Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/ It's a website where you upload your photos and Vogue stamps them with a logo. I have been noticing more images stamped with the Vogue logo on models' and photographers' MM portfolios lately. This is quite silly since I could photocopy one of my hermit crabs, upload the image to this hosting site, and have it stamped with the Vogue logo. I feel bad for the models who put these up on their ports-- they obviously believe the photog got their photo published in Vogue! I feel so embarrassed for them and feel bad that they were misled by unscrupulous photographers. So I made this thread to be a white knight. NOW YOU KNOW. Also, feel free to upload amusing photos and then post them here with the Vogue logo on them. I think this has opportunities for LOLs.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
V Laroche wrote:
Someone else is telling me that they are judged worthy of being put on the website. I still think that it is deceptive. They weren't in freaking Vogue. There are hundreds, probably thousands of photos on the website that never were in Vogue. It's not the same thing as having a spread published in a major magazine. It's weird. I'm not pic of the day?
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
V Laroche wrote:
Is that your unicorn? Yes ma'am.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
I don't know. I don't understand this feature and I feel confused by it. That's why I deleted my comment. So what happened when you uploaded it? Was it judged by someone or did it just go straight up there? Did Vogue tell you that they are going to publish your unicorn or anything? Please, dish.
Also who made that cool hat? Nice shot by the way!
Photographer
Le_Demimonde
Posts: 100
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Runs to take pictture of litter box
Photographer
Dan K Photography
Posts: 5581
STATEN ISLAND, New York, US
It really isn't easy to be selected. But this is just for the website. It doesn't mean that the photo was published in any magazine nor do they pretend it does.
Considering the talent that contributes, being chosen pic of the day is pretty cool in itself. Congrats Joseph.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
you can upload anything and it gets logo'd....but it isn't view-able to anyone until it gets past the photo editors...
and that would be the tough part...
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
V Laroche wrote:
It's a website where you upload your photos and Vogue stamps them with a logo. Um, no.
They reject the majority of images uploaded.
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
you can upload anything and it get logo'd....but it isnt viewable to anyone until it gets past the photo editors...
and that would be the tough part... Yup.
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
IDK, some models definitely are under the impression that they have been "published in Vogue" with the photo to prove it. It seems meaningless. They choose the photo of the day, but isn't ANY other shot allowed up on the site? Do they discriminate against hermit crabs?
Even if they DO discriminate against crustaceans, what do you think about putting stamped images in one's portfolio? Just seems really pretentious to me.
Photographer
Le_Demimonde
Posts: 100
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Based on what I have seen, I think the cat box might just make it.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
I saw a girl who linked to the Italian-language version of the site ( http://www.vogue.it/photovogue/) and said she had been "published in Italian Vogue." Bullshit!!! She didn't speak Italian and therefore didn't understand the nature of the website. Do you remember her? She was mad because she thought the photographer was making big bucks off of images from a TF shoot and she thought she should be compensated since the shot was published! I have also seen other models crowing about how they "made it in," as if it's an accomplishment. I don't want to single them out because that's embarrassing.
Photographer
Escalante
Posts: 5367
Chicago, Illinois, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
V Laroche wrote:
It's a website where you upload your photos and Vogue stamps them with a logo. Um, no.
They reject the majority of images uploaded.
Yup.
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com QFT+1000000000000
Thank you Stefano
It isnt That difficult and it ISNT THAT easy for sure .
The Editors do select them and are very particular as to what is chosen.
Many are eventually published and Many Many Many others are not .
http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … b03a8/User
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
Escalante wrote:
QFT+1000000000000
Thank you Stefano
It isnt That difficult and it ISNT THAT easy for sure .
The Editors do select them and are very particular as to what is chosen.
Many are eventually published and Many Many Many others are not .
http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … b03a8/User Please explain the point of uploading a photo to that site, then downloading it with the logo and publishing it on one's MM port or website. Why not just link directly to one's v.it portfolio if one is so proud of the illustrious honor of having a portfolio hosted there?
Photographer
Escalante
Posts: 5367
Chicago, Illinois, US
Model
Paige Morgan
Posts: 4060
New York, New York, US
V Laroche wrote:
IDK, some models definitely are under the impression that they have been "published in Vogue" with the photo to prove it. It seems meaningless. They choose the photo of the day, but isn't ANY other shot allowed up on the site? Do they discriminate against hermit crabs?
Even if they DO discriminate against crustaceans, what do you think about putting stamped images in one's portfolio? Just seems really pretentious to me. The claiming to be published in Vogue Italia grinds my gears. Websites are not the same as print published. I'd never claim as such.
Listing it as what it is (a nifty little footnote that the image made it past the photo editors and onto the Photovogue website) is how I chose to annotate it. It was pretty nice of Joseph to submit it, and let me know I was up there.
I'm not as badass as Damianne's unicorn/pic of the day, but it's a fun little bonus to see something I worked on made it through
I'm not a photographer, so someone correct me if needed, but the faq/rules clearly state that they do go through all uploads, and anything not chosen for display after 7 days should be deleted, as it isn't going to be posted.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
V Laroche wrote:
http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/
It's a website where you upload your photos and Vogue stamps them with a logo. I have been noticing more images stamped with the Vogue logo on models' and photographers' MM portfolios lately. This is quite silly since I could photocopy one of my hermit crabs, upload the image to this hosting site, and have it stamped with the Vogue logo. I feel bad for the models who put these up on their ports-- they obviously believe the photog got their photo published in Vogue! I feel so embarrassed for them and feel bad that they were misled by unscrupulous photographers.
So I made this thread to be a white knight. NOW YOU KNOW.
Also, feel free to upload amusing photos and then post them here with the Vogue logo on them. I think this has opportunities for LOLs. Yup LOL you have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the FAQ on their site.
As for models and what not claiming its more then it is, well that is a joke.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
AJScalzitti wrote:
Yup LOL you have no idea what you are talking about. Okay, so would you consider an image on that website to be "published in Vogue"? Cmon that is absurd. It's not the same at all. There are also hundreds, nay thousands of girls on Playboy.com but they're not Playmates.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
V Laroche wrote:
Okay, so would you consider an image on that website to be "published in Vogue"? Cmon that is absurd. It's not the same at all. There are also hundreds, nay thousands of girls on Playboy.com but they're not Playmates. No, but they don't just stick their logo on anyones image. Images need to be approved by the editors of Vogue.it There are literally thousands submitted every day that are denied, its all in their FAQ
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
V Laroche wrote:
Okay, so would you consider an image on that website to be "published in Vogue"? Cmon that is absurd. It's not the same at all. There are also hundreds, nay thousands of girls on Playboy.com but they're not Playmates. No, it's not "published in Vogue."
It's exactly as Paige Morgan puts it here:
![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121122/21/50af02f3eb205_m.jpg]()
(click through)
"Featured On Vogue Italia's Photo Vogue Website"
Photographer
Escalante
Posts: 5367
Chicago, Illinois, US
V Laroche wrote:
Please explain the point of uploading a photo to that site, then downloading it with the logo and publishing it on one's MM port or website. Why not just link directly to one's v.it portfolio if one is so proud of the illustrious honor of having a portfolio hosted there? I wouldn't know how to answer that , considering I DONT feel the need to Do Either of those things .
I dont See it in that manner , Have you read the information on the site ?
Ive gotten a handful of new client inquiries and two paid booking from there (each of them mentioned the Vogue site ) , Regardless of it I have Several more sites I am also on where i have more full published editorials as well as my own website , not to mention the Profile on My Corp Sponsor's Page.
What is the reason behind all of that is for the same reason .
None of which come close to what you are stating.
You are beginning to sound a little bitter about now . Just saying .
OH wait I did forget to mention that the images that were approved to be posted on their website are also now being offered as "in House" stock for Conde' naste' By the Photo rep house Art & Commerce under the new division, Photo-Vogue Collection at Art + Commerce , while again the chances are good to none of ever making money from that but one never knows , but then again I do Not feel a need to go around bragging about these .
Far more important things in life then try to bullshit in that manner
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
AJScalzitti wrote:
No, but they don't just stick their logo on anyones image. Images need to be approved by the editors of Vogue.it There are literally thousands submitted every day that are denied, its all in their FAQ mmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
V Laroche wrote:
mmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Submit some.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Submit some. I have no reason to do so. It would be laughable and foolish.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
Escalante wrote:
I wouldn't know how to answer that , considering I feel the need to Do Either of those things . I'm afraid I'm not following you.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
V Laroche wrote:
I have no reason to do so. Well the first two I submitted were accepted. One of them became picture of the day.
