John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute"

If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation.

No credible attorney is going to write, or approve, a clause that vague.

HalfMoonColorado wrote:
This exact thing happened in Denver a couple years ago. The photographer didn't sell the photos he simply put some on one of his sites he ran. When the model found out about it she asked that they be taken down. His reply they were his images and he could post them if he wanted. His offer was if she paid him a couple thousand dollars he would take them down. Since hiring an attorney and chancing she wouldn't win anyway she paid him and the photos were pulled.

Your photos and the rights to them belong to the photographer unless otherwise contracted for. It doesn't mean squat if you were paid, you paid him, or if it was TF. If there is no contract stating the specific use there is no recourse unless you can prove that the photographer is being malicious in the publication of them.

In the USA, without a contract, typically the photographer will own the copyright, and the model has certain rights to her likeness  (her rights vary state to state).

Both people have the right to place certain restrictions on the images.  Neither has the right to "do whatever they want" with the images.

Copyright ownership allows the photographer to restrict the copying, reproduction, and certain commercial uses of an image.  This means that the model generally needs the photographer's permission to make prints, but is generally free to sell or otherwise use prints.

The model has certain rights to her likeness.  Generally they allow the model to prevent her identifiable image from being used commercially (Where "commercial" is an informal term meaning those usages that require a release under state law).

Furthermore there are libel and defamation of character issues if the images are used to paint the model in a false light.

A typical full commercial model release grants the photographer permission to use the model's likeness however he likes, and may even include permission to paint the model in a false light.

Permission to use an image in a commercial fashion is distinct from permission to paint the model in a false light.   If the image is used on an adult web site in such a way as to falsely imply the model is a prostitute, then both types of permission may be required. 

The issues here are:

- Does the usage of the image require the model's permission (a release)?

- Does the release give the all the needed permissions?

- Is the release a valid release?

Remember, that the laws governing the above vary from state to state.

I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.  You should never rely on legal advice from the web.  Always talk to an attorney for reliable legal advice.

Danielle Kitten wrote:

Yes, my boyfriend, his friends, my brother, most of his friends, my step father, men who get the real thing daily...

Bless...

AshleyD_Model wrote:
No they weren't stolen off the photographer's website. The paid site that I never knew existed is all his photography so it's not one of those websites where they steal photos.
There's no nudity that I can see on it but when I google to look for my photos I find they are on a heck of a lot of websites with hardcore porn ads and links and why people are jumping to conclusions I am involved in porn.

So is it a paid site or not? Do you have to pay to access it or are you just unsettled by the type of adverts on his site? If you don't pay for access then no he's not along any money and the adverts are probably just funding the hosting fees.

Models sometimes forget that marketing, producing prints or hosting websites cost money.

Some websites do align themselves with anyone willing to pay for adverts and yes it can affect who will work with you.

Bravoscape wrote:
While I understand your frustration...I don't understand the actual issue.

Your friends found your pictures on a paid porn site...but you said it wasn't porn..it was a paid site for all his work? And the pictures weren't nude - what were they then? Not sure how long a paid porn site that has no porn would stay in business. I didn't read past the first page...so this could have been covered. But the story doesn't add up.

If he said they would be used on his site...and you didn't do research to verify which site...it falls on you unfortunately. Not popular opinion, I'm sure, but honest.

+1

Someone re-hashing an old Dallas script here?

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute"

If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation.

Art of the nude wrote:
No credible attorney is going to write, or approve, a clause that vague.

Yep and most states have "Right to Privacy" laws that cover images that are show a person in "false light". I am not sure if in this instance if it is true.

Info about Illinois Right to Privacy http://tinyurl.com/8eyps63

Jeff Fiore wrote:

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute"

If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation.

Yep and most states have "Right to Privacy" laws that cover images that are show a person in "false light". I am not sure if in this instance if it is true.

Info about Illinois Right to Privacy http://tinyurl.com/8eyps63

I am not an attorney, so you shouldn't rely on anything I say.

My understanding is that presenting someone in a "false light" is not a right to privacy issue, but a defamation of character (or libel) issue.

If the image incorrectly gives the impression that the model is a prostitute or porn star, then there may be an issue outside the right to privacy.  This is an important distinction, as a full model release may waive the model's right to privacy, without waiving the model's right to sue for defamation of character.

Obviously, if you want reliable legal advice, you should discuss the specifics of your situation with an attorney. 

Whether or not you should pursue the matter depends on what the attorney advises, and how important this is to you.  If the attorney advises that you have a very strong case, then a certified letter to the photographer may be enough to end the situation to your satisfaction.

Michael Fryd wrote:
I am not an attorney, so you shouldn't rely on anything I say.

My understanding is that presenting someone in a "false light" is not a right to privacy issue, but a defamation of character (or libel) issue.

If the image incorrectly gives the impression that the model is a prostitute or porn star, then there may be an issue outside the right to privacy.  This is an important distinction, as a full model release may waive the model's right to privacy, without waiving the model's right to sue for defamation of character.

Obviously, if you want reliable legal advice, you should discuss the specifics of your situation with an attorney. 

Whether or not you should pursue the matter depends on what the attorney advises, and how important this is to you.  If the attorney advises that you have a very strong case, then a certified letter to the photographer may be enough to end the situation to your satisfaction.

I would think that for most things, the fact that someone is, yes, A MODEL, would be a reasonable defense to "presenting them in a false light."  Models, like actors / actresses, play a role.  I recently did a shoot where the model was playing the role of a cat.  Don't think that she would actually have confused anyone though.

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute"

If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation.

Jeff Fiore wrote:
Yep and most states have "Right to Privacy" laws that cover images that are show a person in "false light". I am not sure if in this instance if it is true.

Info about Illinois Right to Privacy http://tinyurl.com/8eyps63

Michael Fryd wrote:
I am not an attorney, so you shouldn't rely on anything I say.

My understanding is that presenting someone in a "false light" is not a right to privacy issue, but a defamation of character (or libel) issue.

If the image incorrectly gives the impression that the model is a prostitute or porn star, then there may be an issue outside the right to privacy.  This is an important distinction, as a full model release may waive the model's right to privacy, without waiving the model's right to sue for defamation of character.

Obviously, if you want reliable legal advice, you should discuss the specifics of your situation with an attorney. 

Whether or not you should pursue the matter depends on what the attorney advises, and how important this is to you.  If the attorney advises that you have a very strong case, then a certified letter to the photographer may be enough to end the situation to your satisfaction.

The problem with all of this is that the OP signed a release, which is generally a waiver of her right to sue for those kinds of unintended consequences.  That is the whole point of a release.

False light (along with the remainder of Prosser's Restatement) relates mostly to consensual use.  There is an exception, which would be deliberate defamation.  Put another way, even with a release, you couldn't post someone's pictures if the sole purpose was to defame or embarrass them.  On the other hand, if there was a release (or consent) and the model was embarrassed, that would not be actionable.  As a model, if you pose nude and consent to publication, it is foreseeable that the use might be embarrassing.

Art of the nude wrote:

I would think that for most things, the fact that someone is, yes, A MODEL, would be a reasonable defense to "presenting them in a false light."  Models, like actors / actresses, play a role.  I recently did a shoot where the model was playing the role of a cat.  Don't think that she would actually have confused anyone though.

It's not the model's expectations that are an issue.

If an average person sees a covered nude image on a public page of a web site, is it likely that he will assume that there are nude images of the same model on the pay pages?  If this is a porn site then the use of a covered model on a public page, may very well give the impression that pornographic images of that model can be found in the pay side.

I suspect a photographer would be hard pressed using the defense that all models do porn, and therefore there is nothing false in implying the model is a porn actress.

Reasonable defenses for the photographer would include:

- the model gave permission for this usage (i.e. it's covered by the signed release)
- the usage does not give a false impression of the model

The model may also have a breach of contract issue if the photographer made representations that led her to believe that the images would not be used on a pay porn site.  Obviously, her case would be better if these representations were made in email, rather than orally. 

Of course, these are general statements.  The specifics of a case may yield a different outcome.

ei Total Productions wrote:

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Check the release and see if it contains the words "will not be used in a way that will bring the model's reputation into disrepute"

If it does and you feel the usage has. Then you just may have something to work with. Always best to take proper legal advice if you feel it affects your reputation.

Jeff Fiore wrote:
Yep and most states have "Right to Privacy" laws that cover images that are show a person in "false light". I am not sure if in this instance if it is true.

Info about Illinois Right to Privacy http://tinyurl.com/8eyps63

The problem with all of this is that the OP signed a release, which is generally a waiver of her right to sue for those kinds of unintended consequences.  That is the whole point of a release.

