Alicia Hansen wrote:
You have them sign a contract before you give them out making it clear that altering your work is not okay.

+1

I can't stand the way people use filters on EVERYTHING on instagram... I put pretty much get the law involved if I were you, but I'm stubborn like that when it comes to my images.

Alicia Hansen wrote:
You have them sign a contract before you give them out making it clear that altering your work is not okay.

+2

Cal wrote:
In the future how do I tell the models not to  alter the pictures I send them?

Try saying, "You're not allowed to alter my pictures." You can put it in writing also.

Cal wrote:
My copyright was removed,

No matter what else was done to them THIS is reason enough to DMCA them.

I suggest you have a read of 17 USC §§1202, 1203 and then do what needs doing vis a vis informing the model.

Studio36

Cal wrote:
In the future how do I tell the models not to  alter the pictures I send them?

Just tell them.
But, if I could make a suggestion, you should look at the calendar. Check the year. It's 2012, almost 2013! Really. I know I'm being snarky but you need to get real with yourself. This shit happens all the time and it will keep happening.

Some people will use social media (or whatever media is available at the present time) and others will cry foul. The ones crying will not move ahead artistically, financially, or socially. You just have to look to see how you can make it work for you.

I don't get paid directly for all the mashups people have made of my work, but I do get paid indirectly. More people know my work thanks to social media than anything else. I don't do any mailings to potential clients, I just let them come to me - and I can do that because I relate to social media. You can do a tumblr search of my images and find shitloads of my images edited by fans for personal use... do I chase after them to protect my image? Or do I roll with the punches and keep shooting, attending meetings, and investing in to my own life? I'd rather work more on creating new revenue streams than chase down some 12 year old kid who edited my shit, or bother a model who slapped an image we did on her instagram with a Hudson filter. 

I know it's hard for some people to let go, but the sooner you realize that social media is a blessing, the sooner you will profit.

With that said, feel free to follow me!
instagram: MichaelDonovanagram
Tumblr: MichaelDonovan.Tumblr.com

Cal wrote:
I sent some pictures to a model after a shoot. Next time I saw a couple of them I almost didn't recognize them. They were butchered by Instagram, My copyright was removed, the pictures had contrast added and the horizon is no longer level. I guess that I should be lucky that I was not identified as the photographer. I don't know if she was bored and killing some time or she thought that she was being artistic.

In the future how do I tell the models not to  alter the pictures I send them?

Some people actually *think* they are being creative when they play with Instagram settings on an already edited image...hahaha...no...it just..to be blunt..F-s the picture.

THIS is WHY so many people dislike Instagram...it's a dang joke and it mocks professionals..I think anyways.

If I use it, its for BTS and if I place a professional photo up, it goes up in that professional aspect ONLY.

Melodye Joy wrote:
THIS is WHY so many people dislike Some people actually *think* they are being creative when they play with Instagram settings on an already edited image...hahaha...no...it just..to be blunt..F-s the picture.

THIS is WHY so many people dislike Instagram...it's a dang joke and it mocks professionals..I think anyways.

As a professional, I don't think it mocks any of us. And other professionals don't seem to thnk that also. Plenty of professional artists/photographers are using it in one capacity or another... professionals like Nick Knight, Fabion Baron, Miles Aldridge, Aaron Huey, Richard Phillips, etc.... Publications, agencies, stylists, distributors, and everyone else are using it, posting BTS, daily life, and some finished work. It's just part of the adaptation process for successful growth and artistic maturity.

Pixie Brandi wrote:
Instagram is sadly so addicting lol.

so is crack, food, sex, liqueur, E, rope, porn, MM.....

Mi Do wrote:

As a professional, I don't think it mocks any of us. And other professionals don't seem to thnk that also. Plenty of professional artists/photographers are using it in one capacity or another... professionals like Nick Knight, Fabion Baron, Miles Aldridge, Aaron Huey, Richard Phillips, etc.... Publications, agencies, stylists, distributors, and everyone else are using it, posting BTS, daily life, and some finished work. It's just part of the adaptation process for successful growth and artistic maturity.

I meant Instagram is a mockery when someone filters completed work, edited photos, publication, ect. Who needs a Hudson, X-pro, ect filter on top of already properly edited images?

Instagram, like any social network, can help and hinder depending on how people make use of it.

Mi Do wrote:
Some people will use social media (or whatever media is available at the present time) and others will cry foul. The ones crying will not move ahead artistically, financially, or socially. You just have to look to see how you can make it work for you.

You think removing a copyright notice and using Instagram filters as an artistic and financial move forward?

This wasn't about the use of social media or an unwillingness to "get with the times" by an aged photographer. The fact that the program used was Instagram or that the edited images were placed on a social media site are irrelevant.

If the photographer found his copyright notice removed, saw the model had performed hideous edits in PS, printed the image and placed it on a coffee house bulletin board, I'm sure it would be met with the same outrage.

Mi Do wrote:

As a professional, I don't think it mocks any of us. And other professionals don't seem to thnk that also. Plenty of professional artists/photographers are using it in one capacity or another... professionals like Nick Knight, Fabion Baron, Miles Aldridge, Aaron Huey, Richard Phillips, etc.... Publications, agencies, stylists, distributors, and everyone else are using it, posting BTS, daily life, and some finished work. It's just part of the adaptation process for successful growth and artistic maturity.

all of that is fine. But I watermark certain images for a reason. The model BROKE THE LAW by removing the watermark. This really shouldn't be a discussion of using online resources, but of stealing copyrighted work.

My photos of Dita have been passed around on tumbler around 100,000 times. I have not seen one penny of new work coming to me from that. Probably because they are all linked to Dita, and not to me. People can't hire me if they don't know I am the author of the work they like.

Melodye Joy wrote:

I meant Instagram is a mockery when someone filters completed work, edited photos, publication, ect. Who needs a Hudson, X-pro, ect filter on top of already properly edited images?

Instagram, like any social network, can help and hinder depending on how people make use of it.

But that's the thing where I think a lot of amateurs get it wrong... professionals don't look down on those filters. They just accept them for what they are.

It's like this: you're a 5'2", 28 year old model living in Valencia. Someone could say "haha - who the fuck is she?" Many working professionals (models, stylists, photographers, clients, etc...) don't really consider someone a model unless they are living/working in NY/Paris/London, are 16-24 years old, are 5'9"+, a size 0-2, etc.... They could say YOU are mocking professional models by attaching that moniker to yourself.

But if they took the time, they'd see some really cool images tucked away in your portfolio. They would see that you have modeled and that you do model. They'd see that you exercised creativity with your available resources.

And, if you look at some of those people who are filtering the finished work of professionals, you'd see that they ARE being creative within their available range.

All that I'm saying here is: don't judge people for their worldview unless you are ready to be judged for yours.

Kaligola wrote:
I think the title of the post is misleading. Stealing images, removing copyrights, unauthorized manipulation and publication sucks.

BINGO... it's the culprit editing your images that you should take issue with... NOT the editing application...

Alicia Hansen wrote:
You have them sign a contract before you give them out making it clear that altering your work is not okay.

qft

Cal wrote:
I sent some pictures to a model after a shoot. Next time I saw a couple of them I almost didn't recognize them. They were butchered by Instagram, My copyright was removed, the pictures had contrast added and the horizon is no longer level. I guess that I should be lucky that I was not identified as the photographer. I don't know if she was bored and killing some time or she thought that she was being artistic.

In the future how do I tell the models not to  alter the pictures I send them?

Instagram doesn't suck.

1. Instagram is a 1:1 aspect ratio.  Your copyright was likely not removed but omitted through cropping. Cropping is NOT required though if they make the effort to fit the image inside the box and accept the black area around the image.

2. To my knowledge, Instagram does not support any sort of rotation adjustments.  If your horizon is no longer level, they changed this prior to Instagram use.

3. Instagram does NOT require the use of the available filters.  Images may be uploaded as is.

Nikon, Canon, Photoshop, and Instagram do not suck.  However, there are people that suck that use one or more of those and those not mentioned and...well...they suck.

Mi Do wrote:

But that's the thing where I think a lot of amateurs get it wrong... professionals don't look down on those filters. They just accept them for what they are.

It's like this: you're a 5'2", 28 year old model living in Valencia. Someone could say "haha - who the fuck is she?" Many working professionals (models, stylists, photographers, clients, etc...) don't really consider someone a model unless they are living/working in NY/Paris/London, are 16-24 years old, are 5'9"+, a size 0-2, etc.... They could say YOU are mocking professional models by attaching that moniker to yourself.