So far the next 3 I've submitted have been rejected.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Paige Morgan wrote:
anything not chosen for display after 7 days should be deleted, as it isn't going to be posted. From what I'm seeing the rejects vanish on their own - deleted on the PhotoVogue side.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
No, it's not "published in Vogue."
It's exactly as Paige Morgan puts it here:
![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121122/21/50af02f3eb205_m.jpg]()
(click through)
"Featured On Vogue Italia's Photo Vogue Website" Yes, this is appropriate and accurate.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
I am forever amused by those around here [MM] who poo-pah, and often actively discourage, the marking of images by the actual copyright owner / photographer. Then what you are fighting are the various on-line publishers like this that brand the very same images in their own name sometimes, going beyond even a brand name, even marking them with a clearly false copyright notice.
1) It smacks of false attribution, a clear violation of moral rights where they are available [ALL of Europe];
and
2) Even in respect of the US it is a dodgy proposition, doing what they are doing, because it clearly amounts to false statement of origin in breach of the Lanham Act and violates, on the face of it, various other laws including the US Copyright Act [@ 17 USC 512]
Studio36
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
V Laroche wrote:
Okay, so would you consider an image on that website to be "published in Vogue"? No, not really and I wouldn't claim so.
However, as others have pointed out, the (very small) percentage of images that make it through the selection process have been selected by Vogue photo editors and approved for public display on the site. Some are then further selected as "picture of the day" and can go on to be properly published in the print edition of Vogue Italia.
Also, as E pointed out, all the images selected become eligible to be represented as stock by Art+Commerce for use by Conde Naste and other publications. That in itself is a worthwhile (if probably not very lucrative) outcome.
And as has also been stated, the selection of images (which is more slanted to stock use than to fashion) can and does seem very random. They seem to like photos of railway stations, apartment blocks and farm animals just as well as they like beautiful fashion or art images. And they reject vast numbers of images each day, often for no apparent reason. However, it is what it is - their game, their rules.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Escalante wrote:
OH wait I did forget to mention that the images that were approved to be posted on their website are also now being offered as "in House" stock for Conde' naste' By the Photo rep house Art & Commerce under the new division, Photo-Vogue Collection at Art + Commerce , while again the chances are good to none of ever making money from that but one never knows , but then again I do Not feel a need to go around bragging about these . And this as well. Your images become their intellectual property asset.
I don't suppose anyone actually reads the T&C's when they submit the images. Too busy mentally masturbating over the fact that their image might appear on Vogue's website I guess.
Conde' Nasty [sic] are well known as one of the biggest rights grabbing asshole outfits in the friggen world!
Studio36
Photographer
dirk olsen
Posts: 1338
Memphis, Tennessee, US
you can upload any image and it will be stamped with vogue. the site shows you a preview of your image with the vogue stamp, just right click and save picture as, now you have any photo you want with the little vogue symbol.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
studio36uk wrote:
Your images become their intellectual property asset. How so?
Art+Commerce have a separate site where, if (and only if) you sign up as a contributor, you upload hi-res copies of the selected images you wish to contribute. Fees for any images used are then credited to your account, just like any other stock library.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
yea 90% of the models or photographers i know that have submitted to them have had an image stamped and accepted on in. they post the credit on their page as if it has some sort of actual artistic or commercial value. i understand the need to be validated, however a true alidation would be worth way more than hundreds of fake ones in my opinion  i feel the same with some of the playboy stamps where photogs shoot a model who submits it to win her a free contest and the logo is on their for the site announcement of the winner. Then they claim to be a playboy model or photographer. if you are not paid for your submission, chances are, that you're just entering a cheapo cattle call thats looking for free labor and mediocre talent. people shouldnt waste their art, skills and vision to get the same trophy as everyone else
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
How so?
Art+Commerce have a separate site where, if (and only if) you sign up as a contributor, you upload hi-res copies of the selected images you wish to contribute. Fees for any images used are then credited to your account, just like any other stock library.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Take my word for it Stefano. With or without Art+Commerce, Vogue is acquiring substantial rights to the images. Ditto in submitting to many other sites.
Studio36
|
