|
Forums >
General Industry >
Why Vacation Rentals are not made for Photoshoots
https://www.insider.com/onlyfans-model- … oto-2021-6 The article is written as though the model is the victim but it appears that she violated the terms of the rental and was likely doing exactly what the owner feared. I know that Hustler magazine requires a property release to accompany photoset submissions exactly for this reason. Vacation rentals and hotels are not the same thing as production rentals. Even some production rentals have stipulations about nudity or other parameters for shoots. Playing dumb won't always get you out of the hot water. Production rental sites like Peerspace are generally a better option than taking your chance with a vacation rental. Jun 17 21 03:45 pm Link The devil is in the details. If the model had nude photos taken or had put any photos up as part of her OnlyFans content, then yeah, her fault. If the rental agreement was strict enough that swimsuit photos of non-models posted only to instagram would also have counted as verbotten "porn," then tough for her, but I wouldn't have warm feelings about the owners either. If a non-model posting those photos to instagram would have be OK, but the model got kicked out for the same thing because model, then I'll say that the model was the victim here. Jun 18 21 10:24 pm Link The rental agreement is not included in the article, nor are specific limitations regarding the rental agreement. Per the link to VRBO, not every rental agreement is the same throughout VRBO. The article seems to indicate that the women were kicked out preemptively for breaking the rules, unless bikini photos or all photos are forbidden by the agreement. ""She claimed that she knew we were going to be shooting porn at their location because of our past Instagram posts," Stokes said." Porn? If it is a violation of the agreement to shoot porn there, I hope the agreement defines porn to include what the women did, otherwise, the definition of porn is how the law defines porn. The owner may have some vulnerability if the owner broke the agreement. ""This message is to confirm that we are canceling this booking due to a violation of house rules and the misleading information provided in your booking details," the owner's message read, according to Jam Press." Contracts work both ways and so do the laws regarding rentals. While property releases are justifiably required by some entities, they are not required by every entity, nor are they automatically required by law to be able to publish or display a photo. Unless the rental agreement forbids the dissemination of every photo taken on the property, in every form of media, the women will have the right to post photos. Taking photos will be an expected behavior. It would be like providing a kitchen, but kicking the tenants out for ordering take out and eating in the house. Jun 19 21 04:08 am Link Sablesword wrote: Dude, it's not about the nudes. Jun 19 21 09:58 am Link Along those lines many hotels, motels, and other rental properties designed for temporary living don't allow photography for various reasons, many as already stated in this thread but another regarding the fact that they're just not set up for it. Case in point, several years ago I worked on call in the AV/Convention dept of a Las Vegas Hotel/Casino/Resort. I know of at least two instances where photographers were warned (ie: kicked out) of the hotel because they were doing a photoshoot in the room. The problem is that the lighting equipment they were using was causing circuit breakers to trip. After maintenance people had to reset the breakers a few times, they went into the room to try and diagnose the outlet(s) or light switch(es) that were 'shorting out' and causing the problem.... only to find out it was the old lighting equipment overpowering the electrical system.. Another time it was basically the same issue with the addition of lots of nudity in front of kids, without the photographer/models knowledge. Y'see the windows were mirrored so people typically couldn't see into the room from outside. The faced the pool area. The photographer and model thought the pool area would be a good background so the model posed nude near the window. The thing is during a certain time of day the shade reduces the reflectivity of the window, along with the powerful flashes of light helping to illuminate the nekky girl, all for the people in the pool area to clearly see. I don't know who turned the people in, whether it was a security or hotel employee, or some mother that had her kids playing in the pool area. One thing I'm pretty sure is that it wasn't a businessman or the father of the kids at the pool.  ----------------------------------------------------------- Surprisingly even convention areas aren't really set up to power many older studio lights and the same thing will happen (circuit breakers being tripped). There's actually a few different companies that are called in to conventions to specifically wire in heavy duty circuits, and when the event is complete the company takes it all down again, just to repeat it for the next event. The largest of those companies is Edlen (https://edlen.com/). Talk about a good racket!!! Don't set up permanent power in a place that pretty much needs it... 'rent out' upgraded power and charge a hefty fee to do so. Jun 19 21 10:49 am Link Dan Howell wrote: exactly this!!!!! Jun 19 21 04:39 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: That's why I wrote "... or had put any photos up as part of her OnlyFans content, then yeah, her fault." Jun 20 21 04:19 am Link Paolo D Photography wrote: That's the point under dispute here: The models claim that they were renting the home to relax in and enjoy vacation, and are accused of lying about that and of using the location to create content for profit. The models did post a swimsuit photo on instagram. Did they do more, such as posting to their OnlyFans account? Or is posting to instagram, in this case, enough to establish that they intended to produce commercial content? If the answer to either question is yes, then the accusation stands. Otherwise it doesn't. Jun 20 21 06:42 am Link It doesn't seem so easy to draw the line between what is commercial content and what is not. A photograph of the deer eating by my bird feeder wasn't intended to be commercial, but I could get lucky and sell it to a firm that sells deer repellent or something. Yeah, if the photos were taken to be on an OnlyFans site, that would be intended for commerce. However, the owners had to conclude that the photos were taken for commercial purposes before evidence of such was available. Once the photos hit the OnlyFans site, then they had a case. Before that? Eh. But I think some of you guys are reading in things that aren't in the article. If you have a different, more thorough source, then please share. The renter in question said she informed the owners of the desire to make yoga videos. To me, yoga videos would imply a commercial use, which means the owner was informed of the possibility of a commercial use in advance. Does a property release apply? Maybe. If the property is identifiable. If the background is ocean, or flower pots by the pool, then probably not. If there are features which would identify the house or unique characteristics of the house that would make it identifiable, then yeah, probably a good idea to get a property release. It is a good idea to get one anytime. But that might mean if you are out on the deck, you need a property release for the house behind the location too. I disagree that the content doesn't matter in this particular case. I think it mattered more than the property release issue. The leasing agent specifically mentioned shooting porn. The leasing agent mentioned reviewing the Instagram accounts of the women. They didn't express a concern about having a property releases for the locations in the Instagram pics. I bet that some of the photos on IG were spicy shots of the women. When the owner canceled the rental, they were vague. The only photo that we know of was of a bikini, and though I doubt that anyone here is naive enough to consider a bikini shot porn, a bikini shot would feed into the fears of the homeowner. None of the quotes given in the article mentioned privacy or property rights. "The manager left but returned a few hours after "she looked up our Instagram accounts," Stokes told Jam Press." ""She claimed that she knew we were going to be shooting porn at their location because of our past Instagram posts," Stokes said. " "The manager left and returned once again to collect copies of their IDs and warn them again not to film porn, Stokes told Jam Press." ""This message is to confirm that we are canceling this booking due to a violation of house rules and the misleading information provided in your booking details," the owner's message read, according to Jam Press." Jun 20 21 07:40 am Link I don't think either side has clean hands in this situation. The renters disclosed that they were going to shoot yoga video, Is that "commercial use" on IG? Is it different if on a pay site like OF? In the past if you were going to shoot commercial video you had a production crew, cameras and big lights. Now a cell phone and a couple led lights and you are good to go. They shot bikini pics and posted to IG the same thing thousands of other women did that day. Did they intend to shoot porn? from her IG page you cannot conclude that and not all OF pages are porn, depending on your definition. What some would call explicit others would call porn. People shoot photos in hotels all the time and as long as you do so without calling attention to it and are not bothering other guest I think hotels have more important things to worry about. Nudity visible to there guests in public areas will get you kicked out camera or no camera. A honeymoon couple memorializing their wedding night? Had they posted porn that was identifiable to the location and if that caused actual damages the owners would have a cause of action and damages. As presented in The article it appears to have been premature and presumptive and the renters may have a cause of action if they do not get the refund. Nothing involving the law is simple and this is far from clear cut. Jun 20 21 08:29 am Link Renting a dedicated production site may indeed prevent some potential problems. Other photographers here have suggested that shooting only with a full production crew can prevent some potential problems. While I belive these both to be true, for many however, these are not financially or logistically viable shoot options. While we certainly hear of stories like this of people running into trouble when shooting at certain locations, we also see many, many examples of people shooting in motels, at vacation rentals on public lands and other locations not created for shoots without running into any such problems. Also, just becaue this person was asked to leave on this occasion for allegedly shooting in violation of policy, it doesn't follow that choosing to shoot at vacation rentals has overall been a losing strategy for her. I've read many stories of amateur photographers shooting non commercially at naional parks being asked to stop shooting because their SLR use "looks commercial" even though it's not. It doesn't follow one should never shoot with a SLR in our national parks however. What this story, the previous post of someone popping hotel circuit breakers with strobes and people being "busted" for shooting in national parks all have in common, is that they drew negative attention to themselves that came to the attenttion of management. That is probably the bigger lesson. Jun 20 21 11:37 am Link Dan Howell wrote: I agree, I like using Peerspace. They know you are going to us it to shoot right from the start. I think all but one Peerspace I used had lighting equipment available right on the premises. One Peerspace in particular, half of the sample photos were of the enormous bathtub. I imagine he knew it was going to be used to create adult content. Jun 20 21 10:53 pm Link Abbitt Photography wrote: First, I don't know if you are just looking at the nightly rate of an Airbnb for comparison, but once you include all fees some Airbnb rentals add up to high being a high fee for a 2-3 hour shoot. For that duration of shoot, you could also find a Peerspace rental for $50-75/hr without a $100 cleaning fee. I've even seen Airbnb rentals which are also on Peerspace. They net out to be the same for overnight as a 4 hour shoot. Jun 21 21 04:35 am Link Such an interesting Topic ... and informative to boot! In my limited experience I recall an Ad Agency gave me (an amateur photographer) a brief/story-board of an image they wanted me to recreate showing a model leaning against a guard rail with only the ocean in the background and if possible a palm tree. Cutting the branch off a palm tree and taking it up to the roof of a beachside apartment to hold out over the balcony was the easy part ... along with shooting the model. It's no easy thing to think you can simply ask any apartment owner's permission to use the their apartment or the shared facilities of the complex. I had to jump through hoops of red tape to get all the permits and permissions just to shoot a single picture for a brochure cover. Today, I'd possibly shoot the model and background separately and produce the same result using photoshop. You know, I found this topic so interesting and informative I looked up my City Council rules. It was interesting to learn there are restrictions for doing commercial work within your own residential home. Be it a house, flat, unit, apartment, or something else ... didn't go down as far as tent or a caravan/motorhome. That's all I have to say, so thanks! Jun 21 21 06:56 am Link You know, I found this topic so interesting and informative I looked up my City Council rules. It was interesting to learn there are restrictions for doing commercial work within your own residential home. Be it a house, flat, unit, apartment, or something else ... didn't go down as far as tent or a caravan/motorhome. That’s ridiculous. Jun 21 21 07:44 am Link Camera Buff wrote: My last town had a similar rule. Homes zoned as residential only were prohibited from any kind of commercial use. Technically anyone making cookies for a bake sale was in volation of this zoning policy. However, many, many people used their homes for small scale, part time cottage industry businesses without ever getting into trouble with local authorities. Similarly, that city had a noise ordinance, but they only sent the police out after receiving complaints from at least two separate parties and even then all they typically did was tell those violating the ordinance to tone it down. Tickets were typically only issued after the the police showed up repeatedly. Jun 21 21 11:21 am Link Dan Howell wrote: Interesting. Jun 21 21 01:18 pm Link I have used Air B&Bs in three cities when traveling. I spoke with the hosts before booking and explained that I wanted to book with them because of their locations and room styling. All had no problem as long there was not a large group, just me a model and a MUA. There used to be a B&B in DC that actually catered to photographers, offering rentals for short durations like two or three hours if they weren't booked with guests for several days. Worked out great for all involved. Jun 21 21 02:12 pm Link You know, I found this topic so interesting and informative I looked up my City Council rules. It was interesting to learn there are restrictions for doing commercial work within your own residential home. Be it a house, flat, unit, apartment, or something else ... didn't go down as far as tent or a caravan/motorhome. 63fotos wrote: Almost every city, town, and county gov't has similar laws. (Including your town https://www.cityofalhambra.org/resource … w-business ) Jun 21 21 03:29 pm Link I've had great luck with Airbnb's. I search for a location outside of any zoning regulations (remote rural areas) and I discuss in writing that I am looking for a place to shoot model photos. I've had a couple owners decline prior to renting and I have a dozen or more who gave me high ratings on the website and even a few I've become friendly enough with that they sometimes call me when they have a slow time offering me deals. The great thing for them is I never use them over night and before I leave I do a thorough inspection to be sure they are as clean or cleaner when I leave as when I got there. In fact, the beds are unused but it wouldn't surprise me if the owner still changes out the sheets and such. I would. I also never allow the models to spend the night there or to be there when I'm not. Jun 22 21 06:19 am Link In the past I've rented both AirBnB's and Peerspaces for shoots. I never had any issues with AirBnB's, however I will agree that Peerspace is a much better option since you're not likely to run into any issues like the one mentioned in the article. Jun 22 21 01:14 pm Link 
Photographer Posts: 67 Neumayer - permanent station of Germany, Sector claimed by Norway, Antarctica The best thing I see in this article is that this group of ladies could afford $26,000 for a rental for one week. That's probably what has made people so mad. Ha ha. Jun 23 21 09:12 am Link MoRina wrote: Once went to traffic school for something egregious yet met a young lady about 17 who drove a new red Mercedes who was cited for 56 in a 55 MPH zone. Jun 24 21 10:08 pm Link FFantastique wrote: wait.. what? was that a real occurrence or, is that some sort of analogy / metaphor / rhetorical thing? Jun 24 21 10:17 pm Link I work pretty regularly with an out of town photographer. He will come to Florida, or he has flown to him. Only once did we not have a vacation rental. There was never any issues. He will schedule one model per day. Only once did we have multiple girls but we were shooting on the beach. And we had a permit! Jul 02 21 08:03 pm Link As a photographer who has been in the vacation rental business in Orlando for 25+ years, it is important in these situations to understand that a vacation rental manager has the same powers as a hotel manager to remove an undesirable guest from the property as per Florida Statute 509.141. 509.141 Refusal of admission and ejection of undesirable guests; notice; procedure; penalties for refusal to leave.— (1) The operator of any public lodging establishment or public food service establishment may remove or cause to be removed from such establishment, in the manner hereinafter provided, any guest of the establishment who, while on the premises of the establishment, illegally possesses or deals in controlled substances as defined in chapter 893 or is intoxicated, profane, lewd, or brawling; who indulges in any language or conduct which disturbs the peace and comfort of other guests or which injures the reputation, dignity, or standing of the establishment; who, in the case of a public lodging establishment, fails to make payment of rent at the agreed-upon rental rate by the agreed-upon checkout time; who, in the case of a public lodging establishment, fails to check out by the time agreed upon in writing by the guest and public lodging establishment at check-in unless an extension of time is agreed to by the public lodging establishment and guest prior to checkout; who, in the case of a public food service establishment, fails to make payment for food, beverages, or services; or who, in the opinion of the operator, is a person the continued entertainment of whom would be detrimental to such establishment. The admission to, or the removal from, such establishment shall not be based upon race, creed, color, sex, physical disability, or national origin. Advice to photographers / models - it is always best to discuss with the property manager or the owner of the property, the nature of the shoot you are intending to do and to get an agreement in writing. Of course, many togs and models will not do that and so, they then take their chances. If they are asked to leave and refuse, then they are guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Jul 23 21 08:15 am Link FFantastique wrote: My barber got a ticket for only 2 MPH the 55 MPH limit on a rural highway. Made her made enough to drive to that county's courthouse to try and get out of it. Didn't work as judge caught her about admitting to being 2 MPH over. Fine was $175 and "If she wanted to come back and contest that fine in his court, and waste his time, it would be $350." She paid the $175. Jul 23 21 08:34 am Link Nigel W wrote: Thank you for providing that statute. Based on the information on hand, do you see any violation of the statute that would justify the removal of the people involved? It clearly permits them to be removed for negative behavior, but not for potential behavior. "... or is intoxicated, profane, lewd, or brawling;" Jul 23 21 11:59 am Link Hunter GWPB, I honestly don't know in the given situation. As we know, reports like this never give the whole truth or all sides of the story. The article's opening statement is that the owner kicked them out but later on it refers to the property manager. So that's two stories that would need to be validated as well as those it affected. Further, the article refers to a security guard so what did that person see? Rarely is a guest evicted for simply being in the property or for "potential" behavior though. In fact, in my years of being in the business, I have only needed to do it twice. The first was for a guest where the owner allowed them in the home without upfront payment and the second was one of the party crowds where they rent a home for the weekend and all of sudden cars arrive from all over the place. The article also states that the group stayed overnight so one can only wonder what they got up to that first night. Most reservations have owner's rules and regulations so it could be they violated some of those. What strikes me is that the article refers to gathering ID's after the group had arrived. That is irregular to me as we always require ID before giving out arrival instructions. It seems to me that the owner / property manager didn't do the proper due diligence on the guests they were allowing to stay in a $26,000 a week rental and then became suspicious of how the property was going to be used by them. Jul 27 21 07:32 pm Link |
