ICJ wrote:
I've been published in a few vogues around the world...never seen the pics in print,but I have been payed for them.I don't say I have been "published in Vogue"...because they were press photos of zero artistic talent.
I can even say I have worked in Paris...but only once of quality lol.But worked in France plenty...but yet again I don't advertise it because it is pretty much crap rent paying work of zero artistic value...I might only be two hours from Paris but my location SUXS!!!.

"Still does this go beyond simple misleading?" ...probably.

True!!! I know one modelmayhem guy that is in London but not from London that works for TIGI that claims he has been published in Vougue Italia but in fact it was a TIGI ad that got published! hahahha

David Cajio Photography wrote:

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

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.

May be just because you need to read well and try to understand...

I never said Assisting=Gifting; You said, not me: Assisting=Working in exchange of Know-How and sharing knowledge is just one way to pay.

Same, I never said Sending Pictures to Vogue=Waste of Time; I said Sending Pictures to Vogue=Gifting them Rights of Publication and that's really Different from "Working For Vogue".

So, I'm not trying to judge who's sending them photos (Proof is that I'll do in the future, as soon as I'll get something good enough in my port); I'm just saying who's sending pictures without being paid Can't Never state:"I Worked for Vogue"... he can just say:"Once I gifted my pictures to Vogue".

Now I hope my logic seems not so flawed,

Marco

Neil Snape wrote:
So yesterday I saw a MM photographer in England, saying they worked for numerous magazines including Vogue Italia.
/rant

WORK: Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.

Technically he has "worked" for the magazine. Maybe he's bent the rules a bit but I don't sense a real problem.

A number of wedding photographers I've seen tout "Award Winning Photographer" without further specification. That "award" can be anything, easily totally unrelated to photography.

So? In the end you have to be able to objectively judge the images and ignore the crap.

smoothgroove wrote:

WORK: Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.

Technically he has "worked" for the magazine. Maybe he's bent the rules a bit but I don't sense a real problem.

This definition of Work came from a Dictionnary, so is obviously wider of what you can find on Law Books... but if you want to talk about Misleading Marketing I hardly think you could find a Jury using a dictionnary for his judgement ;-)

smoothgroove wrote:

WORK: Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.

Technically he has "worked" for the magazine. Maybe he's bent the rules a bit but I don't sense a real problem.

This definition of Work came from a Dictionnary, so is obviously wider of what you can find on Law Books... but if you want to talk about Misleading Marketing I hardly think you could find a Jury using a dictionnary for his judgement ;-)

Neil Snape wrote:
Just to be clear the MM member I saw listed magazines they worked with. Not stating being published or not, just worked with a list of on line magazines, for which Vogue Italia was in the list. Of course in the portfolio there was the copied image with the Vogue Italia logo.

Well, in that case, if before that list he clearly stated the word Work, he's doing a misrepresentation of reality and a false statement.

Neil Snape wrote:
...posting a series to an online magazine is not in my terms published. It is just another form of an online portfolio. Not a bad thing, just not published in my terms.

if there's a selection process did by someone of Vogue.it before pictures appeared on the Gallery  no doubt this is a Publication done by Vogue!... BTW online portfolios are Publications, simply because they are On Line=In a Public Domain.

Sorry Neil :-)

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I once did an advert for Italian VIAGRA...Does that count?  Although I did work quite a bit for VOGUE Italia with both  Franca and Carla Sozzani back in the late 80's and early 90's, I haven't since.  I have worked for several other Vogue's however, but my shining moment has to be for "VIAGRA Italy"

Italian VIAGRA?!?... are you sure Ben?

It is well known that "Italians do it Better" - so said Madonna late in the 80's - and that's why there's no market for Viagra here in Italy!

Unless we consider the only Italian huge consumer who lives between Rome and Milan... but he's more than 70 y.o. you know! LOL :-)

Neil Snape wrote:
Karl: I don't know where you get the idea I've been harsh with on lines. Nope, but posting a series to an online magazine is not in my terms published. It is just another form of an online portfolio. Not a bad thing, just not published in my terms.

I think you have to take the quality and reputation of the magazine into consideration rather than just whether it's online or in print.

Just like onlines, there are also plenty of print magazines that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. However, some online mags get a lot of attention from the fashion blogs and other people who have a degree of influence in the industry and I would therefore much rather have something published in one of them than some crappy print-only rag that nobody reads or cares about.

As for whether it counts as "publication" or not - surely that depends on whether an editor makes the decision or whether you do. If I upload something to MM or Facebook I don't count it as "published" (although in a legal sense it technically is) but if I submit a story to a magazine (online or print) and it gets selected for publication, or if a magazine asks me to shoot a story for them then yes, I would consider that "published".

People will quibble for years about print vs. online, but personally I'd rather have my work online, seen by millions, talked about, reblogged etc. etc. than buried in an obscure print-only publication with a circulation of a few thousand.

That's certainly not to say that I'd turn down a chance to shoot for Vogue Italia on the basis that it's a print magazine - haha! - but these days some of the onlines are actually more worthwhile as a showcase for photographers than some of the older print mags and I'm sure things will continue to move in that direction.


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

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

/rant

I don't care. If I like their work, I'll work with them. I wont work with them simply because they say they published in "X" magazine

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.
/rant

This, I believe to be a very lousy idea by Vogue Italia, but that is just my opinion.

