Capitalist Tools wrote:
Let me start by saying I don't have a bias against porn or porn performers.

I stick very much to the classic art nude format.  I strenuously avoid producing work that is in any way overtly sexual or erotic.  The furthest I might go in that direction is some fairly chaste pinup-style shots.  I have never taken any photos of what pro models call 'open-leg.'

One of my models, someone I've worked with for several years, has moved on to become a full time porn actor.  As I said, that doesn't bother me.  I don't consider her other work to be any of my business. 

As an aside to this discussion, I've always told my models that they're free to use my watermarked photos as part of their portfolio, so long as they're not selling the photos.

Now to the problem.  She's begun sharing my art photos of her under her porn actor identity on her porn social media sites, alongside photos and videos of her performing explicit X-rated sex acts.

Part of me thinks, "Well, any publicity is good publicity.  Leave it alone."  The other part thinks, "I don't want my work to appear alongside hard-core porn."

So models, photographers, what do you recommend?  Let it ride, or say something and try to put an end to the practice?  Am I being a jerk, or just trying to protect my brand?

Actually I do recall a case where a model sued because her image appeared next to some ads that were for a strip club or some such thing.  The court case cost both the photographer and model a great deal of money, and in the end only the attorneys made out well. 

If you have the opportunity to communicate your concerns with this model, but not in a confrontational manner, you might be able to convince her to remove your images.  Otherwise it might be best to let it go.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Actually I do recall a case where a model sued because her image appeared next to some ads that were for a strip club or some such thing.  The court case cost both the photographer and model a great deal of money, and in the end only the attorneys made out well. 

If you have the opportunity to communicate your concerns with this model, but not in a confrontational manner, you might be able to convince her to remove your images.  Otherwise it might be best to let it go.

I remember reading about this lawsuit several years ago, not sure if it is the same case you are referring to, the model's image was used for an HIV+ advertisement portraying her as HIV+, she was awarded $125,000 by the court.

Court Awards Six Figures to Model Falsely "Diagnosed" with HIV in Ad Campaign
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail … b780bcb37e

USA December 13 2018

As reported in an earlier blog post (https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/10 … d-campaign), a model, whose stock photo was used in an New York State ad campaign advocating for the rights of HIV+ people, and portraying her as HIV+, successfully sued the state for for defamation and a violation of her publicity rights. The model had posed for an article about New Yorkers' music interests, but the photographer sold the image to Getty, which licensed it to the NYS Division of Human Rights for the campaign. The model had not signed a release.

Capitalist Tools wrote:
One of my models...

Do you own or just lease?

I was under the impression that photographers don't possess models and therefor don't really have a platform to really own their life before the shoot or their life after the shoot.

Rudyography wrote:

I remember reading about this lawsuit several years ago, not sure if it is the same case you are referring to, the model's image was used for an HIV+ advertisement portraying her as HIV+, she was awarded $125,000 by the court.

Court Awards Six Figures to Model Falsely "Diagnosed" with HIV in Ad Campaign
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail … b780bcb37e

USA December 13 2018

As reported in an earlier blog post (https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/10 … d-campaign), a model, whose stock photo was used in an New York State ad campaign advocating for the rights of HIV+ people, and portraying her as HIV+, successfully sued the state for for defamation and a violation of her publicity rights. The model had posed for an article about New Yorkers' music interests, but the photographer sold the image to Getty, which licensed it to the NYS Division of Human Rights for the campaign. The model had not signed a release.

Nope, not the case I'm aware of.  What I read about happened locally here in San Jose, California.  It was a print media ad back when print media was still important in a local city.  It went away quietly, but my point to all this is that it didn't help the reputation of the model nor the photographer.   About your example, a model or actress being portrayed as being HIV+ back then or even today is a hell of a lot worse I think than having some photographer's art nudes mixed in with a model's porn site.  I've shot some porn in the past in which I was well paid.  All I did was make sure that they did not involve my name.  In any case, I was accused of making the models look too "pretty" so for that reason I no longer got the the work. LOL

Dan Howell wrote:

Do you own or just lease?

