KonstantKarma wrote:


How about this poor woman, whose face has become representative of disaster/failure? I bet when she posed for the stock shoot she had no idea her face would be on every news site daily for months.

Or in MY Opinion..the face of hope.  But regardless of THAT discussion, if an image distorts the model in character it probably COULD be litigated depending on the release form the model signed. Mine used to specifically give me the right to do that but i felt bad about it and removed that language from it. I don't do stock so I felt it to be irrelevant. Though i DID have a go round with a publisher who wanted the rights to use images from a book they were going to publish of my work in any of their other publications..single images too, not the entire book. And since they also published what I call fetish books I declined. Their usage agreement had such a statement in in meaning they could have used and image of mine on the cover of a book about the Sex trade in America if they wanted. I didn't think models who had worked with me would appreciate that even if they go some $$ from it too.

R Michael Walker wrote:
Or in MY Opinion..the face of hope.  But regardless of THAT discussion, if an image distorts the model in character it probably COULD be litigated depending on the release form the model signed. Mine used to specifically give me the right to do that but i felt bad about it and removed that language from it. I don't do stock so I felt it to be irrelevant. Though i DID have a go round with a publisher who wanted the rights to use images from a book they were going to publish of my work in any of their other publications..single images too, not the entire book. And since they also published what I call fetish books I declined. Their usage agreement had such a statement in in meaning they could have used and image of mine on the cover of a book about the Sex trade in America if they wanted. I didn't think models who had worked with me would appreciate that even if they go some $$ from it too.

Anything can be litigated, but the in the situation you have described, they wouldn't likely prevail.  If there was a limited release, meaning that the specific uses of the image were covered, clearly you would have a good case if they were used in a way not permitted.

The fact, however, that you are held out in "false light," wouldn't survive with most traditional releases.  The purpose of a release is to insulate the photographer and publisher from liability for just that occurrence.   Put another way, it is always foreseeable, when an image is posted, that a viewer could get the wrong impression. 

The key question is always "malice."  As an example, if the photographer published the "obese" image for the specific purpose of embarrassing the model, that would not be covered by most releases.  Indeed, good releases have language which specifically excludes intentional defamation, but it is generally not needed.

If, on the other hand, a model is held out in false light through the normal use of an image, and no harm was intended, most litigation will fail.  The model, after all, consented to the use of the image for all purposes.   The system would be unworkable if every image could be tested to see the possible consequences to the model. 

I don't think the publisher has any concerns here.  It should also be pointed out that this was done in the UK, with entirely different rules than in the US.  All that having been said, that is why the point of the article is so important.  When a model shoots for stock, she never really knows where her likeness will be used.  This is a good example of how it might be used in a way you won't want it to be.

Caitin Bre wrote:
That should make for good conversations around the thanksgiving table this year for her.

But in defense of old obese men as they so ignorantly call it. It is a stereotype and put down.
If I had to choose between an old obese man and a young ripped, cocky, self absorbed arrogant asshole. That sweet cuddly teddy bear is what I would go for 1st every time.

Hope for old obese men everywhere!

And I speak as one.

Michael Bots wrote:
It's not a worry any more


The Face of Healthcare.gov is Gone
http://www.nationalreview.com/feed/3623 … -pollowitz

"She was like Helen of Troy: a face that launched a million 404 errors. Goodbye, fair mascot of Obamacare -- whoever you were. You will be missed. - Greg Pollowitz"

Epic. May she live forever in our hearts.

Garry k wrote:
Interesting article about the perils for models in doing stock photography
http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/shor … ?CMP=fb_gu

Dan OMell wrote:
much more often the models seen in the most popular ads are absolutely and totally not recognizable in real life. she can stand across her own poster and nobody can even call her name at the back of his mind...

it does not mean I endorse to have sex with all these other obese old men --  except me, of course (just kidding!)

+1

Back in my management days, I managed a model that had a very "girl next door" look.  She wasn't someone you would think of as a model, but she was popular for the right genre.

One day I was flying on Southwest airlines and was looking at an ad in the back of the Southwest magazine.  There she was in an ad for the airline.  After I saw the ad, I noticed she was in a bunch of ads I had seen in multiple places around town.  I never noticed it was her.   

The image was a stock shot so nobody, including the photographer, realized she had become the face of Southwest in this particular campaign.  Had I not been on the plane, bored, reading the magazine, I wouldn't know today.

Caitin Bre wrote:
That should make for good conversations around the thanksgiving table this year for her.

But in defense of old obese men as they so ignorantly call it. It is a stereotype and put down.
If I had to choose between an old obese man and a young ripped, cocky, self absorbed arrogant asshole. That sweet cuddly teddy bear is what I would go for 1st every time.

Too bad, more ripped cocky assholes for me then

Danielle Reid wrote:

Too bad, more ripped cocky assholes for me then

As a creepy obese old man, this is not the position I was hoping to see you post.

Schlake wrote:
As a creepy obese old man, this is not the position I was hoping to see you post.

You're not old or obese. I've seen obese. Gave a massage to a man that is 300 pounds! He broke the freaking bed! Yeah, no...

Caitin Bre wrote:
That should make for good conversations around the thanksgiving table this year for her.

But in defense of old obese men as they so ignorantly call it. It is a stereotype and put down.
If I had to choose between an old obese man and a young ripped, cocky, self absorbed arrogant asshole. That sweet cuddly teddy bear is what I would go for 1st every time.

Wooohooo says the short obese guy. LOL

Danielle Reid wrote:
You're not old or obese. I've seen obese. Gave a massage to a man that is 300 pounds! He broke the freaking bed! Yeah, no...