But if they took the time, they'd see some really cool images tucked away in your portfolio. They would see that you have modeled and that you do model. They'd see that you exercised creativity with your available resources.

And, if you look at some of those people who are filtering the finished work of professionals, you'd see that they ARE being creative within their available range.

All that I'm saying here is: don't judge people for their worldview unless you are ready to be judged for yours.

Your bring a good point, but a petite model is not here to mock models of standard or above standard in the industry. A model is simply doing that. Modeling.

And your right, that person was being creative but at the same time, I feel that if I go edit and Instagram a photographers photo, after he has so graciously spent 15min-hours editing, is that not a mockery or a slap in the face to that artist as well?

Perhaps it is a compliment, too, in a sense...that someone would even *attempt* to re-edit and post another's work? just as a petite *trying* to make it as a standard or above standard model does...not sure. I can see both sides...still allusive. But I do see where the act of editing and Instagraming an image can be GOOD, too.

I guess its as the saying goes, 'any press is good press'...but as Star pointed out, her Dita image was posted and tagged DITA, but who did the leg work? the photography? the styling? the set?..where are those people as well?

It's something we as artists live with, a silent admiration (if you will) by fans, other artists, ect...

But for Cal, the BIG picture is the model discarded the watermark. ftw?! You shouldn't do so, UNLESS you A: got permission and B: it is less a watermark for (magazine, newspaper, print portfolio book) publication purpose.

Melodye Joy wrote:
THIS is WHY so many people dislike Instagram...it's a dang joke and it mocks professionals..I think anyways.

Do some of you people even try to think about what you're saying before you say it?

Russell James

He's on Instagram. Look him up.

Melodye Joy wrote:

Your bring a good point, but a petite model is not here to mock models of standard or above standard in the industry. A model is simply doing that. Modeling.

Sure. And someone instagramming an image is just posting one to do that... to post and share an image. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Do some of you people even try to think about what you're saying before you say it?

Russell James

He's on Instagram. Look him up.

Yes, Chris. I do anyways. The OPs issue with Instagram was more an issue with the model. They took off the watermark then proceeded to edit via Instagram over an already edited image.

This could have been prevented by contract legality or let go of, depending on how terrible the matter may have been.

Again, I stand with this...
It can be a form of flattery or a copyright violation, but that depends on how one looks at it.

I personally don't care to edit over an edited, professional image then post to Instagram. If I use Instagram edits it is for behind the scenes images or my personal captures (family, friends, pets, concerts,ect).

Models, designers and Photographers alike use Instagram. Its become a social networking tool, just as Facebook, Myspace, MM, ect...
Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, Patrick Holeck, Adam Bouska, Betsey Johnson, Michael Kors...

To each their own.

Melodye Joy wrote:

Some people actually *think* they are being creative when they play with Instagram settings on an already edited image...hahaha...no...it just..to be blunt..F-s the picture.

THIS is WHY so many people dislike Instagram...it's a dang joke and it mocks professionals..I think anyways.

If I use it, its for BTS and if I place a professional photo up, it goes up in that professional aspect ONLY.

How is that any less creative than using a preset in Lightroom?

If you want to criticize people for lying to themselves about being creative, you should snark the people who shoot the same thing everyone else has shot (although not as well) and then spends hours adjusting raw conversions and blurring out bad skin as if something as superficial as the surface affects the story and meaning of the photo.


Photography isn't "about light" or filters or post. It's about making an image that allows you to see something that can not be seen in person. In a lot of cases it's something that can't be seen with your eyes either.

Star wrote:
all of that is fine. But I watermark certain images for a reason. The llama BROKE THE LAW by removing the watermark. This really shouldn't be a discussion of using online resources, but of stealing copyrighted work.

My photos of Dita have been passed around on tumbler around 100,000 times. I have not seen one penny of new work coming to me from that. Probably because they are all linked to Dita, and not to me. People can't hire me if they don't know I am the author of the work they like.

Yes they can. If they really want you they can write her and she'll put you in touch.

You have no way to know what those photos are responsible for. How many people do you think have submitted portfolios in an effort to get clients that you see as yours, that you've already earned on past work. You have no way to know how many times they have considered hiring someone and been reminded of how viral your images can be and that they want you to shoot images for them that will get stolen and reblogged around tumblr and help build their brand.

Melodye Joy wrote:
And your right, that person was being creative but at the same time, I feel that if I go edit and Instagram a photographers photo, after he has so graciously spent 15min-hours editing, is that not a mockery or a slap in the face to that artist as well?

No, it's just selfish behavior.

Melodye Joy wrote:
I guess its as the saying goes, 'any press is good press'...but as Star pointed out, her Dita image was posted and tagged DITA, but who did the leg work? the photography? the styling? the set?..where are those people as well?

Who did the leg work? Dita did the leg work. Those photos aren't being reblogged because of who shot them they are being reblogged because of who's in them.

They exist because of all of the things Dita did before the shoot to be what we know as Dita and to be a brand and to have fans. Star is no the only person to have photographed Dita. Star is not the reason Dita is a droppable name, Dita is.

The photos link back to Dita because people are seeing Dita, not the photographer just like in all of the other thousands of photos of Dita that have circulated around tumblr 100,000 times.

Melodye Joy wrote:

Yes, Chris. I do anyways. The OPs issue with Instagram was more an issue with the model. They took off the watermark then proceeded to edit via Instagram over an already edited image.

This could have been prevented by contract legality or let go of, depending on how terrible the matter may have been.

Again, I stand with this...
It can be a form of flattery or a copyright violation, but that depends on how one looks at it.

I personally don't care to edit over an edited, professional image then post to Instagram. If I use Instagram edits it is for behind the scenes images or my personal captures (family, friends, pets, concerts,ect).

Models, designers and Photographers alike use Instagram. Its become a social networking tool, just as Facebook, Myspace, MM, ect...
Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, Patrick Holeck, Adam Bouska, Betsey Johnson, Michael Kors...

To each their own.

It also can be prevented by the photographer choosing to not be bothered by this use of their photos and saying "Do whatever you want with them after the shoot."

MC Photo wrote:

Yes they can. If they really want you they can write her and she'll put you in touch.

You have no way to know what those photos are responsible for. How many people do you think have submitted portfolios in an effort to get clients that you see as yours, that you've already earned on past work. You have no way to know how many times they have considered hiring someone and been reminded of how viral your images can be and that they want you to shoot images for them that will get stolen and reblogged around tumblr and help build their brand.

I deleted an earlier post that touched on that as well.
The point that Star and others are clearly missing is something very simple:
a great image will become a meme, iconic, and go viral. A great image will NOT always have the photographers name attached. A photographer has to let go a little if they want to succeed.

Star is pitching (another) one of her fits but should step back and look at the real world. Not the way the laws have been set up, but how real PEOPLE live in the real world.

She's seeing the world just the same way Romney saw the world... and look how that worked out for him. It has less to do with the physical rules, and more to do with how people (real live human beings with faults and all!) interact.

The best thing that happens to me time and time again:
I show up to a meeting with a client. I open my portfolio and they see an image and say "YOU shot that?! No way! I've seen that before! It's one of my favorite images!" Then they move to the next image and say "you shot that too?!" There are SO many images in my portfolio that have become viral and/or iconic of something where my name isn't attached. I have images with 50k, 100k, and even 180k notes on tumblr where I have no links to me... but the people who matter eventually find out that I shot the image.

Sure, it's something that people are cropping, lifting, filtering etc... but what's their intended purpose? Is it to further enjoy the art with their own touch? What's wrong with that if it's not really ruining the original work and it's not taking money away from the author? If people are not allowed to reproduce our work, then Star should take down all the images she stole... you know, the replicated shot of Jim Morrison... the ripped off shot of The Graduate... or the lifted image of the "We Can Do It" poster. I didn't see any credit given to the original authors before she traced it with her team, filtered it with her equipment and brushed up the edges with her post work... so how can she expect to have people honor her if she isn't being social enough to let her images go from time to time?

As artists, it's OUR responsibility to get our names out and make recognizable work that the public can enjoy. But part of the enjoyment process is knowing that the citizens in our community WILL make bad art with our work! We can request photo credits and that no one ever fucks with our images in order to retain integrity and bring work to our door, but those credits wash away pretty quickly. So it's our responsibility to keep producing hits, get them in places where people can relink them, and keep it moving. No one will get rich off a photo credit but they will get rich from being a good member of the creative community, even when the "creative" person is just throwing up a shitty filter to share with their 120 followers.