Author Topic: when the company sued the model of being in competitor's product (Read 8108 times)

robbiverte · « **on:** January 13, 2013, 06:26 »

Hello everybody, i am Robbi stock photographer from indonesia . i want to share my experience about one of my stock photo model.

i took photo of This model a year ago and i have sell it through 7 microstock agencies. this model has been used in many promotional ads everywhere, one of my image of her is in promotional ads of local Bank in Indonesia, i called it Bank A. Well after a few months the model was contracted directly as an advertising model by another Bank, i called it Bank B. which is the competitor of Bank A (the letter of contract with Bank B, said that she cannot be in Bank B's competitor promotional ads) , after a while Bank B realized that the model has been used before by Bank A, The Bank B sue the model because the photo of her had been used by the competitor. Just this afternoon the model through her agency called me, and hope the photos of her that are in stock agencies to be deleted, to avoid the same problem in the future.

My questions are:
1.am i in the right position here? or do i have to delete all images of her?
2.anyone has the same problem?
3.what is your solution?
4.is that mean that the model can't work for other promotional ads independently, when the model already as stock photo model? to avoid the same problem like i have explained above

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2013, 07:34 »

I'd say the model entered into a contract that she couldn't fulfill with Bank B, and it is her problem. She needs to take responsibility.

aspp · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2013, 07:49 »

This is a good example of why professional models or new models with professional ambitions need to be very cautious of ever doing stock shoots. Especially RF but RM is problematic too unless they / their agents insist that they have a record of every use.

Photographers really should explain this in detail.

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2013, 07:59 »

Quote from: aspp on January 13, 2013, 07:49

This is a good example of why professional models or new models with professional ambitions need to be very cautious of ever doing stock shoots. Especially RF but RM is problematic too unless they / their agents insist that they have a record of every use.

Photographers really should explain this in detail.

agreed. All pro model agencies I'ves tried to contact aren't interested in RF work. They need to know where and when the images will be used (RM work).

I also agree with Sean, it seems it is the model who has the problem. She made an agreement with you to let you take photos for RF work, she can't later decide that she doesn't want that agreement any more. One thing you could suggest to the model agency is if they pay you a certain amount of money (to cover the loss of the images not being for sale anymore) that you will take down the images.

aspp · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2013, 08:14 »

Even if you kindly agree to take the images down the model needs to know that they may already be in the RF collection of a graphic designer who has already bought them for unlimited use and can therefore use them again in a different advert.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2013, 09:39 »

Quote from: leaf on January 13, 2013, 07:59

Quote from: aspp on January 13, 2013, 07:49
This is a good example of why professional models or new models with professional ambitions need to be very cautious of ever doing stock shoots. Especially RF but RM is problematic too unless they / their agents insist that they have a record of every use.

Photographers really should explain this in detail.

agreed. All pro model agencies I'ves tried to contact aren't interested in RF work. They need to know where and when the images will be used (RM work).

In fact, the agency I had a possible 'in' to would not agree to their models being in any stock work, as they could not know what their models would be advertising. They pointed me to their agency association code of conduct, and that would the case for all of their members (and as far as I could see at the time, all the legit Scottish agencies were in that association.) They said that their models (or their parent/s) always have a choice whether they want to be associated with certain products. (The 'in' I had was particularly with teen girls.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2013, 09:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 13, 2013, 07:34

I'd say the model entered into a contract that she couldn't fulfill with Bank B, and it is her problem. She needs to take responsibility.

I would hope that is explained to models by photographers. How on earth would someone setting out have any clue about that down the line, if they haven't done the sensible thing and signed up with a reliable agency?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2013, 09:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:41

Quote from: sjlocke on January 13, 2013, 07:34
I'd say the model entered into a contract that she couldn't fulfill with Bank B, and it is her problem. She needs to take responsibility.

I would hope that is explained to models by photographers. How on earth would someone setting out have any clue about that down the line, if they haven't done the sensible thing and signed up with a reliable agency?

What exactly should the photographer say? "Of course, you understand that if you work with me it could destroy your chance of ever making the big-time as a model? OK just sign here and I'll start shooting".

There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2013, 09:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2013, 09:48

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:41
Quote from: sjlocke on January 13, 2013, 07:34
I'd say the model entered into a contract that she couldn't fulfill with Bank B, and it is her problem. She needs to take responsibility.

I would hope that is explained to models by photographers. How on earth would someone setting out have any clue about that down the line, if they haven't done the sensible thing and signed up with a reliable agency?

What exactly should the photographer say? "Of course, you understand that if you work with me it could destroy your chance of ever making the big-time as a model? OK just sign here and I'll start shooting".

Yes, just before or after you have made it clear that their image could be used to promote almost any product, service, organsation or cause, and can be altered unflatteringly in a 'humourous' advert.

Quote

There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.

I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

gostwyck · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2013, 09:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2013, 09:48

There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.

Yep __ it's strictly pizzas and watermelons from now on for me.

gillian vann · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2013, 15:40 »

there's a couple of options I see:
she can buy the copyright off you, and have you remove them, and take her chances with what may already be out there.

the marketing and PR people could be clever and use her to their advantage with "miss X has switched from Bank A to Bank B because we're so good, etc". Fun bank ads get everyone's attention.

