Author Topic: Photographers Bill of rights in Microstock - YA, Legal Problems (Read 21642 times)

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2009, 15:37 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 06, 2009, 11:31

Quote from: Zeus on February 06, 2009, 11:25
I agree with your concerns and it certainly is making me wonder about the whole notion of micro as a viable business.

As your own example illustrates, this has nothing to do with microstock per se.

Very true, it has nothing to do micro. It's just in many cases trad agencies will go after those infringing on their rights. In my case a simple note to the offender quickly cured the problem. Perhaps I am generalizing too much, its just that when I combine all the possible problems with micro I start to feel a bit uneasy.

Phil · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2009, 16:15 »

a while back I went looking to see what pricing I could online for my reflux tablets (pretty similar to the local discount pharmacy, but anyway). opened a stack of pages, one site opened to their most popular product and had 3 pics (2 guys one, 1 couple) all with 'testimonials' written under their pic of how many 'inches' they had gained. the photos were all microstock.

dress a model as a doctor, upload image and someone uses it on their site for say these products, even without writing this is doctor x they've endorsed the product, but then the model is pretending to be something they are not anyway.

loop · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2009, 18:16 »

Well, I don't use professionals agencies because when I ask for a price, this price is never factible for microstock work. I pay my models, but I use semi-professional ones and to be able to find them is one of the most important parts of my work. Until now, with already years of micro experiencie and sales (obviously a lot les than yuri), I've never seen one simple misuse of my work. Maybe it's just luck, maybe the fact that normally I just come to see about 2% of my published shots.

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2009, 18:37 »

I had thought using a stock image and giving the model a new identity was against the TOS of most of the sites.

That said, I know it happens all the time. Fortunately my models understand this and aren't bothered by it.

In fact, one couple was used in a vitamin catalogue. The catalogue stated in the fine print that all the people in it were actually taking their vitamins. My model called up and told them he and his wife were in their catalogue and wanted their free vitamins. They received a box full of vitamins the next week

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 06:11

I realize this is a little speculative (but not greatly so, given the current state of play), but I believe this is the reason why, in the not too distant future, 'models' will be computer generated and not real people at all. The advances in CG characters in cinema in the past five years have been pretty spectacular.

I don't know - this is where the Uncanny Valley theory kicks in. I think real human models will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

null · « **Reply #30 on:** February 06, 2009, 19:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2009, 18:37

In fact, one couple was used in a vitamin catalogue. The catalogue stated in the fine print that all the people in it were actually taking their vitamins. My model called up and told them he and his wife were in their catalogue and wanted their free vitamins. They received a box full of vitamins the next week

Hahaha, I need to remember this one! I'll try to take a shot of myself in a business suit next to a parked Maserati. Who knows...

crazychristina · « **Reply #31 on:** February 06, 2009, 19:55 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2009, 18:45

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 06:11
I realize this is a little speculative (but not greatly so, given the current state of play), but I believe this is the reason why, in the not too distant future, 'models' will be computer generated and not real people at all. The advances in CG characters in cinema in the past five years have been pretty spectacular.

I don't know - this is where the Uncanny Valley theory kicks in. I think real human models will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I'm familiar with the uncanny valley theory, and I think there's a lot to it. However, I've seen a few comments from people in vfx who say that the most difficult part to get right is movement. For still images, this isn't such a problem, and I believe we'll be seeing photoreal 3D models pretty soon. Mark Evans already has images containing 'people' where the people have more detail than simple silhouette (a couple of airport shots) - this trend can only continue.

Graffoto · « **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2009, 21:44 »

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 19:55

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2009, 18:45
Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 06:11
I realize this is a little speculative (but not greatly so, given the current state of play), but I believe this is the reason why, in the not too distant future, 'models' will be computer generated and not real people at all. The advances in CG characters in cinema in the past five years have been pretty spectacular.

I don't know - this is where the Uncanny Valley theory kicks in. I think real human models will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I'm familiar with the uncanny valley theory, and I think there's a lot to it. However, I've seen a few comments from people in vfx who say that the most difficult part to get right is movement. For still images, this isn't such a problem, and I believe we'll be seeing photoreal 3D models pretty soon. Mark Evans already has images containing 'people' where the people have more detail than simple silhouette (a couple of airport shots) - this trend can only continue.

Well now we have totally hijacked this thread.
IMHO if advertisers wanted to get around using live models, they already have the option of using illustrations. Many indeed do just that.

Do you remember the line from the original 'The Matrix' movie concerning how when the computers first tried to produce an artificial world they made it 'perfect'? The human minds could not accept that and millions died.

That is how I see this 3D computer modeling. It looks OK, but something that I can't put my finger on is amiss. Just don't like it.

