MoRina wrote:
I have always thought the same thing.
I think it's pretty shitty of people to post all kinds of political stuff, opinions, personal attacks and general negativity on a public forum using an image of someone else as their avatar.
I always feel sorry for the models whose faces appear to the left side of some of the stuff posted here. They probably have no idea that signing a model release with these "photographers" included being the poster child for somebody else's verbal diarrhea.

Yeeeeeesssss! i'm so happy you responded, because youre very intelligent, and also a voice of reason. As you can imagine I'm pleased as could be to hear you've had the same thought. Such an eloquent reply!
"poster child for somebody else's verbal diarrhea.'"
spot-fucking-on. i love it!

in hindsight, i guess i really shouldn't expect anyone to reply who isnt their own doo-doo face.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
Yeeeeeesssss! i'm so happy you responded, because youre very intelligent, and also a voice of reason. As you can imagine I'm pleased as could be to hear you've had the same thought. Such an eloquent reply!
"poster child for somebody else's verbal diarrhea.'"
spot-fucking-on. i love it!

in hindsight, i guess i really shouldn't expect anyone to reply who isnt their own doo-doo face.

It's not a stretch to think that many mistake the owner of the avatar face for the account owner.

Selfish people who only think of themselves won't be able to see your point. They don't understand the potential damage to a model's reputation. It's just another facade for keyboard warriors to hide behind and not have to take personal responsibility for their words.

MoRina wrote:
It's not a stretch to think that many mistake the owner of the avatar face for the account owner.
.

It is,  particularly when the profile states gender and age.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
3. Have any other humorous correlation or experience?

Never.  And my present avatar is not a selfie.  But the model is one of the most beautiful I have ever photographed over the years.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
...
anyone else share that admittedly strange view?

No - I guess I lack the imagination gene.

And, given the response (especially since it includes Mo), your view isn't all that strange.

MoRina wrote:
It's not a stretch to think that many mistake the owner of the avatar face for the account owner.
.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
It is,  particularly when the profile states gender and age.

+1

A long, long time ago, on a bulletin board far, far away, I used an avatar of Abe Lincoln. Not one person that I can recall was confused whether the posts were by me or Abe.

<-- If you think Olivia wrote this reply, you are not here reading the bulletin but rather searching for eye candy.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

It is,  particularly when the profile states gender and age.

depending on profile type it doesnt show age, and only sometimes gender.
regardless everyone might not look for that.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
A long, long time ago, on a bulletin board far, far away, I used an avatar of Abe Lincoln. Not one person that I can recall was confused whether the posts were by me or Abe.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
The premise of the OP is poorly thought out and undeveloped.  It ignores the obvious regarding the site and the nature of an avatar for the site.

Avatars for models are almost universally an image of the model.  The goal would be to attract attention to facilitate getting work.  A MUA displays hair or makeup.  The photographer’s/artist’s avatar is often selected as a vehicle to display skills or an illustration of the quality of the model with which he or she works.  It is also intended to attract the attention of other members to help establish working relationships.  The choice of a male or female figure in a photographers avatar may also be reflective of the gender of the models they seek to work with.  The avatar image hiding in the shadows or bathed in bright light may be selected to reflect the mood the photographer seeks.  In some instances the photographer uses an image of himself yet the consensus expressed in a related thread, indicates what the photographer looks like is immaterial to a model working with him. 

The site being a place to find other creative people with which to work with is what drives the selection of an avatar, not a peripheral function of the site, and one that is little used at that.  While some of us have increased visibility because of forum participation, it is absurd to surmise that we are on the site primarily for the forums.  The few places where I have an avatar set up, the image may represent something about me, but the image selection is designed to reveal information that is more pertinent to what I wish to convey then my image would.  That would include this site. 

The premise that people are going to associate the person in the avatar with the opinions or behavior of the person making forum posts displaying those traits, is absurd.  How long would a person have to be on this site to come to the realization that a member displays a photograph to market themselves?  In the few instances that someone is so obtuse and idiotic that they may blame a model for the words or actions of a photographer, then why would anyone, much less the model in the avatar, want to work with a person with that much inability to compartmentalize and inability to make proper associations?

Furthermore, the avatar of a photographer may drive traffic to the model.  The things that some people post are only shitty to a segment of the readers.  Their generalization of what is shitty is subjective and personal.  Those who make that determination are also then projecting their own emotions, politics and personal opinions onto the person in the avatar- most likely without any first hand experience as to what the person in the avatar would believe.  That is shitty in itself.

There is nothing that prevents the person in the avatar from expressing concern to the avatar user if they have a concern.  There has been ample discussion regarding models asking photographers to remove images from their social media displays when the model no longer wishes to be represented in a way which she knowingly and willing portrayed herself, and photographers often accommodate their requests.  Why would a reasonable person simply assume that the person in the avatar must be clutching their pearls, in great distress, helpless to change the situation?

There are ample clues in a photographer’s portfolio and profile that the person in the photo is not the page owner.  Even if the age and gender is not available: The model may be credited; there may be clarifying text in the bio; verified credits which use gender related pronouns; and, in most cases, the portfolio of a photographer would contain images of the model in the avatar and many other models.  A quick glance at a portfolio should be a reasonable clue regarding which image might be the photographer and which might be models.  It is an extraordinary stretch to assume that intelligent and rational people would associate the avatar face to be the account holder.

Another problem with the position that the avatar should be an image of the forum poster is that the same arguments could be made regarding any individual in the portfolio.  Should every shoot be predicated on an agreement of all political and personal topics known or yet to arise so that only those who agree on all issues may be hired, photographed and displayed? 

The OP’s premise was that there is a correlation between posting behavior and the avatar and yet he has not provided any evidence of his theory at all.  Just conclusions.  Furthermore, he expresses that the choice of an avatar should be different only for the person expressing “very personal opinions?”  Why would he draw the line there?  Is it simply because he doesn’t like the opinions being expressed and he needs an image of the actual person making the statement to focus his disdain on?  If he likes the posts of a person and he is filled with sunshine and butterflies, he is fine with associating an unrelated face to the positive feelings?  Why should the requirement be any different based on his subjective reactions?

Dude, you need a therapist. I mean that in the most concerned, honest way.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
The premise of the OP is poorly thought out and undeveloped.  It ignores the obvious regarding the site and the nature of an avatar for the site.

Avatars for models are almost universally an image of the model.  The goal would be to attract attention to facilitate getting work.  A MUA displays hair or makeup.  The photographer’s/artist’s avatar is often selected as a vehicle to display skills or an illustration of the quality of the model with which he or she works.  It is also intended to attract the attention of other members to help establish working relationships.  The choice of a male or female figure in a photographers avatar may also be reflective of the gender of the models they seek to work with.  The avatar image hiding in the shadows or bathed in bright light may be selected to reflect the mood the photographer seeks.  In some instances the photographer uses an image of himself yet the consensus expressed in a related thread, indicates what the photographer looks like is immaterial to a model working with him. 

The site being a place to find other creative people with which to work with is what drives the selection of an avatar, not a peripheral function of the site, and one that is little used at that.  While some of us have increased visibility because of forum participation, it is absurd to surmise that we are on the site primarily for the forums.  The few places where I have an avatar set up, the image may represent something about me, but the image selection is designed to reveal information that is more pertinent to what I wish to convey then my image would.  That would include this site. 

The premise that people are going to associate the person in the avatar with the opinions or behavior of the person making forum posts displaying those traits, is absurd.  How long would a person have to be on this site to come to the realization that a member displays a photograph to market themselves?  In the few instances that someone is so obtuse and idiotic that they may blame a model for the words or actions of a photographer, then why would anyone, much less the model in the avatar, want to work with a person with that much inability to compartmentalize and inability to make proper associations?

Furthermore, the avatar of a photographer may drive traffic to the model.  The things that some people post are only shitty to a segment of the readers.  Their generalization of what is shitty is subjective and personal.  Those who make that determination are also then projecting their own emotions, politics and personal opinions onto the person in the avatar- most likely without any first hand experience as to what the person in the avatar would believe.  That is shitty in itself.

There is nothing that prevents the person in the avatar from expressing concern to the avatar user if they have a concern.  There has been ample discussion regarding models asking photographers to remove images from their social media displays when the model no longer wishes to be represented in a way which she knowingly and willing portrayed herself, and photographers often accommodate their requests.  Why would a reasonable person simply assume that the person in the avatar must be clutching their pearls, in great distress, helpless to change the situation?

There are ample clues in a photographer’s portfolio and profile that the person in the photo is not the page owner.  Even if the age and gender is not available: The model may be credited; there may be clarifying text in the bio; verified credits which use gender related pronouns; and, in most cases, the portfolio of a photographer would contain images of the model in the avatar and many other models.  A quick glance at a portfolio should be a reasonable clue regarding which image might be the photographer and which might be models.  It is an extraordinary stretch to assume that intelligent and rational people would associate the avatar face to be the account holder.

Another problem with the position that the avatar should be an image of the forum poster is that the same arguments could be made regarding any individual in the portfolio.  Should every shoot be predicated on an agreement of all political and personal topics known or yet to arise so that only those who agree on all issues may be hired, photographed and displayed? 

The OP’s premise was that there is a correlation between posting behavior and the avatar and yet he has not provided any evidence of his theory at all.  Just conclusions.  Furthermore, he expresses that the choice of an avatar should be different only for the person expressing “very personal opinions?”  Why would he draw the line there?  Is it simply because he doesn’t like the opinions being expressed and he needs an image of the actual person making the statement to focus his disdain on?  If he likes the posts of a person and he is filled with sunshine and butterflies, he is fine with associating an unrelated face to the positive feelings?  Why should the requirement be any different based on his subjective reactions?

Whoa, nicely put and 100% accurate assessment. That sure burnt down and utterly humiliated some of the deeply-butthurt/laughably-hypocritical posts from earlier in this thread. Congratulations, Hunter!

MoRina wrote:

   Whatever.

Morina wrote:

I wonder how this avatar and "model" release question is different from a "model" appearing in an advertisement which is run in a variety of publications which may hold positions that are abhorrent to the "model’s” own ideology.  Heck, the ad may be repugnant to the "model.”  Should a "model" seek a release that would prohibit her image being published in any vehicle which espouses a point of view with which she doesn't agree?  Why even shoot her under those circumstances? Should we add a sensitive issue clause to our model releases  permitting the model to represent our avatar while we freely express ourselves in the forums?  Or should the reader of advertisements and of the forums be mature enough to understand that the person in the avatar is not the one responsible for the speech on the right hand side of the page? 

For the majority of “models” here, they are never going to be in a major advertising campaign.  The opinions or attitudes expressed in the forums are not going to become widely viewed by the public.  In the realms of social media, MM doesn’t create very much exposure. 

For those who are fortunate enough that their avatar choices accomplish the goals of an avatar and their avatar image, being their own likeness, appears on the left of the shitty and pugnacious things they say- Well, good for them.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Just to set the record straight . . . I AM NOT the beautiful woman you see in my avatar !

And all that time that I wanted to meet you Ken!

Damn.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
I'm not judging anyone, or looking to discuss any individual profile pic, or someones behavior, or opinions expressed in other threads. Thanks.

LightDreams wrote:
I really struggled with the logic of the original post, but I think I FINALLY understand...

How those that appear in the portfolio example avatars are being unfairly maligned by their association with the posts that are being made by the photographers behind those portfolios.  I'm pretty sure that's what's being said.

So now that I properly understand it...

- Can you imagine the pure hell of those very popular models that are used as avatars by a variety of different photographers, all with very different political opinions?  The horror that they must be dealing with, all because they are so popular...

- And isn't it sad how people who live in San Francisco get unfairly maligned by the posts made by someone who's avatar indicates that he's from San Francisco? (or California, or even the USA?).  It's just so unfair.

- But what's MUCH worse, by far, is how about all of those poor Guitar Players who are being unfairly associated with the comments of a poster, that specifically associates Guitar Players (shown as his avatar) with all of his posts?

That's so sad and so unfair to all of the innocent guitar players and musicians, that really shouldn't be unfairly associated with some of things that the offending photographer has posted.   Yep.



What a load of crap.

just quoting this.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
in hindsight, i guess i really shouldn't expect anyone to reply who isnt their own doo-doo face.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
um,...  whoa!
i was just asking some simple questions. i even put them in bold and put numbers by them to try and maintain focus.

don't get me wrong, I'm flattered that you all have an obsession with me, and love to analyze my behavior and every post i make, but you're all getting a little weird. its a bit concerning.

Just quoting these too.

kickfight wrote:
Just quoting these too.

thanks for helping make my point.

kickfight wrote:
Just quoting these too.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
thanks for helping make my point.

And thank you for helping to reiterate my point ---which may not be just my point--- once again.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
I'm flattered that you all have an obsession with me...

HAH!

Have you ever noticed that when you just post something reasonable, no one reacts AT ALL?

We've all encountered people in our lives who somehow manage to always be around when there's far more drama than there ever was otherwise, and they're always right in the center of every heated piece of drama, but always insists that it's NEVER "their fault".

Now Paolo, please don't forget to sneak in some side remarks suggesting that you're "the intelligent one", "the reasonable one" or are actually "the victim", that for some completely inexplicable reason keeps ending up right in the thick of OH SO MUCH DRAMA (but no, definitely not "trolling").

For the life of me, I just can't understand why this keeps happening to you, and with so many different people and so many different topics.   And I'm sure that many others are just as confused as I am.  And I don't know why I keep getting the impression that's when you're happiest.  But I know that just can't be.

LightDreams wrote:

HAH!

Have you ever noticed that when you just post something reasonable, no one reacts AT ALL?

We've all encountered people in our lives who somehow manage to always be around when there's far more drama than there ever was otherwise, and they're always right in the center of every heated piece of drama, but always insists that it's NEVER "their fault".

Now Paolo, please don't forget to sneak in some side remarks suggesting that you're "the intelligent one", "the reasonable one" or are actually "the victim", that for some completely inexplicable reason keeps ending up right in the thick of OH SO MUCH DRAMA (but no, definitely not "trolling").

For the life of me, I just can't understand why this keeps happening to you, and with so many different people and so many different topics.   And I'm sure that many others are just as confused as I am.

I thought this thread topic was reasonable: Just 4 simple questions.
You could react by just answering them or not participating. No drama needed.
In fact i even wrote in a disclaimer in the first post to state that intentions should be prevent this topic from being personal.

LightDreams wrote:
Understood.  Your purpose was NOT to try and attack all of those that you've been having disagreements with, by suggesting that their poor avatar models are being unfairly smeared by all of the absurd things that those that have disagreed with you have said.

We understand perfectly.

Again, I'm so sorry that all of these misunderstandings keep happening to you in particular.  In so many different topics and with so many different people.

The theories you continually fabricate about me are inaccurate.
Specifically ones in which you insinuate I have some nefarious purpose behind my every action.
I have politely asked before that you stop that behavior and I'm asking again now.
There seems to be a shared hysteria which takes precedence over any actual content or information I am trying to convey. Its not between so many different people just a few have the condition, as evidenced in this thread by those who chose to participate in order to focus on me personally, instead of focusing on the topic or just ignoring it.

If the only reason you or others are replying is to criticize someone you dont know, then maybe its time to do something else with your misdirected anger and fear.
You have already demonstrated in this thread that you do not know me.
Please stop with making speculations about me.
Then they'll be no need to apologize.

SooOOooOOoo.....
On topic. Do you want to answer my questions in the first post in this thread?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I wonder how this avatar and "model" release question is different from a "model" appearing in an advertisement which is run in a variety of publications which may hold positions that are abhorrent to the "model’s” own ideology.  Heck, the ad may be repugnant to the "model.”

I suppose its all a matter of being ignorant to how their image will be used, or how well in detail the release describes what their image may be otherwise associated with.
I've heard stories of models turning down work when they know in advance that the outcome is going to be something they wish not to be associated with. Such as an advertisement for a genital herpes treatment. Shouldnt be a stretch to think that, if made aware some models would chose not to be the face associated with someone elses forum (or social media) activity as MoRina mentioned.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
For the majority of “models” here, they are never going to be in a major advertising campaign.  The opinions or attitudes expressed in the forums are not going to become widely viewed by the public.  In the realms of social media, MM doesn’t create very much exposure.

ouch! way to crush hopes and dreams, and we cant know what will pop up in future search results.
what do they say about those who assume?

Paolo wrote:
“Because most of the active forum members here are not models, but most have pictures of models as their profile pic, (which is completely normal and reasonable) ….”

“… i didnt really consider that it might actually enable someone to behave that way because they are 'hiding'. thats a good point too. “

You said, … YOU SAID, it is normal and reasonable for photographers to have photos of models as an avatar.   (Notice that I didn’t use quotes.  It is a paraphrase.  You don’t have to get your panties in a bunch.)  Yet, you would concur that some photographers are hiding behind models?  It isn’t a good point.  It is thoughtless.  It is an expression that is proof that no consideration was given for the reality of the site.  It is absurd.  It seems as if another poster offered you a sound bite lacking in sound reasoning and you grasped it wholeheartedly, just because it fit your agenda. 

No matter how you slice this, until you put your own face on display to the left of your frequent poor behavior, you are being a hypocrite.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
I suppose its all a matter of being ignorant to how their image will be used, or how well in detail the release describes what their image may be otherwise associated with.
I've heard stories of models turning down work when they know in advance that the outcome is going to be something they wish not to be associated with. Such as an advertisement for a genital herpes treatment. Shouldnt be a stretch to think that, if made aware some models would chose not to be the face associated with someone elses forum (or social media) activity as MoRina mentioned.

What is the most commonly used release on this site?  The PPA model?  The release that gives photographers the right to use the photos of the models in any medium, in any amount, for any purpose and in duration of not less than in perpetuity?  Does the common release have anything in it about sensitive issues?  A rational advertising agency isn't going to use a stock photo for an ad campaign that involves sensitive issues.  It would be inviting a lawsuit.  But even in your example, you objectively defined your sensitive issue as Herpes.  In this thread, you are subjectively defining the sensitive issue as being political opinions or personal values and beliefs that you find distasteful because of the "the temperament of the poster." 

In the forums there are a lot of redundant threads where photographers disparage models in one way or another.  Photographers often relate demands that models make, which are perceived as unreasonable and the common response from many photographers is very simply, "Next!"  What do you think is going to happen if a model insists on a sensitive issue clause that is something like this: "You (the photographer and hereafter referred to as you) have never nor will you ever post anything in the MM forums or anywhere in social media that could consist of political opinions or personal values or closely held beliefs which I (the aforementioned "model" and hereafter known as I or me) disagree with, and you will never commit any crime or high profile act, as long as an image of me is one of your avatars, in your portfolios, or can in anyway be associated with me through social media, or you shall immediately and forever remove any verifiable tie to me, now and forever, in perpetuity, and violations of said agreement shall be under the penalty of ...."?   She ain't going to be working.   You may say that including everything I have included is absurd, but it is a rational conclusion, that you have not yet disputed, that if the avatar is an issue, then so is the portfolio, and once we acquiesces to those, a lot more gets thrown on the table.  In fact, You already did it: "Shouldnt be a stretch to think that, if made aware some models would chose not to be the face associated with someone elses forum (or social media) activity as MoRina mentioned."  (BTW, don't you have a ' key?)

The premise of this thread is that what is said in the forums is associated with the avatar.  Tell me how what I say is going to come up in a search someone is making regarding a model?   Wouldn't they have to be searching for specific word combinations or conducting searches based on someone's name?  My avatar's name isn't coming up in any searches that are based on my name, your name, or what either of us say except through the MM search engine.  If someone outside of MM does a search on my name, which seems highly unlikely since I don't use it anywhere else, or if they do a search on word combinations and something I said pops up, they aren't going to see my avatar as part of that search.  If they want to see who I am, they are going to have to join MM and when they do, they can see my avatar.  The reality that something that is said in the MM forums of ever becoming an item of importance is minuscule and an association developing to an avatar?  It is ridiculous. 

If models  "chose not to be the face associated with someone elses forum (or social media) activity as MoRina mentioned," they  shouldn't be modeling because in the world of the small minded people out there, they are going to be linked to something, sooner or later.  But it won't matter, because who the hell is going to know about it?  There have been models linked to crimes in the forums.  I couldn't name one of them.  Who has time to dwell on the person in an avatar because someone else said something offensive?   

Most of the models I work with do nudes even if we aren't shooting them.  Do I need to be concerned about how people will associate my avatar, should she be an non-nude model, with other models that shoot nudes?  Really, if people are going to judge the models in my portfolio, are they going to worry about me arguing against racism and fascism more than they are going to worry about her showing her breast and pudendum? 

As for what MoRina said, she said that we "don't understand the potential damage to a model's reputation," but she didn't support her statement with examples that are factual, verifiable, rational, or anything else.  She said that in the midst of a general put down.  There was no substance to her post.  It is possible that what MoRina, or any of us say, can be held against us by other members.  There are models here that I would go out of my way to work with because of their forum post and there are models that I have worked with because of their forum posts.  And there are models I would not work with because of their forum posts.  If Mo or anyone else doesn't want to work with me because of my forum posts, let it be so.  I think we all know there is a price to be paid for what we say. 

You keep telling us that we don't know you and we shouldn't be characterizing you based on your offensive forum behavior.  (Yes, it is a subjective opinion.)  But here you are telling us that people characterize our avatars based on the behavior that you subjectively classify as offensive.  Weird.  Just plain weird.  But I agree with you regarding this:  We don't know you.  We know your forum personality and behavior.  Your forum personality is consistently childish and obnoxious and that is the person we are responding to- the one you show us.  Why is it unreasonable for us to treat you here the way you behave HERE!  I don't know anyone currently posting in the forums beyond what they post.  I have met less than a handful of MM photographers and "painters" in person.  I have met more than a few models. 

In the forums, we tell newbies and those that have been in bad situations with photographers to get referrals.  Talk to other models.  Look for verified credits.  Use what ever tools they need so that they can select who they work with.   All of that regarding who to work with, but you assume it is rational to simply associate the model in an avatar with a person's forum posts?  Completely ridiculous!   If models don't want to work with me because I find abhorrent the racism and fascism that is supported by the Republican rightist and certain members that are forum participants- then cool!  Don't.  I don't care.  Then, the ones who will work with me will also find racism and fascism abhorrent and I will get better results because I am not working with an angry, racist, fascist person.  Anyone who is so small minded as to blame my avatar model for my views, and is too obtuse to talk to her about her own political positions, personal values and beliefs, if they truly think that is important, then all they have done is prove they are are small minded and hard to work with.  Though I seriously doubt any rational person would hold the position that you an MoRina are promoting.