|
Forums >
General Industry >
Industry moving to digital ID, is Bentbox the 1st?
I thought you guys might be interested in a report on my experience with a new digital ID service.
I've had good success selling my spicy images on a sales platform called Bentbox, which is based in The Netherlands. A few days ago they suddenly announced that no uploads would be allowed unless photographer and model were both signed up with a new digital ID service called BentID.com Bentbox says this is due to increasing pressure from governments and credit card companies. I'd like to keep selling on Bentbox, so I signed up at BentID.com. It only took about 5 minutes. All I needed was my phone and my driver's license. It bothered me a bit, but I've been sending pix of my face and license to all sorts of internet entities for the last five years or so. At least it was free during the introductory period. After I was given a random ID number, I updated it to my business name. I thought that was a nice touch, now nobody else can choose the same name. Bentbox says this system was developed by a "Swiss company" and they hope to enroll other online sales platforms. This would mean that a model could get her digital ID and use it with photographers who sell on many platforms. I'm skeptical, but willing to wait and see. A more problematic part of the new system is that the release form will also be held by the system. There is a release form page that I still haven't quite figured out, but apparently you can add custom text to fit your needs. If it works, it will be a very clean system and will end my worries of models using fake ID or claiming I coerced them into signing the paper release form. That being said, there are still huge problems that I suspect will drive me out of the nude photography biz. I think that the models who sign up for this will be the few professional traveling models who are still going on tour and working with many photographers. Unfortunately, very few of those have business models that match up with mine. Most of my models now are part time or hobby models who do it for fun, a little cash on the side and some images for their OnlyFans. I suspect these girls won't want to be bothered to sign up for the new service. It's already getting extremely difficult just getting them to show up for shoots, even before the new requirement. If you have an opinion on BentID or any other digital ID service, I'd love to hear what you have to say. All I know about it is coming from Bentbox so far. Aug 25 25 02:01 pm Link This will be a very interesting databreach in years to come Aug 25 25 10:25 pm Link My take is few people are going to trust "porn sites" or digital ID services with their information. Everybody knows about those massive hacks. It just takes one disgruntled employee to make some money on the side. Hobby models are going very wary of having to sign up a service. Now what if you plan on selling photos on multiple platforms and each one requires you both to sign up for their specific service? How many models are going to do that? What about models from old photo shoots that you haven't release yet? Will you have to track them down and beg for them to sign up? Aug 25 25 11:32 pm Link Trying to get models to jump through all these hoops sounds like a real hassle. Aug 26 25 08:27 am Link Beyond Boudoir Photo wrote: I saw that on the portal recently. I've still been able to upload. Interestingly, the ease of uploading to BentBox was the one thing that I felt is had going over other sites. If I understand the requirements as written, it would probably preclude or at least reduce me from uploading in the future. Aug 26 25 08:30 am Link Super Dimension Foto wrote: Things like this usually aren't retroactive. 2257 wasn't. That said, the date used is usually when it's published. Not when it was taken. So if you were trying to post old content, then yes.. you might have to do that. Aug 26 25 09:06 am Link I'm slowly getting a more complete picture from Bentbox as they work out the bugs in the new ID system.
As I understand now, you can call up a shoot you published years ago and add photos of your paper release form and the model's ID using the new BentID website to store that information. You then copy the link to that data and paste it in a field on the Bentbox "sale settings" page. Bentbox believes doing this will make that old content legal under the incoming government rules. They are still promoting their BentID system to create and store a digital model release along with the model's digital ID. They feel this gives the photographer more protection from future claims by models saying the release is fake, invalid, or whatever. Sep 19 25 07:00 am Link 
Photographer Posts: 76 Neumayer - permanent station of Germany, Sector claimed by Norway, Antarctica TestShoot wrote: Probably more secure than the paper copies of licenses and social security numbers floating around photographers' offices now. Sep 19 25 05:13 pm Link Beyond Boudoir Photo wrote: I don't think the motivation is coming from legal compliance. If I understand the situation it is due to tighter policies from banks to fulfill sales. I believe that OnlyFans went through this in the past. From what I can see, OnlyFans has a faulty system of mutual tagging in replacement of release. This means that if you only do tagging and not release then the content is only useful within the OF platform. At this point, I don't work on any content aimed for OF.
Sep 20 25 06:39 am Link I just tried to use it and it failed to upload my photo of my license. I have emailed Bentbox to see if they can sort it out.
My issue like most photograhers will be getting models to sign up for this. I have model release forms signed and valid ID with them already for my records. I have models i shot 10 to 15 years ago, no idea where they are now. Do i need to find them to sign up? Also there are models who do not want their details online anywhere. I dont like it, it think its too much in the Big Brother style. So long as a photographer has good records if questioned i dont see an issue with that. Putting all this up online is asking for trouble i think. Finally i think it should be an option, not mandatory. Oct 06 25 04:47 pm Link Artists should stay away from Bentbox at all costs. They are shady as hell Jan 16 26 01:59 am Link pensyd wrote: There is a procedure for uploading ID/Releases from archived shoots. The only thing that bothers me about it is that there is a requirement to include an email address or social media link. Neither of those things make a release more 'legal' but 90%+ of my releases contain that information anyway. Also to note, the ID and release information are not available for the public to see.
Jan 18 26 04:53 am Link pensyd wrote: I thought I would respond to this part separately. The 2257 requirements (you can debate them separately if you want) require every producer to maintain records. Whether or not you agree with them or think they are still in force is secondary to the standards that most of the industry has adopted and still use. That doesn't only mean the photographer. It has been interpreted to also include the publisher. Literally every one of the hundreds of photosets that I submitted to magazines were accompanied by ID/release. And it wasn't just perfunctory, they were closely scrutinized by the publisher's record keepers.
Jan 18 26 05:06 am Link There's a zero percent chance I'd sign up for something like that. I'd turn down a shoot rather than send my info to a website in any way associated with bentbox. Even a lot of the traveling models (especially those of us who only do portrait and art style posing) aren't going to go for it. If a model who wasn't a professional and was only part time asked me my opinion on this, I'd advise her not to either. Feb 16 26 03:20 pm Link Liv Sage wrote: Like it or not, if you sign a typical model release for a photographer there are many times that ID and release is shown to a site as proof of age and release. Any content shot for commercial release can be inspected before acceptance. I think you are misunderstanding that scope of how content sales have worked for literally decades. I had to submit model releases for commercial/lifestyle stock websites for as long as they existed. Those release were not supplied to individual buyers, nor are they here in this case. Feb 17 26 02:08 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: By far, I have a bone to pick with lawmakers.
Feb 17 26 05:23 pm Link |