Glad I never got up to 300.  I did hit 286 but started eating healthy this spring and hiking. I'm 6'2" 218 now.  I had to buy all new pants lol.  I'll probably have to buy more pants when I get back to my Army weight of 185.

No jabs at heavy guys intended.  If you get up high though, it's great to drop it if possible.  My energy has doubled this year.

Will Snizek wrote:
No thanks.  I don't like men at all, but obese guys with dusty balls and a camera in hand is an image I don't want in my head especially.  I honestly don't really get all this sex mixed with modeling anyway.  Can some people just not control themselves?  The thought of having sex with basically a coworker seems pretty unappealing to me.  I'm really not trying to judge here, but don't understand it.  You actually can find someone to be extremely attractive and interesting without sleeping with them. 

So yeah..I'm not really judging..but I don't get the mentality of mixing work with this stuff.

So, you didn't read the OP then...

Abbitt Photography wrote:
In the original article, it's clearly written under the photo that it's a Getty image.  I can't imagine many people would really assume that the person in the commercial looking photo was really the person submitting a blurb to the magazine.

From the article, it sounds like the way her friends were teasing her, made it clear they knew the difference as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle … d-obese-me

It will be interesting to see as time goes on and more and more people realize that such photos are stock photos, how well the  "false light" argument holds up.

The majority of people not involved in photography or advertising have no idea what Getty is or what stock photography is.


Your average joe believes that the smiling couple walking along the beach in the herpes brochure are a real couple who have herpes and somehow they were contacted to be in a brochure about their herpes.

Laura UnBound wrote:

The majority of people not involved in photography or advertising have no idea what Getty is or what stock photography is.


Your average joe believes that the smiling couple walking along the beach in the herpes brochure are a real couple who have herpes and somehow they were contacted to be in a brochure about their herpes.

Saying the photo obtained from a company, even if the name of that company isn't recognized, makes it clear it's not from or of the person who contributed the copy.   The way her friends teased her, again makes it clear they immediately knew she was not the one who wrote the blurb, that's why they were teasing her about it.

I think most people that the image of a person in ad doesn't necessarily have what ever that add is about, just as most people realize actors are just acting.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Your average joe believes that the smiling couple walking along the beach in the herpes brochure are a real couple who have herpes and somehow they were contacted to be in a brochure about their herpes.

Fantastic image.

Will Snizek wrote:
No thanks.  I don't like men at all, but obese guys with dusty balls and a camera in hand is an image I don't want in my head especially.  I honestly don't really get all this sex mixed with modeling anyway.  Can some people just not control themselves?  The thought of having sex with basically a coworker seems pretty unappealing to me.  I'm really not trying to judge here, but don't understand it.  You actually can find someone to be extremely attractive and interesting without sleeping with them. 

So yeah..I'm not really judging..but I don't get the mentality of mixing work with this stuff.

it does not appear to me that you have a clue as to what this thread is about

Laura UnBound wrote:

So, you didn't read the OP then...

You got me.  I only read the headline.  I didn't sleep last night.

Garry k wrote:

it does not appear to me that you have a clue as to what this thread is about

You're actually correct.  Lmao.  That's what I get for not reading the article.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Does not do a hell of a lot for me.

Not even particularly partial to old obese women.

Bingo !

another winner

guess you think you are a model as well

Caitin Bre wrote:
That should make for good conversations around the thanksgiving table this year for her.

But in defense of old obese men as they so ignorantly call it. It is a stereotype and put down.
If I had to choose between an old obese man and a young ripped, cocky, self absorbed arrogant asshole. That sweet cuddly teddy bear is what I would go for 1st every time.

How quickly can I get a US visa?

Laura UnBound wrote:

The majority of people not involved in photography or advertising have no idea what Getty is or what stock photography is.


Your average joe believes that the smiling couple walking along the beach in the herpes brochure are a real couple who have herpes and somehow they were contacted to be in a brochure about their herpes.

I don't think most people think that much about it, to be honest.

We see so many random people's faces plastered everywhere, advertising everything, unless you see someone in an ad repeatedly, like one that plays every week during your favorite TV show, you're not even likely to remember what the person looks like.

Koryn Locke wrote:

I don't think most people think that much about it, to be honest.

We see so many random people's faces plastered everywhere, advertising everything, unless you see someone in an ad repeatedly, like one that plays every week during your favorite TV show, you're not even likely to remember what the person looks like.

Well no, I doubt anyone has ever run up to either of those people in public and been like "I knew I recognized you! You're the guy in the herpes brochure! That's so memorable!"... But that doesn't mean your average person has any idea how image licensing works either, or that they understand the photos might not have been specifically taken for that single ad campaign and could easily wind up on a hundred other brochures for everything from vacations to ED to chronic pain medications to who knows what.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Saying the photo obtained from a company, even if the name of that company isn't recognized, makes it clear it's not from or of the person who contributed the copy.   The way her friends teased her, again makes it clear they immediately knew she was not the one who wrote the blurb, that's why they were teasing her about it.

I think most people that the image of a person in ad doesn't necessarily have what ever that add is about, just as most people realize actors are just acting.

I'd wager her friends know what her job is, and know that she's been in that situation before with her more notable features in ad campaigns.

Justin wrote:
On the other hand....

I write. I wrote an article once, and the magazine put up a young urban professional gentleman's picture as the theme photo for the article.

Then this obese old man (me)(well, I'm under 200)(but I'm most definitely old) starts getting fan mail, "I had no idea you were so good-looking!"

Didn't know how to handle them except to say, "It wasn't me," and crush their dreams.

Sounds like the photographers getting "hey babe you're so hot wanna hook up?" Messages on Facebook because they're using one of their model images as a profile photo.


I think some of us are really expecting too much from the average human nobody is reading the captions, nobody is looking up what a Getty is, nobody is researching what stock images are.