| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2008 11:40:27 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
I have to aggree here, you need model releases for much more than just product promotion. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:01:55 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by trnqlty:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
I have to aggree here, you need model releases for much more than just product promotion. |
Actually, no.
Despite popular opinions to the contrary, the photographer is NOT liable for improper use of an unreleased image, the publisher is the responsible party and, in many cases, releases just aren't necessary. The photographer is only liable if they misrepresent the release status of an image. Unfortunately, many stock agencies have a blanket policy that says all images of people must have model releases because it's easier to have a one-size-fits-all policy than to evaluate individual usages.
For a fairly in-depth article on the subject, read here. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:16:29 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
This doesn't apply to "public figures" or "celebrities" -- you think those paparazzi get a release every time they take a photo of Paris Hilton or Sean Penn?
 |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 01:47:03 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trnqlty:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
I have to aggree here, you need model releases for much more than just product promotion. |
Actually, no.
Despite popular opinions to the contrary, the photographer is NOT liable for improper use of an unreleased image, the publisher is the responsible party and, in many cases, releases just aren't necessary. The photographer is only liable if they misrepresent the release status of an image. Unfortunately, many stock agencies have a blanket policy that says all images of people must have model releases because it's easier to have a one-size-fits-all policy than to evaluate individual usages.
For a fairly in-depth article on the subject, read here. |
I'm speaking beyond stock, btw. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 02:43:23 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trnqlty:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
I have to aggree here, you need model releases for much more than just product promotion. |
Actually, no.
Despite popular opinions to the contrary, the photographer is NOT liable for improper use of an unreleased image, the publisher is the responsible party and, in many cases, releases just aren't necessary. The photographer is only liable if they misrepresent the release status of an image. Unfortunately, many stock agencies have a blanket policy that says all images of people must have model releases because it's easier to have a one-size-fits-all policy than to evaluate individual usages.
For a fairly in-depth article on the subject, read here. |
I'm speaking beyond stock, btw. |
So does the article I linked to. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 02:47:51 PM · #281 |
| Well it appears that her agent has dropped her as a client... consequences I hope she was prepared for. Impact to the larger professional photography community is something I don't think she thought about... |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 02:55:06 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Well it appears that her agent has dropped her as a client... consequences I hope she was prepared for. Impact to the larger professional photography community is something I don't think she thought about... |
You have to assume she had an inkling about the effects this would have on her editorial career. Maybe it was a way to get out of editorial, blue background, same lighting scenario work that she's been pidgeon-holed in since the monkey pictures. Perhaps she felt she didn't have the courage of her convictions not to back-slide into the same comfortable techniques without some strong impetus to re-invent her style. I could see some reason behind it, given that everything she's done in the last 5 years is beginning to look nearly identical, style-wise and probably a far cry from what she'd like to be doing.
Or there's always the bat-crazy option. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:04:43 PM · #283 |
The images have been removed from her site as of yesterday - //www.manipulator.com/ Click enter - names - john mcCain (no longer a link)
Also, her site also reports that she is now represented by ArtMix - //www.artmixphotography.com/ due to "creative differences" with her previous agency.
Funny way to put it.
Anyways, doesn't look like she'll be for want when it comes to representation and I doubt when it comes to work either. |
|
|
|
09/23/2008 09:25:39 AM · #284 |
Here are all of the pics if anyone is interested.
Pretty ballsy/scandalous.
//www.imagebam.com/gallery/75fe3a4650f53f809a541bbda6f05a1c/
|
|
|
|
09/23/2008 09:40:16 AM · #285 |
I'm an Obama supporter, ok not exactly true, I'm not a McCain supporter.
I've been wondering a while, if I would be more angry, or angry at all if it was Obama in the photos, or someone I admired. Since I don't like McCain obviously her deeds have less negative impact on me.
At the same time I wonder if as many people would be offended if she did these style of photos of Bush or another less popular person. Would it still be bad then, or clever?
I don't think there is a definite answer to any of these questions, it is all speculation, the questions remain on my mind however, probably a waste of mental energy.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2008 09:54:53 AM · #286 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
WAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa!
As long as no animals were hurt, or children for that matter.
The world's full of actors, that's one emotion tought in acting school. It's even self-taught, when growing up in the school of hard-knocks Life. |
Exactly, let the humans have fun and ridicule themselves. No harm done. :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 03:50:09 PM EDT.
