What about out models?

/
/I am posting this in a separate thread as it may be considered "off-topic" in the discussion about the MS and Google deals.


Most of our models signed IS/Getty releases.  These releases for years informed them of restrictions of useage, defined misuse and we assured our models that IS was vigilant in dealing with misuse.   Now that these images are uncotrolled and being use in any manner by the whole world, this opens us up to a HUGE liability.

We've got a lot of children's pictures out there.  How many of you assured wary parents that likelyhood of misuse was quite small.  Well, th
Of interest - I went to look at the license.  I forgot that it had been changed, and that information is no longer written in the license.  I'm wondering is the license was changed with these plans in mind.  Our models, old or new now have no protection from misuse at all.  No one policing, and no one to make any efforts when they are misused.


We've got a lot of children's images out there, in many cases our own children.  How many times have you assured reluctant parents that the likelihood of misue is very small.  I think that is pretty much blown out of the water now.

(Edited on 2013-01-12 05:42:53 by jtyler)

Yes, iStock. What are you going to do when someone takes one of our images and uses it in a profane manner or a way clearly against the iStockphoto content agreement, and they say "Oh, well, I legally found it on Google docs, and there weren't any restrictions, so go screw yourself"?

Will you point out the non-exist EULA terms? Nod your head and agree?

What then?

As I said elsewhere, I think these iStock or Getty releases are documents they produce but I don't think they represent any contract between iS/Getty and you or your model. The contract is between the photographer and the model, so the onus must be on you to ensure that the terms of your contract with the model are complied with by any agent/distributor you appoint to handle your work.


That's my guess, anyway. Particularly as the overall terms of the istock agreement are that the photographer bears legal responsibility for everything and iStock is free to do anything it likes (that's just a summary, of course).


 

The point being, that by their actions, they have removed any legal protections we have. The have "legitimately" licensed these works to Google, apparently with no requirement to offer them under any license or restrictions, despite claims to the contrary. So the user appears free and clear to use our content on sex ads, or articles that would defame the models, or anything else. Getty has essentially removed any defense we have against illegitimate use. IMO.

That is the first point I brought up in my origional post in the first WTF forum.

Contributers, If you don't have liability insurance, now would be a very good time to get it. If a model ends up in an inappropriate place, you will be the one to get sued...not Getty or Istock

Yes, one of my images is there high in the search with a young child as the subject. This action is such a betrayal of trust I'm left speechless by the immoral behaviour of the people that sought and sanctioned it.

You should be ashamed to work for an organisation that treats its artists in this way.

This has been my big concern as well and I will be giving it serious thought as to how I will handle it, including deactivation of model photos that clearly show their face.

There is a lot of merit to the concern here especially simple ethical and personal responsibility that has been usurped. What Getty did with our images is outside of any agreement we have made and it needs to be undone. That said, to win, the affected model(s) would likely have to confront the publisher of the image used outside of the model release terms. The publisher might sue Google for misrepresenting the freedom to use the images, Google might make a claim against Getty. It would be a mess.

Here is the link to report copyright infringement on Google. Whether they feel there is a copyright violation or not, I don't think they will take the chance of leaving our images up. They are smarter than that...I think


http://support.google.com/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_dmca&dmca=image&product=docs

I today found my only agency image an image of my 2 year old daughter through Seans link, being resold on a website as a wallpaper. I am awaiting a response from CR as I do not understand fully what is and is not allowed, but I am assuming that this is not, and that this is simply an inevitable nasty bi product of these deals. 


It is extremely worrying. Am I now expected to monitor the uses of this image myself.

I am taking down my images containing relatives who kindly modelled for me.


Sad day for iStock when it comes to this. We trusted you iStock. You failed.

What a failure....


What a f failure ...


To think I once trusted and loved this place so much .....

Whoever at iStock/Getty had the massive failure of judgement to go ahead with this 'deal', our agreement is with iStockphoto, and they do have a clear responsibitiliy here.

Under 'Grant of Authority', at 3.a.ii in the ASA and Exclusive ASA:
The right to grant perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive licenses or sublicenses to end-users. iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners will determine the terms and conditions of all licenses of Content granted by them, but will not use or license Content for uses that are defamatory, pornographic or otherwise illegal. 

I have now deleted all photos containing family and friends. I hope they disappear from Getty soon...

Since 95% of my portfolio is of family and friends is there a way just to opt out this deal? 

There is no way to opt out Martine. And you have a picture in the Google "deal". Sorry

There can be if people do the right thing.  But since they made the "deal" for their own benefit, the odds of them or Google doing the right thing are slim to non.


 

So what happens if you delete the file here say for MR reasons will it still be for sale at Google? If it is taken down by Google will they want their 12dollars back?

(Edited on 2013-01-12 08:59:30 by ClarkandCompany)

For the first time ever I have deactivated images at iStock. Such a dreadful thing to have to do but it's what iStock deserve. Some of them had made the journey over to Getty too and it had been great to see them there. It will be interesting to see how long they take to disappear from Getty's site.