Way back into time when the only thing that existed was cave man, there were liars and deceptors amongst them, and believe it or not, when the day come that we will be jetting around in flying cars, there will still be liars and deceptors. They'll outlast the cockroach. I have in the past worked very close to people who turned out to be nothingn more than that, and the only thing that I could do about it was to simply walk away from it and keep my own reputation entact. All you can do about it Neil is point out the truth to them and let their conscious be their guide (even though some of them lack consciousness). I hope your rant quinched your thirst to get it out, and if I ever make it into your neck of the woods, I am coming to work exclusively with you so you can verify that "yeah, that guy Bluestill did in fact work here"

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
As for whether it counts as "publication" or not - surely that depends on whether an editor makes the decision or whether you do. If I upload something to MM or Facebook I don't count it as "published" (although in a legal sense it technically is) but if I submit a story to a magazine (online or print) and it gets selected for publication, or if a magazine asks me to shoot a story for them then yes, I would consider that "published".

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Sorry for being picky Stefano, but in both cases are Publications, the only difference is who decided to publish pictures: in first instance was someone of Vogue, in the second case was yourself... of course none can try to give same importance to self-publication ;-)

Raoul Isidro Imaging wrote:

"Anybody can be anybody on the INTERNET... and that includes MM."

unless you meet them personally (like what you did) and expose them yourself, EVERYONE here is hiding behind a mask...

Very well said... wait, I didn't know I had on a mask or I wouldn't have bothered shaving this morning LOL.

nexiste plus wrote:

I don't care. If I like their work, I'll work with them. I wont work with them simply because they say they published in "X" magazine

That is fair.

Do note Fred's post above though.

Personally I don't want to work with liars, so if a person showed me say someone else's work I couldn't trust them.

But it is just pictures isn't it?

Neil Snape wrote:
Marco,

I said a dictionary will no longer define current day terms in this way. Just this year they added LOL to one of them. Not at all up to date.
There is no wrong or right answer to what is published or submitted for on line viewing. To each his own, and that is good enough for that person.

Your opinion is noted, just as all others are. Quite divided. At the same time no dividing line will or can be established with all the variables.

I am unclear as to what Public Domain is for published images on line. Actually legal stuff is something I would not be able to discuss , nor would I want to.

Neil, as I already said in my first post, on an Ethical basis I'm with you; but Ethic are far more changing than laws (and dictionnary as you pointed out) and far more impalpable. That's why people feel the need of laws from an ancient era and that's why I thinked to give my contribution to your thread on a legal basis.

Was just a different approach to the problem you showed.

Anyway I'm sorry if I annoyed you and/or others contributors.

Cheers

Marco

Babalon Salome wrote:
There was this thread I started a while ago about what counts as an actual credit and what should be listed in one's credits. Opinions were divided:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 253&page=1

Yes, opinions were divided because different people tend to give importance to different things and probably none of us would use the exactly same selection process whan casting models, choosing jobs, selecting co-workers and so on... but difference between truth and false statements is always there: we just need to face it.

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.

Truth and truth be told resumes/CVs/credits have been padded for many years by people, and that's not going to stop anytime soon

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

Yea BE JELLY!

http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 653ea/User

HAHAH they haven't even accepted any of my photos yet =P they prolly never will LOLOLOL

S de Varax wrote:
I've submitted to Vogue Italia website
but no, it's not right to say based on that, that you're been published or worked with vogue italia.

although they do choose photo of the day. if your image was chosen, would you say you've been 'published' on vogue italia's website?......hmmm

if Vogue Italia, showcase (hosts) an image on their page given you credit, yes I consider it published on their website.  It's not considered working for Vogue Italia however.

Kristina Vassilieva wrote:
Pity pity pity those people ... then, find satisfaction in writing them a quick note to say 'you're such a tool...hahaha.' - at least they might feel slight embarassment, good enough for me to know this... uhmm, and perhaps post a little laugh on facebook to amuse my friends. Word spreads fast in this business, and I've stopped taking life too seriously to think 'ooooh no need to 'out' that person ooooh it's just not worth it blah blah'.... screw that, bring back good old medieval approach of 'stocks and pillars' when it comes to public humiliation.... "you should be ashaaaaaaaaaaaaaamed" arrrhhhhh!



EDIT -

Also post up a thread on MM to amuse fellow MMers.

Well... Well....

you're FAT!

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

1.I would look at their work and compare it to what it says on his MM page.

2. I expect to find tearsheets; if there are none as far as I am concerned - it's bs

dirk olsen wrote:
I wasn't familiar with vogue.it photo section until this thread, so thanks for sharing the info.  Had some spare time today so I joined the site and uploaded an image, what's funny is the site immediately puts their logo on the image.  So once they've done that just right click and save and now you have your image with their logo.  Seems so tempting and easy for anyone to say they've now been published on v.it site, just saying...

I found out about the VI site uploads via other posts here on MM too. I haven't got to the point of uploading, but will some day.

Probably have a better chance with my style than I do on the MM 18+ pages>

I recommend all to try , a good front for nice images.

And Marco, no your comments are valid and noted. If anything you understand more about your local processes for photography , laws , and how the liberal thinking keeps Italy in the creative forefront .

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

Its not just misleading, its a lie.

S de Varax wrote:
although they do choose photo of the day. if your image was chosen, would you say you've been 'published' on vogue italia's website?......hmmm

I think it would be more than fair if you spelled it out like that, if you said you were chosen for photo of the day.

I think that would be really different than what Neil is talking about.

MorittuPhotoGraphy wrote:
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.

Yeah but it's not just a web site, it's a magazine. I think for someone in that position to say "published by Vogue Italia" would be misleading. People who see that are just going to assume you're talking about the magazine, not a gallery for uploading on their web site.

Raoul Isidro Imaging wrote:
unless you meet them personally (like what you did) and expose them yourself, EVERYONE here is hiding behind a mask...

It worked for Vader. Just sayin'.