LondonWeddings wrote:
oooh just a thought - sure they didn't just not just approve your submissions ?

have a nice day

Are you adding something to this thread or just dribbling.

Welcome to MM BTW, and maybe you should read the forum rules.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/info/rules/forums

If not I'll invite a moderator to help you out.

Burning Violet wrote:
I've seen so many wannabes posting about Vogue Italia bullshit and it's just laughable.  Do they REALLY think people are so thick as to believe that their making an account and uploading pictures counts as being published on the Vogue Italia website?

Well technically, it does. But it just makes people look moronic and desperate.

Wow. Thanks for this rant. LOL

We do seem to missing a healthy dose of skepticism on this site (and in general).

Richard Dawkins posits that we are genetically disposed to be gullible. He may be right.

William Cox wrote:
Lies always catch up. You dont need to get these people...they get themselves every day. I was amused at the depth of the backround check in my first museum show. And I was glad that I didnt have any bullshit in my resume. Just be glad that someone taught you integrity.

Yes of course.
It doesn't hurt me at all , yet I am always concerned about others. Yet as Thierry said , I shouldn't be a mere poule ( probably what he was thinking) trying to protect what is not mine to protect.

And Ray H you made me laugh, it's clear that often it's just a case of putting words in out of place profiles that are meant to be misread.

Thanks.

Burning Violet wrote:
I've seen so many wannabes posting about Vogue Italia bullshit and it's just laughable.  Do they REALLY think people are so thick as to believe that their making an account and uploading pictures counts as being published on the Vogue Italia website?

Well technically, it does. But it just makes people look moronic and desperate.

Wow. Thanks for this rant. LOL

To be positive, there is hope  , and like lottery tickets, if you don't buy the tickets you cannot win.

So yes post away, and be placed on a Vogue website.

Yet realistically no one I know here is close to be ready to shoot for Vogue Italia ( although Ben K is scratching at the bullet!). I think Gavin O'Neill had a page in the beauty section of one of the Vogues too?

I'm not waiting for Franca to call.....

Neil Snape wrote:
Now how do you feel about photographers lying about themselves, to convince others of their greatness that doesn't exist?

I submitted a few of my photos to Vogue.it too and they have kindly put some up but I certainly wouldn't claim that I "worked" for Vogue or try to use the watermarked photos as evidence of such.

It's a good thing to get a bit of extra traffic on Facebook or whatever - "Oh look, my photo on Vogue.it" - but it's not evidence of anything other than somebody there (probably an unpaid intern) liked one of your photos enough to click on it.

As for lying about oneself, that's clearly wrong. Of course, the key to marketing is to always accentuate the positive, but when it crosses the line into outright lying that's a different matter.

For instance, there's another photographer I know of, who entered the 'Hassleblad Masters' contest and because he got picked for the second round (or whatever) he started referring to himself as a Hasselblad Master, as if he'd already won, which he never did. A while after NOT winning he stopped using the contest to promote himeslef but I fully expect to see him doing exactly the same thing again next year.

Personally I feel that behaviour like that goes too far, but I'm sure some would claim it's just clever marketing.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Neil Snape wrote:
Ken ,

you raise the proverbial question of what is published in this day and age of digital delivery. Someone just asked the same question by PM.

Even when you upload pictures to FlickR or from certain HTML editors , the term publish is used.

I don't consider pictures uploaded for portfolio reviews to be published as there is no editorial contribution being made.

With the demise of print publication and full digital delivery of subscription magazines, my views will undoubtedly have to change.

I know when I do or if I do send up some images, and if they are selected, I still wouldn't consider them published. IF they went on to winning the overall competition and were printed in the magazine, then I would at least feel justified by that print as a publication , as it would likely have layout and words.

Hence you see coming from a print background full screen highly compressed jpgs are still in my eyes , an internet abstraction .

Let me start by saying, that I fully agree with your general thrust, that the term 'published' is being diluted.
The only reason why I feel it is justified in this instance is, that if the Vogue Picture Editor selects an image from a subscriber's portfolio, then the image is automatically 'published' on the PhotoVogue page. In this case a third party (PE) has singled out the image for display in a non-portfolio setting and that would qualify it as 'web published'. It does set them apart from the thousands of other submissions that remain just that , submissions.

Neil Snape wrote:
Published with classic print magazines isn't the same as on line or web stuff. Even picture of the day is not published, it's just a blog post.

Until there is a wide subscription base for on line magazines, I'm not going to consider anything I've done for any on line magazine to be published.  Even if I post to Vogue Italia , and if I won the prestigious honour of picture of the day, I cannot consider that to be published.

Since I have worked for oh so many world wide ad campaigns just because the ads were published in Vogue, etc , does that say that I can list them? Nope, if one lists magazines, you need to have done a published editorial series.

Yet times are changing.

Still does this go beyond simple misleading?

There is a difference between being featured and being published. I have been featured on many art nude websites in Europe and the US. On Vogue Italia, you are being featured, not published. If you do win picture of the day, you can at least claim you were "featured" on Vogue Italia so you still would have bragging rights but it is not published.

I know a photographer who considers himself published whenever any of his work is featured on the web. He even considers himself "published" if a model uses his images on her web site.

I shot a Playboy model once, does that make me a Playboy photographer?

John Fisher wrote:
For the last 15 years it's been guys claiming they had contacts at Playboy (which meant they had called the 800 number to renew their subscription)

I am sharing an apt with a model who was in various Playboy special editions 12 years ago so I have a "contact" now

Ken Pegg wrote:

Let me start by saying, that I fully agree with your general thrust, that the term 'published' is being diluted.
The only reason why I feel it is justified in this instance is, that if the Vogue Picture Editor selects an image from a subscriber's portfolio, then the image is automatically 'featured' on the PhotoVogue page. In this case a third party (PE) has singled out the image for display in a non-portfolio setting and that would qualify it as 'web featured'. It does set them apart from the thousands of other submissions that remain just that , submissions.

Corrected it for you. Yes, the photographer can use it as "featured on xxx" but it is not published.

Neil Snape wrote:
I remember all too well when I left Vancouver , all the local photographers would say , oh I worked in Europe, for so many months.

In the end the truth was they were on holidays, traveling around with a back pack, shooting some snaps, doing some tests. Never did they work here, especially not in Paris. It is not that easy. Very few really came to Paris and ever worked!

Yet this probably still continues today.

/rant

I have heard many photographers mention that they were working overseas in Europe, and then I check their profile and they've got a snapshot of their kids in front of Big Ben or something. It's pretty funny because it's so transparent. I don't think most people really get away with saying that kind of stuff if people actually take the time to look at the evidence.

Neil Snape wrote:
2 question of what is published or not: big question, not so important but philosophical indeed

Neil, I understand very well what you mean and I'm with you on many things you pointed up in this thread but many contributors here are clearly confusing two really different concepts:

1) "being published on Vogue" Vs. 2) "having worked for Vogue"

...and may be someone, as you already say, is trying to take profit from the confusion between those two statement...

So, let's try to explain with a forensic approach:

1) if someone who sent pictures to Vogue.it had one or more of them selected and published on their gallery, there's no doubt he can say:"I was published on Vogue".
That's because "publishing" something just means "to make of public domain" and all web sites are public medias... being Vogue.it property of Vogue Italia, according to italians and international laws the only responsible of what's on that site is the Vogue-Italia's Editorial Director: Franca Sozzani... and it doesn't matter if she never knew that photographer because their photos was selected by a Stagiste ( like someone said). Also it doesn't matter if he contributed sending pictures for free: still he was published on Vogue. No doubt.

2) now, if the same photographer says:"I worked with Vogue Italia" or "I worked for Vogue Italia" this is a false statement. That's because working for someone means being paid for doing something... and we all know that Vogue never paid that photographer nor asked him in person to send his photos. So, he could also be claimed by Vogue Italia for false statement.

All that said, it is clearly to everyone of us to read well what the photographer is stating and to understand if it is a case of misleading advertising (I'm especially thinking of newbie models).

Last but not least I'm with Ben K when he says:"all you need to do in most cases is just look at the images to know if that person was published in VOGUE, Harper's BAZAAR, ELLE etc.  It is a VERY SMALL world and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out the truth."

Same for us when we have to deal with Models who claims to be Playboy Centerfold, MUA who works for Elizabeth Harden's Adv Campaign and so on...

Hopefully my 2 cents adds something to your thread,

cheers

Marco

maryelle stclare wrote:
I disagree that "worked with" is by necessity connected to "was paid."

If Steven Meisel or Annie Leibovitz posted a casting for a photographer to go assist them for a few days on a Vogue or Vanity Fair cover, for free, many here would jump at the chance to do it without being paid, and there is no reason they could not thereafter legitimately say "Worked with: Steven Meisel."

Sorry Marielle but "working for someone" means "doing something for someone, for the only purpose to receive something in change", that said the pay you receive can be money, natural goods or know-how... being this last the case of assistant.

So, I don't see nothing wrong in my previous statement.

Anyway, if you read well the whole phrase I wrote: "if the same photographer says:"I worked with Vogue Italia" or "I worked for Vogue Italia" this is a false statement. That's because working for someone means being paid for doing something... and we all know that Vogue never paid that photographer nor asked him in person to send his photos." you can easy understand that our photographer did a Gift to Vogue: he Gives For Free his Publication Rights on his picture in the Hope they will publish it.

So, Assisting Meisel is a Job (you're paid with the Know-How you'll get"; sending pictures to Vogue for Free in the hope of publication is a Gift.

