Nakrani Studios wrote:
When I think about getting "published" it is in a Print magazine that I can walk up to a news stand, or find in a book store and purchase. Where they have a "real" editor and staff, and have a Real office that you can make an appointment and meet with them if you need to.

They have a real editor and staff and a real office where you can meet them after making an appointment...;-)

I am talking about magazines like Vogue, Teen, Shape, Muscle Mag, Harpers, Playboy, etc.

Printed media is dwindling a little bit while online media is growing rather fast... So the difference to make is between media and "media".

Specifically the ones that models go crazy over because they think they will make a big name for themselves over some popularity contest due to the exposure.

Typically the model will bug the photographer to submit, or submit photo's with out the photographers permission because they "have to win this contest"

There are some fashion blogs which probably could push a model's career better than some print magazines.

So I read the instructions on a few of these so called magazines and submitted photo's to them (low resolution samples) and got emails back that they liked images such and such from the group of samples I sent.

They also requested high resolution versions of these images (RED FLAG). They also sent release forms saying that the photographer can't sue them for usage of the photo's online and in print, blah, blah, blah,etc.(Red Flag 2)

The only thing that counts: terms of trade which both sides agreed to.

They also wanted photo's without the watermarks on them (Really?)

Of course, because nobody likes "watermarks" in pictures. (Watermarks by the way are invisible in the default view of a bill or stationery... What you mean is a visible copyright mark in the picture.)

So I start googling these (creeps) and allot of them are making a profit selling PDF files as on line magazines with our images in them, usually for $18-30. Most of them use a service called Magcloud. Mag cloud charges around  $12(+/-) to host your "PDF Magzine" and provide the services to sell it.

Buying cheaply and selling expensively. We call this "free enterprise".

Why would a photographer let some bogus company use their images for profit and not get a kick back of some kind. Legitimate magazines use advertisers to cover the cost of the magazine.

Presumably each single photographer will have his/her individual reasons for this. It will range from "being a vain idiot" to "having found a clever marketing strategy" probably.

But wow, the models get sucked in hook line and sinker.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I don't know that "Fake published" is the right word, But most of us are here because at some point, we either photograph models now, have in the past, or plan on it in the future.

When I think about getting "published" it is in a Print magazine that I can walk up to a news stand, or find in a book store and purchase. Where they have a "real" editor and staff, and have a Real office that you can make an appointment and meet with them if you need to.

I am talking about magazines like Vogue, Teen, Shape, Muscle Mag, Harpers, Playboy, etc.

Along comes "social media", now we can't get rid of social media, but in the last couple years there have been allot of these so called magazines pop up on places like Facebook. I am talking about Facebook pages that call them selves "Magazines"

Specifically the ones that models go crazy over because they think they will make a big name for themselves over some popularity contest due to the exposure.

Typically the model will bug the photographer to submit, or submit photo's with out the photographers permission because they "have to win this contest"

So I read the instructions on a few of these so called magazines and submitted photo's to them (low resolution samples) and got emails back that they liked images such and such from the group of samples I sent.

They also requested high resolution versions of these images (RED FLAG). They also sent release forms saying that the photographer can't sue them for usage of the photo's online and in print, blah, blah, blah,etc.(Red Flag 2)

They also wanted photo's without the watermarks on them (Really?)

So I start googling these (creeps) and allot of them are making a profit selling PDF files as on line magazines with our images in them, usually for $18-30. Most of them use a service called Magcloud. Mag cloud charges around  $12(+/-) to host your "PDF Magzine" and provide the services to sell it.

Why would a photographer let some bogus company use their images for profit and not get a kick back of some kind. Legitimate magazines use advertisers to cover the cost of the magazine.

If you look up these so called "magazines", they don't have a web address, they don't have a business address, and they are using gmail to correspond with the models and photographers (this sounds more like a South African credit card scheme now)/ Buyer be ware.

But wow, the models get sucked in hook line and sinker.

I did not want to name any of them specifically but I am sure you all know many of the ones I would have mentioned. Do any of you really submit to these creeps? Has it done anything for you or your business?

And when these people email you, wow, You can tell it's a scam because they don't know how to talk to potential clients.

I'm curious about 2 things...

1)  How much have you made from "real" magazines as you call them?
2)  How much money have you lost from the "fake" magazines?

