Quote from: LesPalenik on January 31, 2015, 00:43

Several years ago, a national magazine (I don't remember which one) ran a story about about some shady pharmacy practices and to embellish their article, they used a stock photo of an elderly pharmacist in a white coat with a title "Would you trust this man?" or something along those lines.  I don't remember all the details, but for the pharmacist it was a personal and business disaster. As far as as I know, the magazine claimed a legal usage of the photo.

Could you be thinking of this?:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/model-release-question-for-doctorsdds-photo-sessions/msg316441/#msg316441
I'm always astounded at the number of 'family and friends' who seem to be willing to model (and togs that are willing to use them), knowing the types of legal usages which are permitted, far less abuses. I'm presuming that many of these people have (or hope to have) real jobs, or are known in communities, where any number of legitimate uses could backfire on them. Weird.

Thanks, Susan, that could be it, the title being ""Is your pharmacist killing you?".
I googled for that published article, but couldn't find it anymore.

Thank you! You got PM

Bit off topic, but there's another article about the dangerous business of modelling for stock here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11387719/Erectile-dysfunction-and-the-dangers-of-stock-photo-modelling.html

"Gibbs was thrilled to see himself featured in an advertisement for PayPal at the top of eBay, despite a twinge of regret that he would not even see a portion of the fee the photo agency would have been paid for the use of the image. "

Lol, here's your nickel.

If you shoot an image of a man looking upset on the edge of a bed with a frustrated woman behind, you should expect it to be used for articles about situations that that image could represent.

I notice that the pic was licensed from Alamy, who require that models should sign releases allowing 'sensitive use'. It's then up to the tog to spell out what they might be (though I'm sure no-one can think of every possible use).
"In our contributor contract we ask that all model releases from our photographers cover sensitive uses"
http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/12/ive-signed-model-release-rights
Contract 4.6 "4.6 Where you have indicated that a Model release, Property release or any other release of a third party right including without limitation any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property right, is available. the release must (a) be legally binding and (b) (except as otherwise notified to Alamy via the website or, with the agreement of Alamy, via email) authorise all uses of the Images anywhere in the world including without limitation uses in relation to sensitive issues; you must make the release(s) available to Alamy if so requested. "

That doesn't mean that sale got more than $.25 or whatever.  We all know volume of small sales is what makes the till go up.

all in all, the biggest shock is that in this modern world of so many years of advertising, there are still some people who thinks that everything you see on TV or advertising is real.
They don't think that way when they see Tom Cruise as a spy , or Nicole as a street-walker or whoever as Jack the Ripper. No one says, OMG you know that Johnny Depp is a serial killer or a drug addict or a pusher (Blow).
The problem is not the model, it's the public. A public that still thinks that Arf is a real life size dog and not a hand puppet, and that all that blue screen work and CG is truly real .
The problem is we wean a society that believes everything is not just play acting, but for real.
This is what happens when you bring a child up never to be able to relate to the real people, but more to a computer screen or a touch screen or a smart phone.
How many times do you see people walking in the street with their face in the smartphone instead of walking with their face forward looking at you and other passers-by??? Even in the supermarket they don't notice you , and you have to literally push your way pass them as they block the path with their cart or just walk on the pavement side by side never thinking about moving aside to let people go by.
And they don't even know how to say "excuse me" or smile.

I think that round here most people would assume that someone who is in an advert has agreed to be in the specific advert, as would be the case from model agencies, and probably imagine the model personally approved of the ad with their image. Most have the same dislike/distrust of ads as I have, and know about photoshop, but don't know anything about stock and how it's used, misused and abused.

Quote from: ouchie on January 29, 2015, 19:25

Poor baby photographer is being sued  . 


.......

 I spend lot of time to explain to every single model all the aspects of image use, AND ALSO despite all of this - potential misuse.  yes, i don't forget to say that one of bad misusing scenarios is for example to have images at porn sites. in the same way as it is possible with photos on social media for example, regarding the fact that microstock is quite clear - no porn.


  what is your proposal for me in this potential scenario? is it  " poor li'l me? " 
would i be innocent in your opinion? where did i make mistake? what else should i do?
  can i have your sugesstion?   of course, except "cabbage/carrot" suggestion.

Don't expect any useful ideas from Ouchie.  Pretty obvious he's just here to insult people.

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on January 30, 2015, 02:52

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 30, 2015, 01:31

I could potentially be hit by a car when leaving the house so I started living like a cabbage.

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

Hey, i just looked at your portfolio and it made me............. "LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

Ok im sorry--it just pisses me off. we talk like adults then one person comes and namecalls or makes a snide remark. and i get carried away and do the same. sorry for that, i wont name call again.

Talk like adult, you don't. Look in the mirror.

Quote from: Katja on January 29, 2015, 11:44

Hi guys, I know many of you were curious about the similar case in Europe. I'm glad to say that today we got good news from our lawyer: we won the case. The international character of the case did not hinder the Netherlands process being possible.

So here is just briefly on what grounds we won (in my own words):
1. Model failed to prove images were bought from stock agency; judge agrees they could be stolen from her own social/modeling profiles, from her computer or from publications elsewhere.
2. Even if they were licensed, still the agency's license was breached by end-users, which is not photographer's fault. Photographer handled correct selling images through a platform with a clear prohibition of damaging use.

I'm still a bit in shock, in a good way this time! This is a huge relief after 2 years of unfair game, full of peculiar details showing true colors of lawyer practices and some people we let into our life and work.

I sincerely hope that my American colleague will win his case on the same obvious grounds as we did and can continue to be a providing father and a professional.

A digital online record of my case should be available shortly I assume, it's not there yet, but those of you interested can simply send me a private message by that time 

So happy to hear this!!! Good for you Katya!

I am so glad there was a favourable outcome! Well done!