Comments on: Isn’t This Sensitive Use? http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use Greg's blog includes posts about the business of photography, features on new and established photographers, and Greg's own work. Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:26:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ted Lochwyn http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-84 Ted Lochwyn Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:57 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-84 Richard: You're doing a bit of tilting at windmills, arguing against a point I didn't argue for (re defamation). You do make an interesting point about the door. Looks like the photoshop work doesn't quite measure up to the quality of the original photo. Doesn't negate anything I said about the liberties the _Daily News_ takes with their headline; but it is an interesting technical point about a flaw that may affect the viewers perception of the mood, whether the viewer is conscious of it or not. Richard: You’re doing a bit of tilting at windmills, arguing against a point I didn’t argue for (re defamation). You do make an interesting point about the door. Looks like the photoshop work doesn’t quite measure up to the quality of the original photo. Doesn’t negate anything I said about the liberties the _Daily News_ takes with their headline; but it is an interesting technical point about a flaw that may affect the viewers perception of the mood, whether the viewer is conscious of it or not.

]]> By: Richard http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-80 Richard Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:50:28 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-80 @ Ted: Couples retreat? Coming home from battle? How about Derek Jeter coming home to his girlfriend. COME ON!?! Soft, pink, porn like lighting, bad styling, and cheesy props (it might be the lens, but why does it look like the bed is pushed up against the door? Is it a pay by the hour hotel?). Really, defamation? That's such a joke. @ Ted: Couples retreat? Coming home from battle? How about Derek Jeter coming home to his girlfriend. COME ON!?! Soft, pink, porn like lighting, bad styling, and cheesy props (it might be the lens, but why does it look like the bed is pushed up against the door? Is it a pay by the hour hotel?). Really, defamation? That’s such a joke.

]]> By: Ted Lochwyn http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-78 Ted Lochwyn Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:30:57 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-78 To answer your question Thomas, there are a number of things that such a stock photo might be used for. Maybe an ad for sleepwear, perhaps a feature story about a couples retreat. When I look at him, I imagine it could be something relating to soldiers returning home from the battle front. It would even, in fact, be more suited to the _Daily News_ story had the headline more accurately reflected the content of the story. To answer your question Thomas, there are a number of things that such a stock photo might be used for. Maybe an ad for sleepwear, perhaps a feature story about a couples retreat. When I look at him, I imagine it could be something relating to soldiers returning home from the battle front. It would even, in fact, be more suited to the _Daily News_ story had the headline more accurately reflected the content of the story.

]]> By: Ted Lochwyn http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-77 Ted Lochwyn Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:20:06 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-77 Hmmm. This site format doesn't allow posts to be clearly separated into paragraphs. Perhaps I should have broken that up into a series of posts for easier reading. Hmmm. This site format doesn’t allow posts to be clearly separated into paragraphs. Perhaps I should have broken that up into a series of posts for easier reading.

]]> By: Ted Lochwyn http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-76 Ted Lochwyn Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:18:48 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-76 I agree that there probably isn I agree that there probably isn

]]> By: Thomas http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-74 Thomas Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:21:12 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-74 What else would it sell for?!!! What else would it sell for?!!!

]]> By: RS http://gregceoblog.com/isnt-this-sensitive-use#comment-66 RS Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:51:49 +0000 http://gregceoblog.com/?p=270#comment-66 Just regarding whether this could constitute "defamation": A lot depends on the context of how the image was made vs. how it was used. No offense, but this is an image obviously shot for stock, and is clearly a fictional situation, and its content is very much in line with the subject of the article. Also, the headline doesn't say "this woman drinks and sleeps around!" - they were careful enough to say "the average woman", which any sensible person would instantly infer to mean that the woman in the photo isn't a specific woman who does this, necessarily. No one looking at this image would say, oh, that's my friend Mary and I'm scandalized that the article is suggesting that she drinks and sleeps around! Anyone who knows this woman knows that she models, that the photo was meant to be fictional, and she knows what she was depicting when she agreed to create this narrative and signed the release. Another way to look at it is when crafting this image, what do you imagine the caption would be? Is it defaming to suggest the woman in the photograph is about to sleep with this man, whom she may or may not be in a relationship with, and that she drinks alcohol? If she's in this picture, not really, right? It might be defamation only if it wasn't a posed picture and her privacy rights were violated by printing it. So in this case the idea that it would be defamation doesn't make sense - how is it defaming when the possibility of what the article is about is right there in the content of the shot, and it's a released model in the shot? It would be a totally different thing if they used a generic portrait of a woman and pasted it over the face of this model, for example - the portrait model might have a legitimate grievance in that case (even if she signed a release), but the act of cutting & pasting like that is a breach of stock photo use-license agreements, so, theoretically, the stock agent could seek damages from the end user in such a case. But it's highly doubtful that stock agents bother to police their customers to such an extent that the image they sold for $5 was used only in the proper way. I should add that if the image had _not_ been shot for stock but ended up in a stock library because of some amateur/art student photographer posting it on Flickr and then not explaining to the woman what a model release really means, then things would get murky. But the model would have to be willing to take the photographer, the end user and the stock agency to court, and the first question the lawyers would ask her is "did you sign anything?" And if she admitted to signing a release, no one would touch the case with a 10 foot pole. Just regarding whether this could constitute “defamation”: A lot depends on the context of how the image was made vs. how it was used. No offense, but this is an image obviously shot for stock, and is clearly a fictional situation, and its content is very much in line with the subject of the article. Also, the headline doesn’t say “this woman drinks and sleeps around!” – they were careful enough to say “the average woman”, which any sensible person would instantly infer to mean that the woman in the photo isn’t a specific woman who does this, necessarily. No one looking at this image would say, oh, that’s my friend Mary and I’m scandalized that the article is suggesting that she drinks and sleeps around! Anyone who knows this woman knows that she models, that the photo was meant to be fictional, and she knows what she was depicting when she agreed to create this narrative and signed the release. Another way to look at it is when crafting this image, what do you imagine the caption would be? Is it defaming to suggest the woman in the photograph is about to sleep with this man, whom she may or may not be in a relationship with, and that she drinks alcohol? If she’s in this picture, not really, right? It might be defamation only if it wasn’t a posed picture and her privacy rights were violated by printing it. So in this case the idea that it would be defamation doesn’t make sense – how is it defaming when the possibility of what the article is about is right there in the content of the shot, and it’s a released model in the shot? It would be a totally different thing if they used a generic portrait of a woman and pasted it over the face of this model, for example – the portrait model might have a legitimate grievance in that case (even if she signed a release), but the act of cutting & pasting like that is a breach of stock photo use-license agreements, so, theoretically, the stock agent could seek damages from the end user in such a case. But it’s highly doubtful that stock agents bother to police their customers to such an extent that the image they sold for $5 was used only in the proper way.

I should add that if the image had _not_ been shot for stock but ended up in a stock library because of some amateur/art student photographer posting it on Flickr and then not explaining to the woman what a model release really means, then things would get murky. But the model would have to be willing to take the photographer, the end user and the stock agency to court, and the first question the lawyers would ask her is “did you sign anything?” And if she admitted to signing a release, no one would touch the case with a 10 foot pole.

]]>