Photographer
Craig Huey Photography
Posts: 5
Houston, Texas, US
Sorry if this is a repeat thread...
It's assholes like this that give ethical shooters a bad wrap.
It would seem as though there's at least TWO shooters who have marketed their photos to at LEAST one escort agency website. Who knows how long it's been going on, but it does make one worry about where else these seemingly "legitimate" modeling photos may turn up.
Models BEWARE: if you are being paid for a shoot, and sign a commercial release for said photos -- first - READ THE RELEASE BEFORE SIGNING. Releases should stipulate where they will/won't be marketed to, and many also have clauses about not selling them to companies or websites that could potentially damage the models' reputation. second - GET A COPY OF THE RELEASE. May sound silly, but too many models see the $$$ and forget the release. Don't just take the word of the photographer "...oh no, they won't be sold to adult websites, just to companies to advertise their clothing..." whatever. Know that if you're being paid $100-$150 for an hour's work, that shooter plans to make more than that in the sale of the images.
Check the reputation of the shooter, ask models he's worked with... Always keep in mind the old saying "If something sounds too good to be true..."
Photographer
Lens N Light
Posts: 16341
Bradford, Vermont, US
I've never seen a release that states in its text the specific use of the images. Mine says:
I (model's name), for good and valuable consideration enumerated below, grant all rights, exclusively and in perpetuity, to all photographs taken of me on this day (and not listed in exceptions below) by Lens N Light and Joe Longo (photographer) to said Lens N Light and Joe Longo, his heirs, assigns, and agents as they/he shall deem proper, and agree to hold blameless in the event of improper use by other persn(s) or organization not signatories to this document.
Said rights include, but are not limited to, sale and/or display at shows, museums, magazines and other periodicals, books, and internet websites, for cmmercial or any other reason, including, but not limited to, promotion and advertisng as Lens N Light and Joe Lngo shall deem proper.
It then goes on to discuss manipulation of data and captioning.
Nowhere is the actual use of the images discussed, implicitly or specifically.
Then, again, I don't require a signature befre the model has participated in the shoot and knows what the images will be.
The restrictions you mention are completely unrealistic unless you are shooting for a client. Mine are shot on spec to be sold as art or decoration.
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
jumping to conclusions!
escort sites steal photos from all over the internet every day!
the photog may have no idea that the photos are on the escort site; you should ask!
you should check your photos - they may be on sexysexy.com already!
All you can do is send them an email or a phone call. If you want to pay lawyers every day, then go for it!
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
all of my releases state 'explicitly' that any and all of the images can not be used for any Explicit, or XXX adult related work
Model
Brigitte_BM
Posts: 91
Los Angeles, California, US
I've found my pictures on a Mass escort site and made them IMMEDIATELY take it off...
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
jumping to conclusions!
escort sites steal photos from all over the internet every day!
the photog may have no idea that the photos are on the escort site; you should ask!
you should check your photos - they may be on sexysexy.com already!
All you can do is send them an email or a phone call. If you want to pay lawyers every day, then go for it! The stealing of images to set up FAKE profiles on places like MySpace for everything from webcamming, escort services, etc. or because of just plain stupidity is disgusting! I see it all the damn time! Models I know who are NOT webcammers or escorts having their pictures used without permission!
I've started a couple groups called "FAKE BUSTERS" for teh very purpose of exposing those stealing to set up fake profiles, but it seems overwhelming. Too many FAKES!
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Lens N Light wrote:
I've never seen a release that states in its text the specific use of the images. Pretty much all commercial releases are specific about use.
That said, I think it's very likely some of the other comments are correct. Image theft is rampant these days, and it's very likely that the images were used without the consent of either the model or the photographer. In such cases no release does any good.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
local to us, theres about 4...and one of them isnt even particular if he was the shooter...
but heres the thing..
bunches of models are told about this...and shoot with him anyway....
not only that..he becomes thier "online manager"...
whats that about not wanting to work with models that have worked with certain photogs?
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
jumping to conclusions!
escort sites steal photos from all over the internet every day!
the photog may have no idea that the photos are on the escort site; you should ask!
you should check your photos - they may be on sexysexy.com already!
All you can do is send them an email or a phone call. If you want to pay lawyers every day, then go for it! Trust me. I know the photographer, and I use this term loosely, he is talking about. Not only does he know, he sold them to that site. He's done stuff like this before.
Photographer
William Coleman
Posts: 2371
New York, New York, US
Chili wrote:
all of my releases state 'explicitly' that any and all of the images can not be used for any Explicit, or XXX adult related work Mine, too. But I have images up on several model sites. Someone could steal them, copy them, and post them anywhere.
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
If you add conditions to a model release, I have a hard time believing you aren't setting yourself up for interpretation issues. For example, what is the universal definition of explicit?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
I know the owners of many escort agencies here in California. Not only do they NOT buy photographs of models, they would have to be stupid to do so. I mean come ON. The girl is going to be with the client IN PERSON. If the person in the photograph is not the one that shows up they do not get paid.
Now, some illigitimate agencies do STEAL images from websites, but those that do that will not spend their money on BUYING them.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28822
Phoenix, Arizona, US
It's simple. If you're not posing for explicit/adult photos then the likelyhood that you'll wind up on an adult oriented site is pretty much not. If you are posing in an explicit manner, then you probably don't care if the photos wind up on one of these type of sites.
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Craig Huey wrote:
Sorry if this is a repeat thread...
It's assholes like this that give ethical shooters a bad wrap.
It would seem as though there's at least TWO shooters who have marketed their photos to at LEAST one escort agency website. Who knows how long it's been going on, but it does make one worry about where else these seemingly "legitimate" modeling photos may turn up. My confusion is this: How did selling images to an escort agency website make the photographer unethical? How is a photo promoting an escort agency not a "legitimate" modelling photo? At what point is intentionally standing in front of a camera not modelling? What exactly is your problem with those photographers? Do you have evidence of fraud? Or is it their choice of market venue that offends your sense of moral outrage?
Please educate me. I stand in profound ignorance as to how this bothers you as a photographer.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
John Jebbia wrote:
It's simple. If you're not posing for explicit/adult photos then the likelyhood that you'll wind up on an adult oriented site is pretty much not. Not necessarily true at all. Especially when it comes to fetish websites which have expicit and non explicit fetish material. I have seen models say they do not do any sort of fetish modeling yet have what many in the adult industry could easily consider fetish modeling allover their portfolio. There is so much that could be considered fetish material, even simple shots of the girls hair, hands, feet,arm pits,etc. that it is very possible that any model who shows any of these things in her images that someone could steal them and post them on a fetish site which contains explicit material.
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
My confusion is this: How did selling images to an escort agency website make the photographer unethical? How is a photo promoting an escort agency not a "legitimate" modelling photo? At what point is intentionally standing in front of a camera not modelling? What exactly is your problem with those photographers? Do you have evidence of fraud? Or is it their choice of market venue that offends your sense of moral outrage?
Please educate me. I stand in profound ignorance as to how this bothers you as a photographer. There is definitely evidence of fraud. The women in question are not escorts nor did they give permission for there images to be used in conjunction with an escort website. The images are also being posted under different names. I know three of the models that have discovered their images on this site. They are being misrepresented as escorts.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28822
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Arm pits? Are you kidding me? Are people so bored with normal everyday sex that they are now turned on by someone's armpit?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
MichaelHaynes wrote:
There is definitely evidence of fraud. The women in question are not escorts nor did they give permission for there images to be used in conjunction with an escort website.
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
I have spoken to two of them and I know what was in the model release. The photos could not be used to demean or defame them.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
There is definitely evidence of fraud. The women in question are not escorts nor did they give permission for there images to be used in conjunction with an escort website. The images are also being posted under different names. I know three of the models that have discovered their images on this site. They are being misrepresented as escorts. Did you see the model release they signed? My model release gives me pretty permission to do as I please with the images.If they add in more specifics as to what they would not like done with their images, thats fine. But for the most part models understand that whatever the photographer shoots can be used, sold, disposed of as the photographer pleases.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
MichaelHaynes wrote:
There is definitely evidence of fraud. The women in question are not escorts nor did they give permission for there images to be used in conjunction with an escort website. Did you see the model release they signed? My model release gives me pretty permission to do as I please with the images.If they add in more specifics as to what they would not like done with their images, thats fine. But for the most part models understand that whatever the photographer shoots can be used, sold, disposed of as the photographer pleases. I have spoken to two of them and I know what was in the model release. The photos could not be used to demean or defame them. so you are basically taking their word for it just because you know them? Have you SEEN the release or just been told what was in it? Selling someones photographs, no matter who to, is not defaming or demeaning them. I hope you do not do stock photographer. If you do, especially through a broker site, you have NO say in who buys them or what they use them for if they pay the fee.
Photographer
ADG Photography
Posts: 544
Calhoun, Georgia, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
jumping to conclusions!
escort sites steal photos from all over the internet every day!
the photog may have no idea that the photos are on the escort site; you should ask!
you should check your photos - they may be on sexysexy.com already!
All you can do is send them an email or a phone call. If you want to pay lawyers every day, then go for it! My photographs have been stolen and used for this purpose. I think alot of these sex and escort sites surf model and photographer portfolios just to find good pictures of hot women. It sucks!
Model
A.Fox
Posts: 418
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
John Jebbia wrote:
It's simple. If you're not posing for explicit/adult photos then the likelyhood that you'll wind up on an adult oriented site is pretty much not. If you are posing in an explicit manner, then you probably don't care if the photos wind up on one of these type of sites. Not true in the slightest. Even a swimsuit picture can be used. As a matter of fact some girls escort "talents" include things like "girlfriend time" so they try to come across as "wholesome" or a "girl next door type" and use completely clothed photos.
I don't want ANY photo of me, nude or in a turtleneck on an escort site because....
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
so you are basically taking their word for it just because you know them? Have you SEEN the release or just been told what was in it? Selling someones photographs, no matter who to, is not defaming or demeaning them. I hope you do not do stock photographer. If you do, especially through a broker site, you have NO say in who buys them or what they use them for if they pay the fee. I will take their word over this guy any day of the week.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
I will take their word over this guy any day of the week. Until you see the model release they actually signed, you do not know if they signed a release that says he can do what he wants with the images or not.This is one of those instances where someones word really does not work. Especially if the models just signed it without reading it, as happens often.If they did that, it`s their fault, not his.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
A.Fox wrote:
Not true in the slightest. Even a swimsuit picture can be used. As a matter of fact some girls escort "talents" include things like "girlfriend time" so they try to come across as "wholesome" or a "girl next door type" and use completely clothed photos.
I don't want ANY photo of me, nude or in a turtleneck on an escort site because....
Model
A.Fox
Posts: 418
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Have you googled your name? and your name in the images section, with the google search filter turned OFF in the preferences section to see where images of you are posted? Yep and my photos are ALL over. I find at least 10 Myspace fakes of me a month. I'd spend my whole life getting sites/profiles shut down if I went after everyone.
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
There is definitely evidence of fraud. The women in question are not escorts nor did they give permission for there images to be used in conjunction with an escort website. The images are also being posted under different names. I know three of the models that have discovered their images on this site. They are being misrepresented as escorts. Internet fraud gets investigated by the FBI. Have the models in question called the FBI 800 number for the fraud hotline? (Go here for local complaint phone numbers: http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm Or filed a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center? http://www.ic3.gov/
Are you saying that those sites are advertising that that is the person you will get when you book that face and that they have no way of providing you that particular woman as an escort? That would be fraud. However, a model not giving permission for their image to be specifically advertising that site, even under a fictitious name, is not evidence of fraud.
Misrepresentation as escorts might be a local matter, but since you have not provided me a method of reviewing the "evidence" there is no way I can be certain of the validity of the claim.
Why are you representing those models? Can they speak for themselves? Or at least click the links above and report a crime, if one has occured?
You also still have not stated how being on an escort website is not "legitimate" modelling. Can you answer how escort services, legally licensed to operate, somehow delve into the realm of "illegitimate" modelling?
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
Are you saying that those sites are advertising that that is the person you will get when you book that face and that they have no way of providing you that particular woman as an escort? That would be fraud. However, a model not giving permission for their image to be specifically advertising that site, even under a fictitious name, is not evidence of fraud. That is exactly what is happening. They are being represented as escorts in the Dallas area. When they aren't escorts and they live in the Tampa area. Also they are being listed under different names. And as soon as it came to light what was happening their images suddenly disappeared from the site. There are several of these models that are already putting lawsuits together.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
A.Fox wrote:
Yep and my photos are ALL over. I find at least 10 Myspace fakes of me a month. I'd spend my whole life getting sites/profiles shut down if I went after everyone. Have your photogaphs digimarced through PS. They are automatically monitored that way. You can instantly get a report of where a digimarced photograph is being posted, right down to the exact page. makes the process of finding out who is using them without permission, then firing off a "form"cease and disist letter a very fast process since you do not have to go searching yourself.
Model
Brigitte_BM
Posts: 91
Los Angeles, California, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
Internet fraud gets investigated by the FBI. Have the models in question called the FBI 800 number for the fraud hotline? (Go here for local complaint phone numbers: http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm Or filed a complaint with the Internet Crime Compaint Center? http://www.ic3.gov/
Are you saying that those sites are advertising that that is the person you will get when you book that face and that they have no way of providing you that particular woman as an escort? That would be fraud. However, a model not giving permission for their image to be specifically advertising that site, even under a fictitious name, is not evidence of fraud.
Misrepresentation as escorts might be a local matter, but since you have not provided me a method of reviewing the "evidence" there is no way I can be certain of the validity of the claim.
Why are you representing those models? Can they speak for themselves? Or at least click the links above and report a crime, if one has occured?
You also still have not stated how being on an escort website is not "legitimate" modelling. Can you answer how escort services, legally licensed to operate, somehow delve into the realm of "illegitimate" modelling? Thank you I will have to remember that!
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Christopher Wright wrote:
I have spoken to two of them and I know what was in the model release. The photos could not be used to demean or defame them. Sigh. Time to look of the Black's Law Book definition of defame and demean. Very, very ambiguous definitions. An escort service may qualify in one community as demean and not in another. Defamation would point to the intentional and specific tarnishing of a person or reputation. Very hard to prove, especially in advertisements.
What you are basically saying with a broad interpretation of demeaning and defaming is that say, I took a picture of a model. Later I had an opportunity to recycle and sell that photo to Enron for a magazine ad. Enron collapses and gets in the middle of a very public scandal. A person sees said model on the street and accuses her of working for criminals and despots. Has she been demeaned and defamed by that photo placement?
Not the same as an escort service you say? Define how. Both sell legal commodities. Neither is selling anything illegal. Ah...the morality card. Paying to date a girl is immoral. Well, morality is not legislated.
My other question, possibly unrelated...why don't the escort companies just go out and buy a $100 digital camera and snap their own web-quality images? Much cheaper and less troublesome than stealing images. I have a very, very high suspicion that many of those so-called stolen images, really weren't but rather sold in an attempt to make a quick buck and then complained about when someone recognized the picture. I really have to go with that scenario based on the tremendous amount of complaints and zero prosecutions. I wouldn't simply make such a site take my picture down, I'd subpeona their business records and charge them a percentage for every sale generated by my photos. Attorney fees? Bah humbug. Walk into a court house and issue the subpeona yourself. They do not respond, they default. Look, if a company has to steal images rather than buy them, they are going to spend a lot more money of defense lawyers than they would have on photography or model license fees. The logic just doesn't work out for mass theft.
Or maybe it does if people don't excercise their rights by filing in court.
Photographer
Fotographic Aspirations
Posts: 1966
Long Beach, California, US
Unfortunately the moment you post your image up on the internet, you have simply given away your right to its use. Sure one could spend a fortune in court claiming copyright infringement, defamation of character etc..... But you have to prove damages, lacking these your barking up the wrong tree.
As a model you can easily attach a clause that states "your image shall not be used for any illegal or immoral proposes or in a manor that would cause embarrassment or harassment ".
This thread started out with someone stating that after being paid $ 150 ~ 200 per hour (?) for a photo shoot bla bla bla.....
In society professions that command these rates, doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, structural engineers ..... all require 6 to 8 years of advanced education.
What does a model do to insist on these rates ? Brings the results of the merging of her parents DNA, packaged in attractive clothing, with a smile, nice hair and 15 min of make up ! And most who insist on large sums of compensation actually don't require the clothing.
If a model is really concerned about were or how an image will be used - A) Don't take any provocative images. B) Don't post these on the internet . C ) Insist in final approval of all shots taken.
Frank
Model
A.Fox
Posts: 418
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Have your photogaphs digimarced through PS. They are automatically monitored that way. You can instantly get a report of where a digimarced photograph is being posted, right down to the exact page. makes the process of finding out who is using them without permission, then firing off a "form"cease and disist letter a very fast process since you do not have to go searching yourself. That'd be good for new pics but there are thousands currently on my site.
Model
Isadora Whitewing
Posts: 64
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
John Jebbia wrote:
It's simple. If you're not posing for explicit/adult photos then the likelyhood that you'll wind up on an adult oriented site is pretty much not. If you are posing in an explicit manner, then you probably don't care if the photos wind up on one of these type of sites. uhhh...thats a bit of a generalization isn't it.
Just because a model might be more comfortable expressing her sexuality than some other models, does not mean that she won't care that her photos wind up on some porn/escort site. Thats like saying that if you shoot in a clown costume that you won't care if your photos end up in a costume store without your permission.
And why would this model want others to make money off of her pictures when she's not profiting? Photographers sometimes forget that the whole reason a person becomes a model is to make some money. Its not like a free service for the photographer to expand her/her portfolio or their website for that matter.
Photographer
Christopher Wright
Posts: 11854
Lansing, Michigan, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
Sigh. Time to look of the Black's Law Book definition of defame and demean. Very, very ambiguous definitions. An escort service may qualify in one community as demean and not in another. Defamation would point to the intentional and specific tarnishing of a person or reputation. Very hard to prove, especially in advertisements.
What you are basically saying with a broad interpretation of demeaning and defaming is that say, I took a picture of a model. Later I had an opportunity to recycle and sell that photo to Enron for a magazine ad. Enron collapses and gets in the middle of a very public scandal. A person sees said model on the street and accuses her of working for criminals and despots. Has she been demeaned and defamed by that photo placement?
Not the same as an escort service you say? Define how. Both sell legal commodities. Neither is selling anything illegal. Ah...the morality card. Paying to date a girl is immoral. Well, morality is not legislated.
My other question, possibly unrelated...why don't the escort companies just go out and buy a $100 digital camera and snap their own web-quality images? Much cheaper and less troublesome than stealing images. I have a very, very high suspicion that many of those so-called stolen images, really weren't but rather sold in an attempt to make a quick buck and then complained about when someone recognized the picture. I really have to go with that scenario based on the tremendous amount of complaints and zero prosecutions. I wouldn't simply make such a site take my picture down, I'd subpeona their business records and charge them a percentage for every sale generated by my photos. Attorney fees? Bah humbug. Walk into a court house and issue the subpeona yourself. They do not respond, they default. Look, if a company has to steal images rather than buy them, they are going to spend a lot more money of defense lawyers than they would have on photography or model license fees. The logic just doesn't work out for mass theft.
Or maybe it does if people don't excercise their rights by filing in court. Hey, I am not a lawyer. That is up to the models lawyers to figure out what he can be sued for. It won't be the first time ths photographer has been sued. He has a long history of doing some very shady things and has lost more then his fair share of lawsuits.
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
Or is it their choice of market venue that offends your sense of moral outrage?
Please educate me. I stand in profound ignorance as to how this bothers you as a photographer. the publication can subject the model to conspicuous ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn, and/or indignity.
how about i shoot you TFP, then i sell your photo to a website advertising men who have sexual dysfunctions? would that bother you?
Photographer
40 Digital Photography
Posts: 1055
Tarpon Springs, Florida, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
Sigh. Time to look of the Black's Law Book definition of defame and demean. Very, very ambiguous definitions. An escort service may qualify in one community as demean and not in another. Defamation would point to the intentional and specific tarnishing of a person or reputation. Very hard to prove, especially in advertisements.
What you are basically saying with a broad interpretation of demeaning and defaming is that say, I took a picture of a model. Later I had an opportunity to recycle and sell that photo to Enron for a magazine ad. Enron collapses and gets in the middle of a very public scandal. A person sees said model on the street and accuses her of working for criminals and despots. Has she been demeaned and defamed by that photo placement?
. The Houston Astros seemed to think so.
They got out of their contract with Enron over naming rights
to their stadium, based on of course the negative perception of being
associated with Enron brings.
Robert
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Chili wrote:
the publication can subject the model to conspicuous ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn, and/or indignity.
how about i shoot you TFP, then i sell your photo to a website advertising men who have sexual dysfunctions? would that bother you? Shhhhh. It happens.
|