Hope that helps

cheers

Marco

John Fisher wrote:

(Not a spec shoot, I was on assignment!)

Ha!

Neil, while you see this as a disaster, I see this as a breakthrough and a major step forward for the World Wide Web! Claiming to shoot for Vogue Italia? Great! For the last 15 years it's been guys claiming they had contacts at Playboy (which meant they had called the 800 number to renew their subscription), and don't get me started on all the Harley-Davidson calendars that were being shot every year (actual number of calendars being shot for Harley-Davidson in most years....none!).

So yeah, guys (or girls) claiming to shoot for major fashion magazines? In their dreams, but even if they aren't really doing what they claim, at least their dreams have moved up the food chain!

Okay, no French Elle cover, but does shooting a spread on spec for "Big 'Uns" count?

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Ummm...It does for Me!

Neil Snape wrote:
I don't rant so this is a first.

Through different posts here, we've voted for each others pix on a gallery open to submissions for showing your work on the Vogue Italia web site. Very cool way to get some pix in a high profile web site , and the images ( small jpgs) are water marked with the cool Vogue Italia logo.

I haven't posted any yet but will.

So yesterday I saw a MM photographer in England, saying they worked for numerous magazines including Vogue Italia.

There they had posted an image, they retrieved the image, and are using that for false promotion of work. Misleading models etc, in my opinion is fraud.

I remember all too well when I left Vancouver , all the local photographers would say , oh I worked in Europe, for so many months.

In the end the truth was they were on holidays, traveling around with a back pack, shooting some snaps, doing some tests. Never did they work here, especially not in Paris. It is not that easy. Very few really came to Paris and ever worked!

Yet this probably still continues today.

There are few MM photographers who have or ever will work with Vogue Italia. As much as we'd all like to!

Now how do you feel about photographers lying about themselves, to convince others of their greatness that doesn't exist?

/rant

The Deviant One wrote:
Same way I feel about lying about their age weight etc lol..

Huh, photographers lying about their age and weight   

MorittuPhotoGraphy wrote:
Sorry Marielle but "working for someone" means "doing something for someone, for the only purpose to receive something in change", that said the pay you receive can be money, natural goods or know-how... being this last the case of assistant.

So, I don't see nothing wrong in my previous statement.

Anyway, if you read well the whole phrase I wrote: "if the same photographer says:"I worked with Vogue Italia" or "I worked for Vogue Italia" this is a false statement. That's because working for someone means being paid for doing something... and we all know that Vogue never paid that photographer nor asked him in person to send his photos." you can easy understand that our photographer did a Gift to Vogue: he Gives For Free his Publication Rights on his picture in the Hope they will publish it.

So, Assisting Meisel is a Job (you're paid with the Know-How you'll get"; sending pictures to Vogue for Free in the hope of publication is a Gift.

Hope that helps

cheers

Marco

MorittuPhotoGraphy wrote:
BTW, if I gives my pictures for free to someone I can Never state I've Worked for him!

And if you get published by them, do you not get paid in exposure in the same way assisting someone pays you in experience?  In both cases you are "gifting" something as you said -- one you are volunteering your time for experience in the other you are volunteering your photo licensing in exchange for exposure.

Sorry, but your argument and logic seem flawed to me.

MorittuPhotoGraphy wrote:
Sorry Marielle but "working for someone" means "doing something for someone, for the only purpose to receive something in change", that said the pay you receive can be money, natural goods or know-how... being this last the case of assistant.

So, I don't see nothing wrong in my previous statement.

Anyway, if you read well the whole phrase I wrote: "if the same photographer says:"I worked with Vogue Italia" or "I worked for Vogue Italia" this is a false statement. That's because working for someone means being paid for doing something... and we all know that Vogue never paid that photographer nor asked him in person to send his photos." you can easy understand that our photographer did a Gift to Vogue: he Gives For Free his Publication Rights on his picture in the Hope they will publish it.

So, Assisting Meisel is a Job (you're paid with the Know-How you'll get"; sending pictures to Vogue for Free in the hope of publication is a Gift.

I totally agree that sending in photos to Vogue does not constitute "working for Vogue." Having one's picture chosen for Picture of the Day does not constitute "working for Vogue." Sending in pictures at Vogue's request, even, and having Vogue do nothing with them afterward does not constitute "working for Vogue." Sending in unsolicited pictures and having Vogue call you and ask you to come in so you can review the shots with Anna Wintour, then see the features editor and choose a layout, discuss story ideas, and plan which issue it's going to be in--and they state up front they're not paying a dime--is at the least "working with Vogue," if not "working for Vogue."

I disagree that working for someone means by definition being paid, whether in money, natural goods, know-how, or brownies.

Re your next post, if you give your pictures for free to someone with whom you have no other connection, I would agree that that is not "working for him." But, it might be "working with him," depending on the circumstances.