Brasilnut

"Sensitive Usage" in commercial stock photography

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

 

Out of curiosity, has anybody here come across situations when their model-released images were used in situations that may potentially cause the models potential embarrassment (in the best case scenario)? 

 

I've recently come across two of my pics which were licensed, not on here, which perhaps a model could take offence and wrote about it on my blog

 

I realise that Alamy's clients are predominately editorial so would probably not apply, but for those that shoot commercial model-released, is it something that potentially worries you and do you notify the client that there's a small risk that the images may be used for "sensitive usage"? Is the small risk enough for some on here avoid commercial model-released altogether? 

 

I looked into Alamy's contributor contract and the wording is relatively wide:

 

Quote
  • Alamy’s Customers cannot use photos for pornographic, defamatory, or any other unlawful purposes

 

Unfortunately there's no such definition of what would be "defamatory" within the agreement.

 

Best regards

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an infamous case where one newspaper used an editorial image of a football crowd for an article with the title along the lines of "1 in 100 men are impotent" with one of the crowd circled. 

 

Another here about homelessness with a dishevelled man walking down the Damrak - it turned out to be the CEO of a large company on his day off.

 

What is sensitive for one is not sensitive for another. A number of my images get used in articles about depression, mental illness, suicide... not a problem for me, I am the model and actually not recognisable - I can imagine that others would not want their likeness used in such an article. 

 

I work both sides of the camera and do warn colleagues on forums for those on the other side that if they sign a release for stock then there is no real control where the images end up. Having said which I understand that it will now be possible under the GDPR to retract permissions.

 

Ying/yang,  it does mean that if you make images which are safe and released for sensitive images then there could be a premium.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another case in the USA a few decades back where a photo of a group of guys on Harley Davidsons was used in a textbook to illustrate some sort of psychological defect. It was released, but the folks in the photo were doctors and lawyers. My understanding is they sued and won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an attorney so please don't take what I'm about to say as legal advise.

 

I added this wording to my model releases in an effort to shield me from a lawsuit. 

 

"I understand that the images may be used in health and wellness advertisements knowing that such uses may intentionally or unintentionally give rise to the impression that the model suffers from various physical and or emotional ailments, I nevertheless consent to this use."

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

Woeoehaahaaaa!  (=ROTFL in Dutch)

Now can that guy ever sell insurances or cookies again?

I'm pretty sure the defamatory in Alamy's license does cover exactly this.

 

- maybe don't do a reverse google.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be a 'sensitive usage' restriction available but I cannot see how that can be done now.

You may not want an image used for 'sensitive uses' that are not necessarily defamatory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now