False light (along with the remainder of Prosser's Restatement) relates mostly to consensual use.  There is an exception, which would be deliberate defamation.  Put another way, even with a release, you couldn't post someone's pictures if the sole purpose was to defame or embarrass them.  On the other hand, if there was a release (or consent) and the model was embarrassed, that would not be actionable.  As a model, if you pose nude and consent to publication, it is foreseeable that the use might be embarrassing.

But what if the images were not nude?  Is it foreseeable that the images would be used on a porn site?

Art of the nude wrote:
I would think that for most things, the fact that someone is, yes, A MODEL, would be a reasonable defense to "presenting them in a false light."  Models, like actors / actresses, play a role.  I recently did a shoot where the model was playing the role of a cat.  Don't think that she would actually have confused anyone though.

Michael Fryd wrote:
It's not the model's expectations that are an issue.

If an average person sees a covered nude image on a public page of a web site, is it likely that he will assume that there are nude images of the same model on the pay pages?  If this is a porn site then the use of a covered model on a public page, may very well give the impression that pornographic images of that model can be found in the pay side.

I suspect a photographer would be hard pressed using the defense that all models do porn, and therefore there is nothing false in implying the model is a porn actress.

Reasonable defenses for the photographer would include:

- the model gave permission for this usage (i.e. it's covered by the signed release)
- the usage does not give a false impression of the model

The model may also have a breach of contract issue if the photographer made representations that led her to believe that the images would not be used on a pay porn site.  Obviously, her case would be better if these representations were made in email, rather than orally. 

Of course, these are general statements.  The specifics of a case may yield a different outcome.

I think you and I see this the very same way.  Once the model has signed the consent, merely being embarrassed isn't going to create a cause of action.  I like reading your posts because you have a good understanding.

Michael Fryd wrote:
But what if the images were not nude?  Is it foreseeable that the images would be used on a porn site?

That is a good point, but ... unless the model has placed restrictions in the release, it really doesn't matter.  The issue will be whether the use of the images on the pay site was done for the purpose of defaming the model.  Was it done to cause her harm?

If not, it really isn't going to matter.  The model has consented to broad use.  It is certainly foreseeable that some of those uses may not have been contemplated by her.  The solution is to sign a release which states what the photographer can do, not that he can do whatever he wants.

It is a double edged sword.  If the model has consented to all uses, how is the photographer to know what uses she doesn't want?  What is offensive to one may not be offensive to another.

The nexus here is intent.  Once broad consent has been given, to create a cause of action, there has to be intentional harm.

Lana Belle wrote:
Compensated with images? Ooh I have an idea let's pay the models with bubblegum next!! ( sarcasm)!

I take it you don't grasp the economics of this stuff very well.

Art of the nude wrote:
The Usage agreement gives the MODEL rights.  The model release gives the photographer rights.  And, many, many, photographers aren't going to do a trade shoot without a release that allows them at least a chance of making some money.

Quite - as I said - if she wants some 'rights' to the images, she needs to ensure the Usage Agreement reflects her needs as well as the photographer's... whether any photographers would agree to that is another matter entirely...
The Release acknowledges the photographer's 'ownership' of the images - mine clearly states the model has no rights to the images whatsoever except where spelled out in a seperate Usage Agreement, which can then be tweaked according to need.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Quite - as I said - if she wants some 'rights' to the images, she needs to ensure the Usage Agreement reflects her needs as well as the photographer's... whether any photographers would agree to that is another matter entirely...
The Release acknowledges the photographer's 'ownership' of the images - mine clearly states the llama has no rights to the images whatsoever except where spelled out in a seperate Usage Agreement, which can then be tweaked according to need.

The purpose of a standard llama release is not to "acknowledge the photographer's 'ownership' of the images."  Generally, the photographer owns the copyright, the llama has certain rights to her likeness, and if copies are sold, then the buyer owns the physical print.

A standard "Model Release" simply grants permission to use the llama's likeness for certain purposes.  Ownership of the llama's rights to her likeness do not transfer to the photographer.

You can add other terms to a llama release, but if your don't know the law, you run the risk that the additional terms may invalidate the important parts.

For instance, adding the phrase "The photographer shall own the copyright" to a standard release may water down the release.  You may very well make the llama's permission to use her likeness contingent on the photographer owning the copyright.  Thus if the photographer sells the copyright, the release may no longer be valid.

My advice is that the law is far more complicated than most people realize.  If you want to customize a legal document, use an attorney.

Michael Fryd wrote:

The purpose of a standard model release is not to "acknowledge the photographer's 'ownership' of the images."  Generally, the photographer owns the copyright, the model has certain rights to her likeness, and if copies are sold, then the buyer owns the physical print.

A standard "Model Release" simply grants permission to use the model's likeness for certain purposes.  Ownership of the model's rights to her likeness do not transfer to the photographer.

You can add other terms to a model release, but if your don't know the law, you run the risk that the additional terms may invalidate the important parts.

For instance, adding the phrase "The photographer shall own the copyright" to a standard release may water down the release.  You may very well make the model's permission to use her likeness contingent on the photographer owning the copyright.  Thus if the photographer sells the copyright, the release may no longer be valid.

My advice is that the law is far more complicated than most people realize.  If you want to customize a legal document, use an attorney.

Nope - by signing the 'release', the model agknowledges the photographer's ownership (that means she understands and accepts the photographer's rights regarding ownership, copyright etc. she's not granting anything, just signing that she understands the document) and relinquishes all rights to the images in exchange for 'consideration'.

Yours might be different, but that's what mine does.

She will only retain any rights where those are specifically spelled-out in a seperate usage agreement. It is the 'usage agreement' that determines who may 'use' (hence 'usage' - geddit?) any images supplied, how many, what format they will be delivered in, when they will be delivered, for what purpose they may be used, for what length of time and for how much.

It may be different where you are, but this works for me here...

RKD Photographic wrote:
Nope - by signing the 'release', the model agknowledges the photographer's ownership (that means she understands and accepts the photographer's rights regarding ownership, copyright etc. she's not granting anything, just signing that she understands the document) and relinquishes all rights to the images in exchange for 'consideration'.

Yours might be different, but that's what mine does.

She will only retain any rights where those are specifically spelled-out in a seperate usage agreement. It is the 'usage agreement' that determines who may 'use' (hence 'usage' - geddit?) any images supplied, how many, what format they will be delivered in, when they will be delivered, for what purpose they may be used, for what length of time and for how much.

It may be different where you are, but this works for me here...

You are correct in that these matters vary depending on where you are.  This is why it is important to get advice form a local attorney, and not general advice from someone in a different country.

In the US, "ownership" of an image is an ambiguous term.  A typical photograph embodies a physical object (the print), intellectual property rights (the copyright) and various rights to the model's image.

Imagine I take a photo of a pretty model in a swimsuit and there is no signed paperwork.  I then sell an 8x10 print.  The purchaser of the print owns the physical print he receives.  I still own the copyright and can prohibit the purchaser from making copies of the print (except for certain 'fair use' exceptions).   The model owns certain rights to her likeness and can prevent the image from being used in certain ways (i.e. you can't put it the window of a gym as an example of what patrons should expect from the establishment).

In this typical case, there are at least three people who can legitimately say they have an ownership interest in that print.


In the US, the model release does not transfer ownership of anything to the photographer.  Instead you should think of it as a license to use the model's likeness in certain specified ways.  (If the model did transfer ownership of her rights to the photographer, then the model would never be able to sign another release, as she would no longer own the rights.)

Likewise, a usage license does not transfer ownership.  It is formal permission from the copyright holder to reproduce/use the image in certain ways.

Selling a physical print typically does not include either a usage license nor a release.  Buy a poster at your local bookstore, and you own the poster, but not the rights needed to reproduce or use it in certain ways.   Buy a movie on DVD, and you probably don't even have the right to show the movie at a party in your home.



The bottom line is that the underlying laws and legal concepts are complicated, and vary depending on jurisdiction.  Generally "Ownership" of an image has no legal meaning.  Adding a clause that the model acknowledges you "own" the pictures may seem like a good idea, but may end up invalidating important parts of a release.


Of course these are generalities, there are lots of exceptions.  I am not an attorney and you should not rely on anything I say, other than "you should seek a local attorney for reliable legal advice".

Michael Fryd wrote:
This means that the model generally needs the photographer's permission to make prints, but is generally free to sell or otherwise use prints.

Um what?  At no point is the model free to sell images or prints, in fact unless there is an agreement the model can't use them at all.  Usually most photographers grant usage in a contract when they TFP, this may also contain a release.  For me they are different documents, commercial jobs may not include usage for the model at the time.  This is common when working with publications, nobody can use or display images until the publication has run.

AJScalzitti wrote:

Um what?  At no point is the model free to sell images or prints, in fact unless there is an agreement the model can't use them at all.  Usually most photographers grant usage in a contract when they TFP, this may also contain a release.  For me they are different documents, commercial jobs may not include usage for the model at the time.  This is common when working with publications, nobody can use or display images until the publication has run.

The model needs permission to make prints, not to sell them.

If the photographer gives prints to the model, she does not need permission to sell those prints.  She does need permission to make more of those prints.  It's just like buying a printed book, and then selling it after you have read it.

A "print" is a physical manifestation of the image.

Copyright applies to making copies of the intellectual property embodied in the print.


The law makes a distinction between intellectual property and the physical objects.

Once the model legally has prints, copyright law does not prevent her from selling them.  If she wants to sell in volume, then she needs a legitimate source of prints.    If she only wants to sell the few prints she legally obtained from the photographer, then she probably does not need the photographer's permission.


Web usage requires making a copy on the web server, and temporary copies on viewing machines.  This requires permission from the copyright holder.

Generally, a model want's to make multiple copies of an image (i.e. on her comp card) or want's to use it online (her website).  It is the making of multiple copies that requires permission, not the usage.

This is how it works in the general case in the US.  It may work differently in other countries.  The specifics of a particular situation may yield a different outcome.  Always talk to an attorney for reliable legal advice.

AshleyD_Model wrote:
Has this happened to any of you? I did an implied nude TFP shoot months ago and suddenly friends are texting me freaking out that they saw me on a paid porn site! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr  I was told by the photographer some of the photos would be used on his site so I assumed he meant a professional portfolio site not a paid site!

If this happened to you what was the name of the website?

Thnx

Sounds like you got scammed by the photographer.  Unfortunately, I hear of this all the time. 

Models also like to turn their tfp photos over to modeling agencies or modeling sites, who then use the photos to recruit other models and make money.  It happens both ways.

Colorado Model Amber wrote:
My very first photo shoot was like that I did a TFCD shoot not knowing the Photographer had His own Porn Site me being a newbie and all I didn't know better to ask about all the sites my pics would be involved on. I found out from another Model He worked with that my lingerie pictures were on his Porn site. I asked him to take them down as I was not aware of the site he gave me attitude but he did take them down.

You can always get a LIST of all the sites the Photographer plans to put your pictures on for now on, Ive done that a few times. Make sure they are mentioned on the release form though.

I don't put images on anything I, or most people on MM, would consider to be a "porn site."  But, there's no way I'd limit a TF release to some limited specific list of web sites.  I just recently created a Tumbler page, I can put images there, or on the Model Insider page I created, or some other page that hasn't yet been created. 

If someone wants to limit what I do with images, they're welcome to pay me to shoot.

valley photomaster wrote:

My advice is : Get it on ink and signed, that way you are covered as a model, verbal agreements are difficult to make them stick in a court of law, I'd rather spend 30 minutes doing paper work than spend months back and forth with misunderstandings on any agreement.

BTW: If the guy did a TFP and sold the pictures you are entitled to compensation!

Um, no.

RKD Photographic wrote:

I'm afraid that's all there is to it - you signed a release - he can do with them pretty much as he pleases.

Next time insist on a Usage Agreement as well as you signing a release - without a usage agreement that lays down who can do what with the images and where, a release simply allows him to do anything he wants with them.

True! Always read the model release! I've written some of these for PR companies, and seriously, they just entitle the photographer to do whatever they want. Which is cool normally, but if I was doing nude/implied nude, I would always check!

AshleyD_Model wrote:
Has this happened to any of you? I did an implied nude TFP shoot months ago and suddenly friends are texting me freaking out that they saw me on a paid porn site! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr  I was told by the photographer some of the photos would be used on his site so I assumed he meant a professional portfolio site not a paid site!

If this happened to you what was the name of the website?

Thnx

I think everyone is missing the point of this poor girls post. She feels taken advantage of and tricked. It was very rude for him to not disclose the proper nature of what the arrangement was. But- that is the nature of cost for cost. I am truly sorry you have had a blow to your trust. Hugs.

AshleyD_Model wrote:
Has this happened to any of you? I did an implied nude TFP shoot months ago and suddenly friends are texting me freaking out that they saw me on a paid porn site! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr  I was told by the photographer some of the photos would be used on his site so I assumed he meant a professional portfolio site not a paid site!

If this happened to you what was the name of the website?

Thnx

Christina Josephine wrote:
I think everyone is missing the point of this poor girls post. She feels taken advantage of and tricked. It was very rude for him to not disclose the proper nature of what the arrangement was. But- that is the nature of cost for cost. I am truly sorry you have had a blow to your trust. Hugs.

Going back to the original post, did he trick her since she says he told her but she didn't check the nature of his site?

Later on she says they are not on his but on other sites that have porn adverts. That is not a "paid" site.

Christina Josephine wrote:

I think everyone is missing the point of this poor girls post. She feels taken advantage of and tricked. It was very rude for him to not disclose the proper nature of what the arrangement was. But- that is the nature of cost for cost. I am truly sorry you have had a blow to your trust. Hugs.

While it is possible the photographer did not reveal the full nature of the sites he intended to post the images on, its also possible that at the time of the shoot his site did not have any connections to paid porn sites.

Circumstances change from time to time.  He may have changed hosting providers, or decided that he wanted to make more money by adding the pay site ads to his page.  The release allowed this type of usage so he proceeded.  It's not reasonable to expect the photographer to contact all models and explain the new situation and get permission - he already had it.  I know that odds are he already had this plan in place - but if it wasn't he may not have predicted the possibility.  I know that I personally have no plans for this possibility, but can't say for certain what might happen in the next 5-10 years.

The bottom line is even with a release that excludes certain uses DON'T pose for any photo you would be upset about showing up on a website that might put you in an unfavorable light.  Between misleading photographers and image theft there is a reasonable chance that any image may end up somewhere you don't want it.

Azimuth Arts wrote:

While it is possible the photographer did not reveal the full nature of the sites he intended to post the images on, its also possible that at the time of the shoot his site did not have any connections to paid porn sites.

Circumstances change from time to time.  He may have changed hosting providers, or decided that he wanted to make more money by adding the pay site ads to his page.  The release allowed this type of usage so he proceeded.  It's not reasonable to expect the photographer to contact all models and explain the new situation and get permission - he already had it.  I know that odds are he already had this plan in place - but if it wasn't he may not have predicted the possibility.  I know that I personally have no plans for this possibility, but can't say for certain what might happen in the next 5-10 years.

The bottom line is even with a release that excludes certain uses DON'T pose for any photo you would be upset about showing up on a website that might put you in an unfavorable light.  Between misleading photographers and image theft there is a reasonable chance that any image may end up somewhere you don't want it.

+1 Well said!

DiavoloRosso wrote:
What's to say that the porn site didn't just take them off the photographer's site with out his permission and use them? Porn sites do that fairly often.

Meanwhile *this thread* languishes on the photography forum without any responses:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=891745

Let's stop whining, put our heads together, and SOLVE the problem!

AshleyD_Model wrote:
No they weren't stolen off the photographer's website. The paid site that I never knew existed is all his photography so it's not one of those websites where they steal photos.
There's no nudity that I can see on it but when I google to look for my photos I find they are on a heck of a lot of websites with hardcore porn ads and links and why people are jumping to conclusions I am involved in porn.

did you sign a release?
you could always check with the photographer and make sure there is an amendment on the release that prohibits the photographer from using the photos on porn sites, etc.

GingerMuse wrote:

did you sign a release?
you could always check with the photographer and make sure there is an amendment on the release that prohibits the photographer from using the photos on porn sites, etc.

There are many situations where a release is not required.

Releases are generally not needed if the model is not identifiable.  A closeup of the model's breasts (no face in the frame) may not need a release.

A release generally only covers using the model's likeness to promote goods and/or services.   Adding an amendment to the release may simply prohibit the image from being used to advertise for a porn site, or in an advertisement on a porn site.  It may not prevent the image from being published on the porn site as content. (remember whether or not money changes hands for an image has little to do with whether a release is required).


If a model doesn't want an image to be used in a certain context, then she should have a contract with the photographer that covers this.  The contract should be drafted by an attorney.  A poorly written contract may do more harm than good, and may legally mean something different than what was intended.  (For instance placing a restriction on a release and believing it covers all uses of an image).

AshleyD_Model wrote:
Do you know any guys who don't visit those sites?

Subscription sites? No. Most of them probably just go to streaming sites and steal the content.

To the OP: That said, this seems like a jerk move on his part and a whiff on yours