My guess is the answer to both questions is exactly the same, so what is the harm?  Doing business in some way is better that not doing business at all.

studio36uk wrote:
Ersatz or real publication - - -  The Perils of On-Line Magazines... the ease of infringement and potential for real damage

Since this thread started I have been contacted by a photographer and their model, together, seeking help with a potentially damaging bit of business. Their present problem represents a lesson of sorts that illustrates risks associated with some of what is being discussed here, as well as the omnipresent need to be vigilant of work placed on the Internet in any context. The names have been changed, but the facts are true. This is ongoing as I write this post.

The main players:

* Suresnap - a British photographer
* Ima Model who uses the stage name "Foxy" for nude work but their real name for fashion work - a British model
* BRAG E-Zine - an on-line magazine
* Pornoid - a semi-porn blogger with a pay for access blog consisting of a wide variety of infringing content almost all of which involves nude work, of models and celebrities, and I dare say every bit of which is lifted from elsewhere in the Internet and potentially, at least, infringing of someone's copyright.

--snip--
Studio36

Let's change your real life scenario to a fictitious, but more common one...
Suresnap and Ima Model submit some photos to PlayLad, a well known publication, for print, and has an on-line version to display dozens more images of Ima Model taken by Suresnap, perhaps others as well, including the possibility of staff PlayLad photographers.

Pornoid either using a high resolution scanner or subscribing to PlayLad on-line site obtains images of Ima Model taken by Suresnap, and well, the rest of the story plays out exactly the same. You might solicit PlayLad to help catch Pornoid, but with the millions of copyright violators for PlayLad, well, don't think the results will be any different.

Red Sky Photography wrote:

Photography is my hobby. It's not my place to help you or anyone else succeed in your business.

I'm a professional Automotive technician. Do you think I worry about anyone doing a tune up in their driveway, for themselves or their friends for FREE. I could say they are taking work away from me, but people come to me for my knowledge and experience. If you think my hobby is taking work away from you, then you better step up your game.

+1
I love your analogy. And to the other poster wondering if someone else called themselves a "professional Automotive technician" and operated out of their driveway, Caveat emptor, buyer beware. Either he does a good job, or he does not.

I do not mind helping others to succeed in their business. When a model wants something beyond my interest or abilities, I will direct her to another photographer who might be able to accomplish what she desires. No harm to me in doing so.

photo212grapher wrote:
Let's change your real life scenario to a fictitious, but more common one...
Suresnap and Ima Model submit some photos to PlayLad, a well known publication, for print, and has an on-line version to display dozens more images of Ima Model taken by Suresnap, perhaps others as well, including the possibility of staff PlayLad photographers.

Pornoid either using a high resolution scanner or subscribing to PlayLad on-line site obtains images of Ima Model taken by Suresnap, and well, the rest of the story plays out exactly the same. You might solicit PlayLad to help catch Pornoid, but with the millions of copyright violators for PlayLad, well, don't think the results will be any different.

The issue is not so much the infringement, though that is an issue itself, but rather the unauthorised use of the model's real name in the circumstances. Keep in mind that that, in itself, constitutes a commercial appropriation, one of the four privacy torts, in light of Pornoid also associating it with a solicitation to sell paid memberships to his blog. As Suresnap's real name is also used then they have an equally valid complaint of commercial appropriation as well, and that completely aside from the copyright issues.

In those US states that have such statutes, or a common law basis, then this equates to a cause of action on right of publicity grounds, just as it would in your example.

Studio36

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I don't know that "Fake published" is the right word, But most of us are here because at some point, we either photograph models now, have in the past, or plan on it in the future.

When I think about getting "published" it is in a Print magazine that I can walk up to a news stand, or find in a book store and purchase. Where they have a "real" editor and staff, and have a Real office that you can make an appointment and meet with them if you need to.

I am talking about magazines like Vogue, Teen, Shape, Muscle Mag, Harpers, Playboy, etc.

Along comes "social media", now we can't get rid of social media, but in the last couple years there have been allot of these so called magazines pop up on places like Facebook. I am talking about Facebook pages that call them selves "Magazines"

Specifically the ones that models go crazy over because they think they will make a big name for themselves over some popularity contest due to the exposure.

Typically the model will bug the photographer to submit, or submit photo's with out the photographers permission because they "have to win this contest"

So I read the instructions on a few of these so called magazines and submitted photo's to them (low resolution samples) and got emails back that they liked images such and such from the group of samples I sent.

They also requested high resolution versions of these images (RED FLAG). They also sent release forms saying that the photographer can't sue them for usage of the photo's online and in print, blah, blah, blah,etc.(Red Flag 2)

They also wanted photo's without the watermarks on them (Really?)

So I start googling these (creeps) and allot of them are making a profit selling PDF files as on line magazines with our images in them, usually for $18-30. Most of them use a service called Magcloud. Mag cloud charges around  $12(+/-) to host your "PDF Magzine" and provide the services to sell it.

Why would a photographer let some bogus company use their images for profit and not get a kick back of some kind. Legitimate magazines use advertisers to cover the cost of the magazine.

If you look up these so called "magazines", they don't have a web address, they don't have a business address, and they are using gmail to correspond with the models and photographers (this sounds more like a South African credit card scheme now)/ Buyer be ware.

But wow, the models get sucked in hook line and sinker.

I did not want to name any of them specifically but I am sure you all know many of the ones I would have mentioned. Do any of you really submit to these creeps? Has it done anything for you or your business?

And when these people email you, wow, You can tell it's a scam because they don't know how to talk to potential clients.

It's important to remember EDITORIAL WORK is hardly ever paid. Even vogue only pays photographers like $500 for an editorial. Editorial work is your walking advertisement.

BTHPhoto wrote:
I think when people start using the terms "real" and "fake" to distinguish between their choices/accomplishments/self-perceptions and those of other people, they're generally more concerned with reminding the world of their own importance than with anything else.  If Joe-next-door feels proud of being published in an on-line magazine, exhibited in a coffee shop, self publishing a book, or what ever else he chooses to do with his images, then the only person who has a right to say whether that accomplishment is legitimate or not is Joe, and people who take it upon themselves to denigrate Joe and belittle his accomplishment are really just exposing their own insecurities for the world to see.

Exactly.
People worry too much about others and create silly segregation to feel special about themselves amoung others.

Sabrina Maree wrote:
Published means print to me. Nothing less. I don't consider you published in Penthouse if you are only online.

I don't think many photographers are going to consider themselves published by having images in Penthouse print either.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
For me the distinction is commissioned/solicited, not fake/real or print/web.

This is so true. Many magazines, especially smaller ones with very light budgets will take what they can for free, or next to free. You can call that "published", because it is.

As far as being "published" helping you in a significant way with advertising and creative agencies is when you've been entrusted to shoot something that has to go right. Major editorial and commercial advertising shoots cost on the low side tens of thousands of dollars to produce. While the photographers pay and royalties can be handsome, what really counts is the performance. It's not just the money on the line, it's deadlines, availability of the subjects and products being shot (you think a celebrity is coming back for a redo?), permits, location, equipment and everyone's time.

Have some images published doesn't demonstrate an ability to perform and deliver every time you shoot.

studio36uk wrote:
As it stands:

I can offer nothing else, or point to a real solution here, at this juncture because the drama is still on-going, and it's not going to be over "'til the fat lady sings". But it is clear that this nasty bit of Pornoid business has potentially put Ima Model, aka "Foxy," at some undefinable level of risk from anything ranging from stalkers, to harassment, to identity theft, to problems with employers present or future.

Studio36

With the right application of legal arm twisting ALL the objected to content was removed within 24 hours.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Here's a follow up on this one


With the right application of legal arm twisting ALL the objected to content was removed within 24 hours.

Studio36

Well done!

Can I ask how? Was it pressure applied to the US based servers that the content ultimately was
resting on?

studio36uk wrote:
Just a side note for the US readers - Because this is a board with an international membership it is important to note that in the REST OF THE WORLD photographers, as authors of their work, have legally binding moral rights and universally that includes the right, in law and morally, to be identified as the author of their work. That can be by way of a watermark or by way of a credit. Many of the so-called publishers offer neither option.

Worst of the lot are those that demand unmarked images, won't print a credit line in text, -AND- then put their own name or the name of their website on the images they deign to "publish".

Copyright law can also be fickle about such things when, as it does in some countries, it clearly holds that the name on the image is the "presumptive owner of the copyright" as is the case in a number of European countries. And, further, that the right to recover damages depends on prior marking of images should they be infringed.

Y'all need to see the bigger picture [so to speak]. And in order to do that you first need to understand that there is a bigger picture.

Studio36

+1

Sara Perreira wrote:
It's important to remember EDITORIAL WORK is hardly ever paid. Even vogue only pays photographers like $500 for an editorial. Editorial work is your walking advertisement.

Yes and No. I think that there is some confusion about editorial rates vs. page rates. Certainly not every magazine is Vogue, but I'm pretty sure that the quoted sum is a page rate not a day-rate or rate for an entire layout. I am sure that different editions of Vogue have different page rates for photographers, but taking the quoted $500/page rate x 12 page layout you get a $6000 photographer's rate for shoot + expenses. That's still a pittance to the likes of Annie or Steven, but it is not negligible.

I have heard of a major non-fashion magazine with a very large circulation having a $3500 day rate for their cover editorials. I have frequently work for $1000/day+ on cover/feature layout shoots. No, that doesn't compare to an advertising day rate + usage fee, but again, it is not negligible either.

Sara Perreira wrote:

It's important to remember EDITORIAL WORK is hardly ever paid. Even vogue only pays photographers like $500 for an editorial. Editorial work is your walking advertisement.

While often correct for models, this is simply not true for photographers. Major magazines pay for your time, and usually licensing fees for each image. $500 isn't even in close range.

Mortonovich wrote:
Well done!

Can I ask how? Was it pressure applied to the US based servers that the content ultimately was
resting on?

As to the use of the model's real name, it rested on her common law right to publicity and privacy in the [US] state where the server company's business was situated [because it was being associated with a commercial solicitation very directly on the web page it appeared on = the commercial appropriation of her name], and, that, in combination with two other factors, the server company's ToS [prohibition on breach of third party rights by service users] and the potential for loss of immunity citing 47 USC 230 [The Communications Decency Act]. In effect, once they knew about it they could act promptly to remove it without civil liability -or- if they failed to remove it they could, themselves, become liable.

We also mentioned, very pointedly, concern as to risks to the personal safety of the model.

They acted very swiftly to limit their exposure.

Studio36

Photography by Riddell wrote:
A lot depends on weather you are talking to an amateur or a genuine professional.

Genuine professionals will not consider being on a website published, nor will they consider being unpaid or recieving really low fees. There is just no respect to be gained, and can even have the opposite effect.

Amateurs don't care, they are generally just desperate.

I don’t think this is right at all. 

I believe I am what you would deem a “genuine” professional and my work has been on many websites for which I haven’t received payment.  Usually it’s to promote something, like a book or a show, but often the idea of promotion can get a little lost.

Everything these days is about content and more specifically free content.

For instance, about a year ago quite a few of my photos, mainly of Ku Club in Ibiza, were on  the Mail website - which I believe is the most popular news website in the world.  This particular set of photos had been unpublished and unused for 30 years.

Now when someone Googles Ku Club in Ibiza they will find this article (I just tried it, forth one down).

This is helpful because beforehand, no one knew these pictures existed.  Now they may come to me for prints and/or publication rights.

Of course, they may just steal what they want from the Mail. 

But I feel it’s better that they are out there where they might earn me some money, than remain where they were where they would definitely not.

Viator Defessus Photos wrote:
Just to provide a different perspective, consider the following:

ModelMayhem hosted an article by the editor of an online fashion magazine: https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/p … their-work

This magazine can't be bought in stores and obviously doesn't meet your standard of getting published for real, but MM gave him the time of day and whatever credibility that might make you afford it/him.

He made that article to talk about the things photographers tend to screw up on when submitting their work.

MM also hosted another article IIRC where-in a male model talked about how he got published/got covers.

At a minimum, going through this kind of submission process with the online and magcloud magazines that aren't crap serves as a form of practice and fine tuning for going into bigger magazines that you and they might hold in higher regard. In that way, it has some value.

Sabrina Maree wrote:
Published means print to me. Nothing less. I don't consider you published in Penthouse if you are only online.

That's how I looked at being published over a decade ago.

Times have changed! I got paid for runway gigs and those shots have been published online and in print in Marie Claire, Huffington Post, Inc. Magazine, Ecouterre (London and Paris) and many more.

I have my photocredits on them and they even linked to my own website... for you, that might be nothing... but I got a fine paycheck that was a nice and warm!

Over the years, I have lost track about the print publications I got published in, I used to collect multiple issues of magazines or newspapers etc., as future reference etc. They just collected dust and were of no use to me and to spell it out clearly... I just haven't cared where I am published... it is more important to me that I can pay my rent as a result of taking photos.

The coolest print and most memorable to me where runway photos printed in Al-Hayat, with all writings in Arabic... which I still find to be one of my coolest tearsheets.

To make a long story short... I changed my attitude towards the definition of what "published" means. There are too many print magazines that went out of business or shifted to online only. Magazines are barely paying for content anymore, because they get so much free content offered, "thanks" to the digital revolution.

If I am addressing the headline of this thread... what is "fake" published to me is where you pay to get your images into a magazine, "Vanity Magazines" have already been mentioned above... those are in the same range to me as the awards you get for your photos if you are paying for it.

That's it!