I was under the impression that photographers don't possess models and therefor don't really have a platform to really own their life before the shoot or their life after the shoot.

Wait...

We're supposed to let them go free?
Well, shit.

Lucifers_Corner wrote:
Wait...

We're supposed to let them go free?
Well, shit.

It places the lotion in the basket.....

Chris Macan wrote:

It places the lotion in the basket.....

So THAT'S why they're so chafed.

Capitalist Tools wrote:
Let me start by saying I don't have a bias against porn or porn performers.

....

What agreement did you have with her regarding using the photos you shot?
(that's one thing)

I'd say , forget it ... any publicity is good

and
no-one will probably see the images anyway .. HA HA

peter vic wrote:
What agreement did you have with her regarding using the photos you shot?
(that's one thing)

Usage-based (as in media type, duration, impression size) requirements in releases and licenses are common. Context-based requirements for release are complicated and I would think very rare. The closest thing I can think of are stock/micro-stock companies have non-adult clauses in their licensing agreements when someone downloads an image for use. I would be surprised if this situation has a complicated usage licensing agreement in place.

Nigel W wrote:
Looking at your port and seeing the models in there, I'm guessing this is a situation that is also happening to me if my hunch is right. The model I'm referring to has always told me she's been interested in doing porn and if she now has and is using my images, then there's not a lot I can do about it. There is no point going legal as you have to prove you've been damaged in some way. There's no point asking her to refrain from using the images as she already has done so. Frankly you could go both routes but how much time do you have to devote to dealing with this and is it really worth it?

Your photos are beautiful, as are the OP's, but trust me, posting art nude or casual glamour pictures isn't paying anyone's rent. Many of us who do adult work post other pictures because we like to show we are multi-faceted humans... real people. I post pictures of my cats, I post videos of deer in my yard, I post videos of myself using a snowblower or riding on my lawnmower and I post fine art nude photos occasionally too. These things don't generate income - it helps people treat us like people with real lives and real feelings. As much as many want to treat us like the scourge of the earth and think "how dare someone post my pictures next to *gasp* naughty pictures or videos"... we are real people creating things for people who are interested in seeing it.

And I think the OP may be shocked at how many beautiful and talented ladies in his verified credits have been doing adult work for years and years.

Audrey Rinehart wrote:
As someone who worked in both fine arts modeling, at the pro/traveling level, as well as a former adult industry worker, I will just say that there is a lot more overlap than anyone realizes

this is something I've been trying to say in other threads, and bothers me a little about some of the responses of this thread

this model-photography industry acts like its supposed to be libidoless, nearly robotic in candor and appreciation of physical form, whose attractiveness for this industry is based on its sexual attractiveness everywhere else

do what you have to do to keep everyone comfortable and maintain your reputation, but let's be honest about what we are here for and portraying and why we're interested in it. Most of the threads on this forum going back two decades are about pretending there is absolutely no arousal involved in this trade, and making sure everyone knows that

yeah, back to the main point, there is significant overlap. it bothers me that in this thread at least two responses are making jabs about OP knowing she does porn at all. what's up with this praise of women's sexuality and deep discomfort with mens? wait till you do a lap through your area's strip clubs, massage parlors, and browse escort sites... who put all these travelling models in there!

for anyone trying to keep all this separate, they're lucky photographers have always been a demographic to be bothered by $150/hr, because they definitely won't be in those other venues where she's at!

Dan Howell wrote:
Do you own or just lease?

I was under the impression that photographers don't possess models and therefor don't really have a platform to really own their life before the shoot or their life after the shoot.

I was wondering the same thing

I rarely hear Photographers us the term “My Model” any more

May I suggest referring to Models that You work with as maybe “ My inspiration “ or even “ My Muse “ because that gives the Power to them

Garry k wrote:

I was wondering the same thing

I rarely hear Photographers us the term “My Model” any more

May I suggest referring to Models that You work with as maybe “ My inspiration “ or even “ My Muse “ because that gives the Power to them

The determiner for the use of the word 'my' - it can mean belonging to, or associated with.

Roaring 20s wrote:
wait till you do a lap through your area's strip clubs, massage parlors, and browse escort sites... who put all these travelling models in there!

for anyone trying to keep all this separate, they're lucky photographers have always been a demographic to be bothered by $150/hr, because they definitely won't be in those other venues where she's at!

Chuckles contentedly.

Garry k wrote:
I was wondering the same thing

I rarely hear Photographers us the term “My Model” any more

May I suggest referring to Models that You work with as maybe “ My inspiration “ or even “ My Muse “ because that gives the Power to them

Camera Buff wrote:
The determiner for the use of the word 'my' - it can mean belonging to, or associated with.

My doctor, my dentist, my plumber, etc.

Mark Salo wrote:
my plumber, etc.

My plumber better not be cheating on me!
I swear I paid to put his kid through preschool....

Camera Buff wrote:

The determiner for the use of the word 'my' - it can mean belonging to, or associated with.

Understood

But anyone who has been in this scene for a while knows that some photographers feel a sense of possessiveness over their models to the point even that they don’t want them to wrk with other photographers ( I am not saying that the OP feels that way- but it s a possibility given his choice of words )

Mark Salo wrote:

My doctor, my dentist, my plumber, etc.

Unless you have EVER complained about one of your doctors other patients or feel that you have any right to, this is not an apt analogy. Same for dentist or plumber.

Camera Buff wrote:
Using "my model" in a phrase generally does not suggest you own them in a literal or legal sense, but rather it implies a professional, collaborative, or contracted relationship.

While rarely meaning literal ownership, some people might find the phrasing "my model" to be objectifying or unprofessional, as it can sound condescending or proprietary.

Rather than saying "One of my models, someone I've worked with" the OP only needed to say "A model I've worked with"

My guess s that you didn’t read what Dan Howell said earlier

He is the probably the most skilled and successful photographer in this discussion

Garry k wrote:
My guess s that you didn’t read what Dan Howell said earlier

He is the probably the most skilled and successful photographer in this discussion

Please don't cite another members credibility as a means to undermine my credibility and point of view.

If you disagree with a point I've made, please don't guess, provide constructive feedback. Explain why you disagree and provide evidence to support your viewpoint.

My issue with the OP has little to do with his choice of words, it's about his seeking recommendations on how he might belatedly go about stopping a model from using his watermarked images to promote herself on a porn site.

My point of view is he can't retrospectively revoke a standing agreement. He could try starting afresh by proposing a new usage agreement, which includes offering compensation to the model.

Camera Buff wrote:

Please don't cite another members credibility as a means to undermine my credibility and point of view.

.

Why not ?

You attempted to make an authoritative statement to rebut my point of view

And I just pointed out to you that Mr Howell is the real Authority in this discussion

Garry k wrote:
Why not ?

You attempted to make an authoritative statement to rebut my point of view

And I just pointed out to you that Mr Howell is the real Authority in this discussion

"Why not ?"
Because it is impolite and presumptuous of you to offer advice or opinions on the basis of being a fanboy for a person who you rudely point out to all other participants, as his being "the real Authority in this discussion".
 
You say "I attempted to make an authoritative statement to rebut your point of view."
You are welcome to make your own point of view to rebut exactly what the authoritative statement was that you believe I attempted to make to rebut your point of view. 

"And I just pointed out to you that Mr Howell is the real Authority in this discussion."
And may I ask how may times have you pointed this out to other members in other treads where you feel that in disagreeing with you is akin to our disagreeing with the real Authority in these discussions.

I actually agree with the premise of Mr Howell's responses. Perhaps I am misconstruing his message as not simply being about the possessive use of the words 'my models', and is more to do with his way of pointing out to the OP that there is no platform that allows him to behave in such a possessive manner over models.