Poncke · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2013, 17:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

gillian vann · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2013, 18:34 »

I'm not concerned about my kids, but certainly about models I've shot I would be more nervous.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2013, 18:40 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 13, 2013, 17:15

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

Pro models with agencies here won't do stock shoots because of having no control what their image will be used to promote.
Obviously, none of my family or friends would do it, as I said. Why on earth would they? (Luckily, none of them are starving.)

robbiverte · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2013, 23:56 »

what i got now that the model can not easily accept a new advertising work, as she could not know where and when the images of her in stock photo will be used next time

Poncke · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2013, 13:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 18:40

Quote from: Poncke on January 13, 2013, 17:15
Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

Pro models with agencies here won't do stock shoots because of having no control what their image will be used to promote.
Obviously, none of my family or friends would do it, as I said. Why on earth would they? (Luckily, none of them are starving.)

So all people in these millions of photos are desperate? Or stupid? I dont get it. Sorry.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2013, 01:05 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 14, 2013, 13:08

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 18:40
Quote from: Poncke on January 13, 2013, 17:15
Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

Pro models with agencies here won't do stock shoots because of having no control what their image will be used to promote.
Obviously, none of my family or friends would do it, as I said. Why on earth would they? (Luckily, none of them are starving.)
So all people in these millions of photos are desperate? Or stupid? I dont get it. Sorry.

Consider this... maybe you do get it?

Some are desperate and if they make it, then they suddenly want to pull back what they agreed to.

Also explains why some people stay with agencies that abuse artists, threaten us, lower commissions, change levels arbitrarily and treat people like chattel. Sometimes the greed and need outweigh the long term aspects.

Dantheman · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2013, 06:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 18:40

Quote from: Poncke on January 13, 2013, 17:15
Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

Pro models with agencies here won't do stock shoots because of having no control what their image will be used to promote.
Obviously, none of my family or friends would do it, as I said. Why on earth would they? (Luckily, none of them are starving.)

Well....some of the models i used (friends of mine) actually enjoy being in advertisement somewhere around the world. One of the models was actually quite disappointing when i told him, that i wouldn't be able to sell the images over microstock, because the second model in the Image didn't want to.
I think it's just a character thing. Some people love the attention and therefore enjoy being sold as stock and others find it terrible.

Of course the story is different with pro models. Funny enough a friend of mine is a professional model in Cape Town and he has also been photographed by Yuri Arcurs early on in he's career.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2013, 07:01 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 14, 2013, 13:08

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 18:40
Quote from: Poncke on January 13, 2013, 17:15
Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2013, 09:57

Quote
There's one more reason I'm glad I don't work with models.
I've always been amazed that people are willing to sign MRs. No-one I know would consider it for a minute, and always wonder what sort of dreadful circumstances someone would have to be in to agree to it. Most have seen it as just one step above starring in porn (because of the de facto¹ total lack of control of how your image is used), and that's imagining stock models must get paid a lot to even consider it.
¹ Because even if the agency issues a cease and desist for a misuse/abuse, that won't undo the adverts, posters, flyers etc that the image has already been distributed on.

Are you saying that about pro models, or also family and friends who appear in photos? Because I have half my family including some kids in my port and it seems that is a bad thing now.

Pro models with agencies here won't do stock shoots because of having no control what their image will be used to promote.
Obviously, none of my family or friends would do it, as I said. Why on earth would they? (Luckily, none of them are starving.)
So all people in these millions of photos are desperate? Or stupid? I dont get it. Sorry.

I totally don't get why they would.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2013, 07:06 »

Quote from: Dantheman on January 15, 2013, 06:17

Well....some of the models i used (friends of mine) actually enjoy being in advertisement somewhere around the world. ... Some people love the attention and therefore enjoy being sold as stock and others find it terrible.

They don't care what they're used to advertise? Not at all?
They wouldn't mind being on a big poster in their own town advertising something controversial, or embarrassing, or that they are opposed to?
And if a future potential boss saw it?
Or they were used in an advert for a rival company's product or service to the one they currently work in?

Poncke · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2013, 12:27 »

So what I get from this is that all models (pro or amateur) are stupid for modelling in stock photos. And basically we should have no photos with models. I was genuine not getting the problem but the answers I got tell me that I am not being taken serious. Which is fine, I'll drop the issue, but still not understanding it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2013, 12:40 »

There was a case a few years ago on iStock re a high school boy who had modelled in some sort of sports context and because of that there was some problem for him noving on into college sports. In the end, it turned out that he hadn't been paid for modelling (!), so that hadn't compromised his amateur status.

Megastock · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2013, 13:37 »

Have a read of this interview if you think models know what they are signing up for - I think these recommended practices are deplorable!

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/stock-strategies-studio-photographers-interview-bill-bachmann-page-2

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2013, 14:45 »

Quote from: Megastock on January 15, 2013, 13:37

Have a read of this interview if you think models know what they are signing up for - I think these recommended practices are deplorable!

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/stock-strategies-studio-photographers-interview-bill-bachmann-page-2

I've read people say things like that on iStock, i.e. do anything not to have models read the release and begin to have doubts. But that was probably 4-5 years ago.
Astonished he doesn't have problems outside the US. I'd decided it must be a huge culture difference there, plus we have such a strong notion of 'fully informed consent'.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: when the company sued the model of being in competitor's product (Read 8108 times)

robbiverte

Sean Locke Photography

aspp

leaf

aspp

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

gostwyck

gillian vann

Poncke

gillian vann

ShadySue

robbiverte

Poncke

RacePhoto

Dantheman

ShadySue

ShadySue

Poncke

ShadySue

Megastock

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors