V Laroche wrote:

That's very convenient for you, but many of us have spoken to models who believe they have been in Vogue Italia. I have seen them myself, and also have gotten several PMs today about them.

Anyway, the point of my thread was just to inform people about this so nobody else would be mislead. If my thread is redundant, that's cool B)

The point of my thread is NOT that PhotoVogue is stupid or pointless. The point was just that it is NOT Vogue Italia. That's all. I am not attacking everyone who has ever had a photo up on PhotoVogue. I really care nothing about that. I AM wagging a disapproving finger at those who are claiming to have a Vogue tearsheet because they are on PV. That just ain't right.

Equally convenient for you.

I think the models who say that, think that what happened is close enough that they can get away with it.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Hey, look at that! I got a third one...

http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 76f04/User

I've seen your work on MM many times before and admired it, but now your in/on Photo Vogue I want to buy your images! Please rush me your prices for A0 canvasses!

Well done matey.

LA StarShooter wrote:
It seems their criterion for image selection for photovogue doesn't match up with Conde Naste magazine requirements and this maybe the heart of the problem for them.

Consider this - the whole damn thing, in particular with A+C included, might be set up as some kind of internal tax dodge for Conde' Naste' especially considering the notional [but seemingly unrealistic] license fees set out by A+C. Consider that A+C, if they are paid fees internally by Conde' Naste' publications, can shift money around internally, and potentially a lot of it. It then depends on how such money might be more favourably treated for tax purposes in whatever jurisdiction A+C is set up in.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Studio36

Some back story stuff:

If you think I'm kidding, I'm not! We have just had a peak behind the wizard's curtain in regards to the tax affairs of Starbucks [and some others like Amazon] in the UK. They always show a gigantic loss in their UK operation, a loss so large in extent that they haven't had to pay any, zero, zip! [or, in the case of Amazon, an insignificant amount based on turnover] UK corporation tax for some years, in spite of both massive notional income and handsomely rewarding their executives with a large salary and bonuses, BUT, where it was recently pointed out that some of that loss occurs because of internal mechanisms of payments to their subsidiaries in lower tax jurisdictions. Apparently Starbucks have a Swiss subsidiary buying their coffee beans from the growers and reselling them to the UK Starbucks operation at a 20% mark-up just to take advantage of a MUCH lower corporate tax regime in Switzerland and coincidentally shifting that "cost+20%" out of the grasp of the UK tax man as a business cost for the purchase of coffee beans to be used in the UK.

What company can really loose 10's of millions of $£€ a year and stay in business? It's Hollywood accounting, once again.

QOTD
"It's déjà vu all over again"
- - - Yogi Berra

faltered wrote:

I'm just going to offer my opinion which is that you're wrong about most of what you've written in the multiple posts in this thread.

Photos submitted to Vogue Italia through Photo Vogue are accepted or killed by actual Vogue Italia editors, and at times co-reviewed by other top industry editors. Not all photos they pick up only run on the website, they do run some of them (which are still on the photo vogue site) in the print version of Vogue Italia. But that's not really what Photo Vogue is.

It's a catalog that is hand selected by Alessia Glaviano and being represented by Art + Commerce, which is one of the most prestigious agencies in the world, representing Steven Meisel and other world class photographers, and they have a stock business. Once a photo is accepted by photo vogue it is eligible to be listed in the Art + Commerce stock catalog, which is a joint venture with Conde Nast (owner of Vogue) and Art + Commerce. The Photo Vogue catalog is a editorial stock image site, so having photos with photo vogue can mean income and editorial exposure. Anyone can price the images in the catalog right through the site, most of the work I have for license with them is $7,000-$14,000 per image for a 90 day exclusive (cover with circulation over 2 million). Being co-owned by Conde Nast means their own magazines (vogue (all territories), cosmopoliton, vanity fair, glamour, allure, self, GQ, etc. etc all license images from these catalogs.

So you might see it as something ridiculous but in reality it's a way to be represented by one of the top editorial stock agencies in the world, make licensing fees on your photos and get exposure by those photos appearing in top publications.

Like I said, many photos through photo vogue are actually run in the print version of Vogue Italia but if you believe being "published" is defined by being run in print only I think you're terribly mistaken. That means you're saying photographers for Newsweek are not "published"? Newsweek is done with printed versions, it's completely online now. What about prestigious magazines like ID that commission web editorials, is that not considered published?  Or are you saying it's not "published" unless it's a magazine website that you think counts as published and others you might not know about are not considered being published because you're not familiar with them?

For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks.  ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system.

Good enough for me.
Off to submit some images.

studio36uk wrote:

Consider this - the whole damn thing, in particular with A+C included, might be set up as some kind of internal tax dodge for Conde' Naste' especially considering the notional [but seemingly unrealistic] license fees set out by A+C. Consider that A+C, if they are paid fees internally by Conde' Naste' publications, can shift money around internally, and potentially a lot of it. It then depends on how such money might be more favourably treated for tax purposes in whatever jurisdiction A+C is set up in.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Studio36

thats certainly where my suspicions lie also

orias wrote:
We're discussing a site that i have thoroughly explored and i have a belief shared by many who tried out the site and also felt no worth past an unnecessary pat on the back until financially proven otherwise down the road that there is more to it than that... but that has yet to happen to the vast majority of acceptees.

I'm having trouble resolving the issue you have with PhotoVogue as worthless considering we're having this discussion on MM...a place where people do the exact same thing, upload their images, but with absolutely ZERO quality controls or reviews.

You took the time to upload images to MM. So you obviously feel there is value to doing that. Yet you think PhotoVogue/Vogue Italia is worthless? How do you resolve those two conflicting views?

Am I missing something or is this the epitome of irony? Or is it hypocrisy?

studio36uk wrote:
Consider this - the whole damn thing, in particular with A+C included, might be set up as some kind of internal tax dodge for Conde' Naste' especially considering the notional [but seemingly unrealistic] license fees set out by A+C. Consider that A+C, if they are paid fees internally by Conde' Naste' publications, can shift money around internally, and potentially a lot of it. It then depends on how such money might be more favourably treated for tax purposes in whatever jurisdiction A+C is set up in.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Studio36

orias wrote:
thats certainly where my suspicions lie also

Really? Then why didn't you say that pages and pages ago? It appears to quite a few, myself included, that you have some issue with those who post images to the site and then have latched onto any detractor's point of view who has posted.

But now someone posts about a possible tax scam, a conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one, and you're jumping on that bandwagon?

The true issue you have, that you've been very consistent with in a considerably condescending tone, is that you feel the only purpose of posting images to the site is for some self-congratulation and some ego stroking by people with low self-worth. You've stated that you're above needing that to validate your self worth.

That's why people have accused you of changing your tune with each new post.  You vacillate on why it's "worthless" every time there's a new criticism.

studio36uk wrote:
Consider this - the whole damn thing, in particular with A+C included, might be set up as some kind of internal tax dodge for Conde' Naste' especially considering the notional [but seemingly unrealistic] license fees set out by A+C. Consider that A+C, if they are paid fees internally by Conde' Naste' publications, can shift money around internally, and potentially a lot of it. It then depends on how such money might be more favourably treated for tax purposes in whatever jurisdiction A+C is set up in.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Studio36

I've now had some of what I consider very nice work rejected, and they throttle the number of submissions down to 3 a day. So the effect is that every night for the past few days I've submitted some things, woke up to find they were rejected.

So I think I'm done bothering for a while.

Neil Snape wrote:
voila mine no idea if the link would work though.

http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 9dad8/User

But I want to say what they select is so random. Like as if the bullshit point and shoot form an Ixus I have in there should have been accepted. Yet others I KNOW should be weren't.

I don't submit anything now, or don't have anything I assume is for Art and Commerce.....

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st17252155

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I'm having trouble resolving the issue you have with PhotoVogue as worthless considering we're having this discussion on MM...a place where people do the exact same thing, upload their images, but with absolutely ZERO quality controls or reviews.

You took the time to upload images to MM. So you obviously feel there is value to doing that. Yet you think PhotoVogue/Vogue Italia is worthless? How do you resolve those two conflicting views?

Am I missing something or is this the epitome of irony? Or is it hypocrisy?

As far as I can tell, her main working genre as a model is fetish, so it legitimately not be the best venue for Orias in that regard.

The odd bit is the insistence that what isn't worthy/useful to her personally can not possibly be worthy or useful, for anyone, ever.

studio36uk wrote:
So you folks are agreeing to Terms and Conditions that not only you have not read but can not read because they are not there to read.

Your honor, my client is not bound by any terms or conditions because not only could he not read them, but...



they are not there to read!

DUN! DUN! DUNNNNN!

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Your honor, my client is not bound by any terms or conditions because not only could he not read them, but...



they are not there to read!

DUN! DUN! DUNNNNN!

That may be fun to consider in TV land, but it won't work in your favour [either way] as you think it will.

Studio36

Dan OMell wrote:
I don't know who is more retarded the models or photographers then. They cannot read, don't have Internet, or just plain lazy?  If somebody is just after money, it's unavoidable anyways after all. Nothing helps. No fucking knight on the white horse gonna help them, anyways, "to not being in Vogue".
Why should I care, for example, tell me?

The point of the thread is just to let them know. I don't know why they seem unaware. You don't have to be nasty about it. Maybe after they read the thread they will understand. That's why I started it.

As to why you should care, I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over my thread. It's an informative thread. I'm not trash talking. YOU, however, are throwing a little bit of a tantrum. I am sincerely wondering why you are so upset about it. You seem angry that I am pointing out that having a logo-stamped photo on PhotoVogue is not the same thing as having a Vogue tearsheet. Why are you so angry?

studio36uk wrote:
1) It smacks of false attribution, a clear violation of moral rights where they are available [ALL of Europe]

When you upload a picture to this website you agree that they will add their brand logo to the picture if it is published by them.

Nothing to complain about as far as copyright laws are concerned. "Implicit consent" is the legal term.

You do not like this? Then do not upload your pictures.

dirk olsen wrote:
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.

But before publishing it think a second or so that publishing a picture with the Vogue stamp without their consent is a violation of trademark rights...

V Laroche wrote:
That's very convenient for you, but many of us have spoken to models who believe they have been in Vogue Italia.

Many people are "believing" instead of reading and understanding properly and then do some thinking.

A phenomenon that affects far more fields than just modelling.

TomFRohwer wrote:

dirk olsen wrote:
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.

But before publishing it think a second or so that publishing a picture with the Vogue stamp without their consent is a violation of trademark rights...

So it's OK for Vogue to mark someone's work with their name but not OK for that other person, likely the actual copyright owner, to obtain and use a copy with Vogue's [now improperly applied] name? ROTFLMAO

I also doubt that that amounts to a trademark infringement because there is no attempt by the second person to cause confusion in the market - the very essence of a trademark claim.

What Vogue are doing, and not only them but every other website that applies their own name to photos they do not own is doing, is false attribution and amounts to what is called "reverse passing off." It is a wilful misrepresentation of a material fact. Further, if any such thing is being offered for sale with the false name applied it might also be fraud in some jurisdictions.

But

It can often get better than that. I was reading a newspaper article [in a proper ink-on-paper general circulation newspaper not some Internet only rag or blog] a few days ago about a website that features funny / bizarre family photos submitted to the website. The newspaper reproduced some of the images from the website and I was immediately struck by the fact that each and every image contained the following line of text - "©[the website name]". Oh? Really? Claiming the actual copyright ownership in their own name on someone's family snapshots - in their dreams! But all considered that is only one small step up from what Vogue, et al., is doing.

Studio36

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Really? Then why didn't you say that pages and pages ago? It appears to quite a few, myself included, that you have some issue with those who post images to the site and then have latched onto any detractor's point of view who has posted.

But now someone posts about a possible tax scam, a conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one, and you're jumping on that bandwagon?

actually i pointed out multiple times about vogue just looking for bulk free talent and members to populate their social network photovogue with content that isn't totally horrible and promote this site for them with no payouts from them yet driving their traffic and advertising by continuously danging the carrot of the Vogue brand recognition and seal of ecellence and the concept of an eventual payoff that is statistically unvalidated thus far. 

clearly the purpose of them creating this site and letting people promote it for them and reward themselves for being added to their statistics is not in adherence with what most people would be proud to be affiliated with. 

Hence why i have also mentioend wanting to see payouts or hear of the measureable benefits that came to those who had been accepted, photo of the day, or those that were also published from it.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I'm having trouble resolving the issue you have with PhotoVogue as worthless considering we're having this discussion on MM...a place where people do the exact same thing, upload their images, but with absolutely ZERO quality controls or reviews.

You took the time to upload images to MM. So you obviously feel there is value to doing that. Yet you think PhotoVogue/Vogue Italia is worthless? How do you resolve those two conflicting views?

Am I missing something or is this the epitome of irony? Or is it hypocrisy?

Paige Morgan wrote:
As far as I can tell, her main working genre as a model is fetish, so it legitimately not be the best venue for Orias in that regard.

The odd bit is the insistence that what isn't worthy/useful to her personally can not possibly be worthy or useful, for anyone, ever.

Ive gotten thousands of paid gigs from having a few images on mm (but i also dont post craploads here either because when i did that they ended up all over the internet wherre i had no control over them any longer) 

i think many of us have value on participating in this site because there is direct feedback from collegues,  there are castings,  meetup groups,  newbie help forums, a marketplace, etc. 

I'm open to hearing a validated benefit fromthe majority of members on their site besides just the excitement of being on it  

Has someone gotten contacted from one of their execs through there to be pulled onto staff,  has someone got direct contact from the editor with valuable personal feedback for their future, has more than a couple people out of tens of thousands there been published to get acknowledged eposure, etc? 

Anyone?

I've stated many reasons along with many other people who dont feel it has substantial value above the pat on the back scenario and maybe a couple more things.

Those supporting the site are posting reasons they wanted to post (because it's vogue which is awesome and their name helps in some way, because posting photos on the internet is good to get ones name out there) and get accepted there but havent posted what benefits they have actually directly gotten as an exclusive result of being accepted

i'm open to hear statistically verifiable benefits of pay stubs, dramatic website hit jumps the day they were accepted and that has sustained since because they are tailored for your market, Big gallery offerings referencing how the clients found you as from PhtotoVogue site and now would love to use you that you wouldnt have gotten just be submiting to directly (i.e. as a direct reflection of the benefits of being on photovogue),  contact from higher models or photographers that you have tried to work with before but now will accept that offer because of your new found photovogue acceptance, etc.?

VOGUE is awesome.  If i messaged 100 photographers who have been in their magaine and ask them to verify the benefits of it (beyond financial even)  i am sure there will be a really high if not unanimous list of awesome benefits. 

I've spoken to around that number of PHotoVogue acceptances and so far only know of 2 who have received miniscule benefits.  And one of those said they could have gotten that same benefit off of zivity or similar site with good traffic and slight payout

yeah i'm a total jackass for approaching business decisions logically and with long reflection and weighing of effort and benefits and deciding that for me it was not worth it.  Then asking around and finding that most seem to fall in that same zone,  but represent an emotional connection with the name Vogue or are overly optimistic of their community's reach, etc.

so for the few major promoters in here,  my personal email is on my page and i will gladly await evidence of how that site directly benefitted you for participating

orias wrote:
Has someone got direct contact from the editor with valuable personal feedback for their future?

Anyone?

Yes, there is at least MM user who has experienced exactly this.

I'm not going to 'out' her here as she hasn't contributed to this thread, but a glance at the other threads on the subject should give you an idea who I'm talking about.

orias wrote:
yeah i'm a total jackass

Just because you either can't or won't see the potential benefits, or maybe because you fear you wouldn't get anything accepted there anyway, doesn't excuse the kind of jackassery you've exhibited in this thread.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

V Laroche wrote:
It's an informative thread. I'm not trash talking. YOU, however, are throwing a little bit of a tantrum. I am sincerely wondering why you are so upset about it. You seem angry that I am pointing out that having a logo-stamped photo on PhotoVogue is not the same thing as having a Vogue tearsheet. Why are you so angry?

I'm not angry at you, I think you're scammed by the models.

But, if you really feel yourself like a savior (or a babysitter for 5 year old who cannot find something, in the era of Internet, sitting in one-mouse-click distance) then you're probably just naive.

For example, somebody took your photo, and it was accepted by PhotoVogue Italy, and, hypothetically, you call your friend(s) during your 30sec. break. What phrase do you use yourself to convey the shortest message possible?

Or, when you got the url of the image on PhotoVogue where tiny Vogue Italy stamp is visible in the corner, do you really never read anything else at all on this particular site around your photo? If so, you're right then.

But who can be possibly satisfied by a stamp on a small version of their photo and never try to check the real printed magazine? How many of us send money to Nigeria to get the "officially" promised 100 million prize? Or claimed they did just that to not pay the taxes?

studio36uk wrote:
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will find a link to the site's Terms and Conditions [user agreement] This is the link and it happily returns "Pagina non trovata" in Italian = in English, Page Not Found"

http://www.vogue.it/en/v/user-agreement

So you folks submitting there are agreeing to Terms and Conditions that not only you apparently have not read BUT can not read because they are not there to read? For all you know you are agreeing to give them your first born along with your photographs.

I think something was changed after they joined the forces and signed the new agreement (between PVI and A+C).
I understand that it does not satisfy your reasonable doubt (and any missed link on a reputable site is actually never forgivable!), but there is the following url and more like this around their merged entity:

http://photovogue.artandcommerce.com/terms.php

Paige Morgan wrote:
her main working genre as a model is fetish, so it legitimately not be the best venue

not exactly fetish, but something pretty close (with some neoclassicism touch, though ):
and it was online as the best of the day as far as I remember which means (I didn't check it though -- not my photo and/or a model) it potentially could be in their printed version too.

by amazing Mariska Karto
(18+) http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Portf … 7ff8/Image

http://images.vogue.it/Photovogue/be12b … SCREEN.jpg

studio36uk wrote:
So it's OK for Vogue to mark someone's work with their name but not OK for that other person, likely the actual copyright owner, to obtain and use a copy with Vogue's [now improperly applied] name?

Vogue marks the picture with the copyright owner's consent. So that is legal.

The use of Vogue's trademark without Vogue's consent is illegal.

It's as simple as that.

I also doubt that that amounts to a trademark infringement because there is no attempt by the second person to cause confusion in the market - the very essence of a trademark claim.

Faking the Vogue tademark by using the preview tool in the way described and than publishing the picture with the Vogue logo means trying to pretend a business liaison with Vougue that does not exist.

And that's definitely a trademark misuse by the law of most countries in the world.

(Including the US as far as I know.)

Damianne wrote:
Wait, the gripe here is that models may be lied to and be foolish enough to believe it? Honey, if you can't tell a Vogue photographer by their portfolio, you're already fucked. And if someone says they've shot for Vogue and their portfolio leads you to not doubt them, the fuck is the harm in shooting with them if they're lying or think having a photo accepted by vogue.it counts anyway? Apparently they're awesome.


Regardless, the way for a model to get to Vogue is clean snaps, tears, and agency representation, not a photographer shooting a personal project of any kind. You're already barking up the wrong tree here.

Spot on analysis.