Plus, with a live model, in four hours I can get maybe four clothing changes, 20 different expressions plus nuances of those expressions and countless poses.
How long does it take to generate all those changes on a 3D model?

crazychristina · « **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2009, 22:00 »

More back on the original topic - I think if current microstock houses migrate to midstock (higher prices, higher production values, with better control over image use) there will be plenty of new sites arising to fill the void at the lower end, using non-professional models with no protection regarding usage. I don't think the current microstock model is going to go away any time soon.

Regarding 3D, how long something takes now is not much guide to how long it will take and how difficult it will be in a couple o years. Unlike people, technology advances apace.

Graffoto · « **Reply #34 on:** February 06, 2009, 22:25 »

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 22:00

More back on the original topic - I think if current microstock houses migrate to midstock (higher prices, higher production values, with better control over image use) there will be plenty of new sites arising to fill the void at the lower end, using non-professional models with no protection regarding usage. I don't think the current microstock model is going to go away any time soon.

I agree with you on the above, and I think that is the direction IS is going in.

@Yuri. if you want us all to stand together on a 'bill of rights' so to speak, then we will need a professional association that we all belong to. One that will stand behind us. I can think of no one more suitable to start and head such an association than yourself. You have the clout, resources and drive to put it together. So I nominate you as first president of the International Microstock Photographers assoc. (IMP)

lephotography · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2009, 23:26 »

I would not totally agree. I had one of my pictures of a model used for a strip club called Club Skin and just so happened to be in our local area... My model told me and was very upset about it and I felt so bad. I called the stock agency which sold it and they were on it. Being it was used in a manner which to defame or hurt models image. Their legal team was on it immediately and the man that purchased it was a designer and seized and stopped the print of the ad. I was very happy how they handled it.
This is something that will never be able to be completely controled. You never know where your images are being printed and used. I like that FT lets you know who purchased your images. I think they all should supply that information.

The models do have rights and so do the photographers. The Stock agencies will stand behind you if it is used wrongly.

I have also had our images used on a front cover of a magazine as my model as a character with problems and she found it but did not take it personally and just used it in her portfolio so it worked out for everyone.

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2009, 00:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2009, 18:45

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 06:11
I realize this is a little speculative (but not greatly so, given the current state of play), but I believe this is the reason why, in the not too distant future, 'models' will be computer generated and not real people at all. The advances in CG characters in cinema in the past five years have been pretty spectacular.

I don't know - this is where the Uncanny Valley theory kicks in. I think real human models will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

Awesome, the link contains a reference to the show I just finished watching 5min ago (30 Rock). How uncanny is that?

e-person · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2009, 05:30 »

I agree with everything Yuri said, except for, in order to avoid this, just sell RM.

fotomy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 08, 2009, 16:54 »

most images of models and actors used in mags are so retouched they look like characterless artificial 3d models. i think the retouchers and editor are actually trying to emulate the CGI plastic look

.
being realistic, not sure you can do much about the problems Yuri has got with his models, maybe let them know exactly about the torpedo tube they are getting into before you shoot them.
maybe the real issue is that his model images should be sold via RM with geographic restrictions limited to USA , Europe, Canada, Australia etc where they have a descent legal system and the agencies will pursue licensing offenders in court. may be a hit on the microstock earnings front but maybe he will earn more with an RM agency and they will deal with the licensing headaches.
if anyone can change international laws then Yuri is the man with the energy and drive but i think the photography might suffer.

helix7 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 10, 2009, 00:43 »

I've got a (not entirely related) idea for the Bill of Rights:

Stop charge-backs to contributors for fraudulent microstock purchases.

It is completely ridiculous that agencies can take back money from contributors when an image is purchased with a stolen credit card or using a fraudulent account. That is a security issue that we have no control over, and we should not be the ones to pay for the problem. If an image license is sold, we get paid. Period. If the sale gets charged back afterwards, it should be on the agency or the credit card company to eat the cost. Not us.

RT · « **Reply #40 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:12 »

Quote from: fotomy on February 08, 2009, 16:54

if anyone can change international laws then Yuri is the man with the energy and drive but i think the photography might suffer.

And when he's done maybe he could sort out world poverty and global warming.

null · « **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: RT on February 10, 2009, 02:12

And when he's done maybe he could sort out world poverty and global warming.

Too late, Obama will do that.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photographers Bill of rights in Microstock - YA, Legal Problems (Read 21642 times)

PeterChigmaroff

Phil

loop

lisafx

lisafx

null

crazychristina

Graffoto

crazychristina

Graffoto

lephotography

Read_My_Rights

e-person

fotomy

helix7

RT

null

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors