photographer is doing, as well as copies of the ad you responded to. The lawyer will tell you what to do. I do know the law takes into account intent, and maybe you could build a case for intent to commit fraud... Star Jun 22 05 01:19 am Link A lot of photographers do this. An LA photographer has been using images he tool of me (the worst, unedited ones taken mis-sentence, etc) to try and discredit me. It sucks, but some photographers are extremely unprofessional. Photographers can do whatever they like for the most part. Oh, I could sue the one harassing me if I cared enough, but they can sell your image to whatever scummy site they want and call you/it whatever they want. Jun 22 05 01:24 am Link Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by nyx: I don't care if someone calls me "annoying" or "obnoxious" because what I call myself is what matters to me. However, if her mother saw her images on an art website or her father found her on a porn website, the images haven't changed but people's perception on what she does has changed by seeing it with "art" or with "porn." Jun 22 05 01:25 am Link Posted by BeautyDestroyed:Photographers can do whatever they like for the most part. Oh, I could sue the one harassing me if I cared enough, but they can sell your image to whatever scummy site they want and call you/it whatever they want. Luckily, they can't do this! While a release gives them the right to use the images of oneself, it does not give them the right to disparage ones name. A model can sign a commercial release for shooting glamour nudes, but that does not mean the photographer is free to use it to advertise porn sites, unless specifically spelled out in the release. Jun 22 05 01:46 am Link All the most successful, most respected, most well known artists in the erotica realm have been called pornographers. At a certain point I think some artists come to the conclusion that hopefully some people will respect the artistic merit of what they do and call their work erotica and others may choose to call it porn. A lot of artists think the semantic debate is silly, so they don't stress too much about occasionally referring to their work as porno. I'm not sure that should be taken super seriously though. It doesn't sound like you had to get an AIDS test to shoot it, you didn't have to take three or four strangers in your butt, and your pictures were not used to decorate a glossy DVD boxcover with a disrespectful title. Mild nudity and light bondage is adult work, but I really don't think you should treat the photographer as though they tricked you into a gangbang or something. I think that you really shouldn't feel bad about the work you did though, I mean it doesn't sound like you actually did anything you were uncomfortable doing at the time and it sounds like it was within your acceptable parameters of erotic artwork. Jun 22 05 01:55 am Link Venus, I have spoken with the photographer about this. Nothing was resolved through it. This was stated in my opening post. If you are fine with shooting porn, good for you. I am not. If you can't make sense of what I am saying, then don't bother giving advice. It is as simple as that. Jun 22 05 02:01 am Link I am declaring this to be the last post. These images, on my part, were never intended to be porn, are not considered to be porn, and will never have my consent to be labeled as porn. http://www.pitt.edu/~arp19/m.html Goodnight. Jun 22 05 02:06 am Link Luckily, they can't do this! While a release gives them the right to use the images of oneself, it does not give them the right to disparage ones name. A model can sign a commercial release for shooting glamour nudes, but that does not mean the photographer is free to use it to advertise porn sites, unless specifically spelled out in the release. If I could afford (time over money, really) to deal with a lawsuit, and if I thought the photogra[pher who is openly disparaging my name actually had the power to affect me at all, I'd take him to court. I'm still considering it, if for no reason than to keep them from using images of their models against them and disseminating their personal information from their model release against other models than myself. Jun 22 05 02:10 am Link We artists don't have enough money to successfully assert our rights in most cases. It just doesn't matter enough to anyone how much you have been wronged. I'm sorry... As for porn vs. fetish vs. erotic... You define your own image by going out there and telling the world -- this is who I am! Don't let someone try to pigeonhole you into the degrading world of "porn." It's all in your head. Be the "star" in "porn star"! Jun 22 05 03:14 am Link Yeah! I am a porn star. And I am not even considered a fetish model. The usual definition of porn when models write it in laymens terms is "no toys, no boys, and no spreads" This arguement over semantics is ridiculous. If you don't want to label your work porn, than don't accept that label. I have seen these pictures of which you speak...and anyone seeing them would not label them porn unless they had an understanding of what the photographer was trying to say. Perhaps if you talked to this person face to face, they could describe their extremely intricate historical reasons for this label. I believe that this person is trying to take the stigma away from the word 'porn', and is using it interchangably with erotica, sexual art, etc. I know that based on their experience with you, this person now has a large codicil on all of their portfolios warning prospective models about the potential of the porn label being attached to their collaboration with the artist. If you looked carefully at the portfolio before you contacted the photographer to shoot, you would have realized that there were at least three couples having sex on the portfolio. Somehow, this appears to have passed you by when you asked to shoot with this person. Also, when something is considered porn, you usually get paid to do it. Jun 22 05 04:54 am Link There ARE honest, ethical people out there, like myself. The problem is, how do you differentiate? People can put on all sorts of fronts until they get what they want. Take solace in the fact that most "connoiseurs" of porn would not consider your pictures as fitting the description. A rose by any other name, and all that. Of course, you can always have his legs broken ;-) Jun 22 05 06:29 am Link Posted by Mystic 7: Broken legs? Did you say you need broken legs???? Jun 22 05 08:26 am Link If a slight difference in wording is going to cause you this much pain and suffering as well as make you distrust all photographers and reconsider modeling, frankly it's better you reconsider now. There are plenty of deceitful guys out there, but someone who uses one four letter word over a prettier, more socially acceptable label such as "art" is the least of your worries. It's niave to shoot ANY fetish and assume it's not going to be called porn by someone. Perhaps the photographer should include a list of EVERY term he EVER intends to call his work in the release though? And call EVERY model he's EVER worked with before he uses a different term in a post on a message board. If you investigated his work, you should have been able to make some conclusions about what kind of art it is. Perhaps next time you should be more wise in choosing a photographer whose images are unmistakable and in which the models are fully clothed, so there's no confusion. Jun 22 05 11:15 am Link Posted by Anthony Citrano: This reminds me of Madonna..."Erotic.. Erotic... Put your hands all over my body..." Jun 22 05 11:34 am Link NYX, he didn't touch you did he? You know... sexually? I hear photographers are notorious for that... Though I don't know of any personally... Jun 22 05 11:35 am Link Posted by Reese: Not only that, but he tied me to a door, covered me in peanut butter, and forced me to orally pleasure stuffed animals while playing bad disco music and flogging me with Twizzlers. Jun 22 05 02:49 pm Link LOL... You need to post more often... Good comeback... Jun 22 05 02:53 pm Link Posted by nyx: Posted by Reese: Not only that, but he tied me to a door, covered me in peanut butter, and forced me to orally pleasure stuffed animals while playing bad disco music and flogging me with Twizzlers. Umm. I'm doing 2257 crap right now (paperwork suxxx), so my perceptions are kind of skewed. I'm thinking the last quote was awesome humor and hoping I'm right. Yup yup. Jun 22 05 03:07 pm Link Posted by Boyd Hambleton: In all honesty, if I post anything that he said/wrote, nearly everyone on this forum would recognize him instantly. I am not out to incriminate him, I simply wanted some outside views on the issue, and am doing my best to stay away from any possible drama. Jun 22 05 03:18 pm Link Posted by Boyd Hambleton: Posted by nyx: Posted by Reese: Not only that, but he tied me to a door, covered me in peanut butter, and forced me to orally pleasure stuffed animals while playing bad disco music and flogging me with Twizzlers. Umm. I'm doing 2257 crap right now (paperwork suxxx), so my perceptions are kind of skewed. I'm thinking the last quote was awesome humor and hoping I'm right. Yup yup. Well, I think that although what this guy did may be totally legal, his ethics suck and his actions give good photographers who care about the girls we work with a bad rap. Jun 22 05 03:20 pm Link Disco? call the police right away! I already kno wwho you're talking about. It was the twizzlers that gave it away. that's part of the reason I really don't feel you have anything to worry about. Jun 22 05 03:21 pm Link What's in a name or in this instance a word? You stated that you looked at the photographer's portfolio ahead of time. I'm assuming you talked to him prior to the shoot. He came highly recomended. It shouldn't matter what he calls it. You were happy with the photos before he starting calling it porn. I happen to have worked with this photographer not once, but twice. He didn't touch me inappropriately. I know what his intentions are for the photos he shot of me. Through out the shoots he kept asking if I was okay and how I was feeling, if I was fine. He did not do anything in an unprofessional manner. I didn't feel degraded or deceived. For those of you who are saying he is an asshole or unethical over using the word porn to describe something that is... porn (nude fetish modeling) is silly. Nyx, call it erotica if it makes you feel better about the photos, but to say he misled you into believing they were something otherwise is outrageous. Jun 23 05 03:28 am Link I simply cannot believe you people! It's incredible that you're calling him unethical, dishonest, abusive and all the other things that have been said by way too many of you! The guy does what he does, he's never hidden it. By her account he did exactly what she expected and she had no problems with what they shot together. Fetish, Bondage and erotic, to Aunt Bee in Mayberry, to your grandmother, to most mainstream Americans, to many models and photographers, those things are porn, forms of porn or closely related to porn. If you read the dictionary definitions of those words and choose the appropriate definitions as relates to photography you'll see they are almost identical to the definition of porn. And if you look at the models own page here and the other page she linked to, that same group of people would most likely call her work porn also. So in discussions on this forum, totally unrelated to this model specifically, the photographer referred to his own work as porn a time or two. I think it's ridiculous to hide his identity, as far as I'm concerned it's obvious who it is, who is she trying to kid? She said he gave her joint copyright and called his own work porn, and that he is likely to find this thread. Do any of you know more than one person who could fit that description? What the photographer who posts on this forum, who gives joint copyright and spoke of his own work as porn said was, in a discussion about the appropriateness of certain kinds of shooting, something to the effect of "who am I to judge what others do? I shoot porn myself" So you're telling me he doesn't have the right to describe his own work that way? He needs to consult with every model he's ever shot and get approval for the terms he uses to describe his own work in a generalized way in discussions unrelated to any of the models specifically? Did he even say everything he ever shoots is porn? Did he say "nyx" is a porn model? Did he talk about her at all? No, and nobody knew he had shot her, nobody knew she had shot with him, nobody knew her at all on this forum at that point and nobody gave a fuck about his comments or his models. The focus of the conversation was unrelated to him or what he does, it was only seen as an aside to his comments about the issue at hand. The guy is not famous, nobody knows him outside of this or other forums he might post on, or who are involved in the erotic/fetish/bondage photography scene, none of whom would give a shit what terms he used and none of whom would judge this girl any differently no matter what he called the work, the only way theyâd know she was associated with this âpornographerâ? would be if they saw her in his portfolio or saw his work in hers, in which case theyâd judge her on the work itself, not on some stupid fucking thing he said in a stupid forum debate on another subject. There is never going to be a tabloid or people magazine story, or an E! newsflash or True Model Mayhem story about the shocking news that an unknown model mayhem photographer calls his work porn, and what a disgrace that is to the even more unknown, anonymous, ânyxâ? who is outraged that her nude erotic bondage and fetish work could possibly be called porn!!! What a scandal! Why if Rodney King, OJ, Monica, Lacy Peterson, Shandra Levy, MJ, 9/11 the Tsunami and the Pope dying all happened on the same day theyâd probably all be pushed right off the front page in favor of this incredible story! Extra, Extra, read all about it⦠How can you take this complaint seriously? Where is anyone going to find this imaginary group of people who would be offended by the idea of her being a porn model, or look down on her for it because one of her photographers characterized some of his work as porn, but who would otherwise think sheâs a fine upstanding wholesome all American girl next door after looking at her work as long as it was only labeled erotic nude bondage fetish photography!!!!????? Youâd have to be crazy to buy this argument. Jun 23 05 04:09 am Link Did I mention I was a Porn Star! I always wanted to be a porn star. Now that I have fulfilled that fantasy, maybe I will go post on the million dollar forum. Jun 23 05 04:22 am Link Posted by Pinky: It's why I asked in the last post what context this was expressed. I know who she's talking about and I'm sure he's been reading all this crap. Sorry if this is harsh, but this is pretty much the equivalent to me of the model who shoots edgy content for someone, has a change of heart, and demands the content be taken down. After a few instances where I've been a nice guy and complied with their wishes, I now tell them, "You signed a release, so deal." Ugghh. 6AM. Need coffee. Jun 23 05 04:56 am Link Posted by Lapis: I met Ron Jeremy. Do I qualify as a porn star? Jun 23 05 04:38 pm Link Posted by nyx: Looks like porn to me! Jun 23 05 05:38 pm Link According to Mr. Webster... pornography 1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2: Material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement. erotica :literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality. Since both definitions use the word erotic, let's see what Webster has to say about the word erotic. erotic 1:devoted to or tending to arouse sexual love or desire. 2: strongly affected by sexual desire. According to all these definitions, erotica and porn have very very very similar meanings. They can be used as synonyms. synonym :one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses. Jun 23 05 06:10 pm Link Posted by Studio200: Posted by nyx: Looks like porn to me! hmmmm, must not be porn cause those photos do nothing for me sexually, according to Mr. Webster....but I suppose SOMEONE must get turned on by that. Jun 23 05 08:43 pm Link You are a porno model for sure .. But .. call yourself "Angel" if you like ... Jul 03 05 11:09 am Link Posted by Aperture Photographics: It's art... after all it is in B&W sorta. (at least what I looked at, slow connection so I got bored... damn ADD) Jul 03 05 11:16 am Link |
