Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search:
Forum: General Photography 01-30-2015, 09:43 AM  
Out with a camera and often get heckled
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 153
Views: 9,783
I was once accosted by 2 little old ladies when I was taking photos of dilapidated row houses in SE Washington, DC.

"What are you doing taking pictures here? That's our friend so-and-so's house. You can't take pictures of people's houses. Are you an official photographer?"

For what ever reason, and in a moment of uncharacteristic clarity, I replied, in my worst Boris Badinoff impersonation,

"Da Da... Am official voteogrowpher vrom Pravda. Am taking phothos to show bourgeoisie lifestyle of capatilist vorking glass!"

They ran away screaming! A couple of cops drove by a few minutes later and asked me not to scare the old ladies any more. We all three ended up laughing our behinds off.

Mike



Try a K20D and a Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm) sometime. That combo got me into the World Motocross Championships for free one year when a Pit Crew Chief saw me and gave me a free ticket and pit row pass.

Mike
Forum: General Photography 01-30-2015, 09:24 AM  
How to Shoot a Very Very Large Group of People?
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 22
Views: 2,710
I had a similar quandary when I was a yearbook photographer in college (back in the dark ages). I solved it by getting permission to go up into the rafters of the gym and shooting straight down at the crowd as they stood on the gymnasium floor looking straight up. It ended up not going in the yearbook because the faces of the 500+ people were still too small to be clear even in a "double page across the crease" print, but we did print it out as a poster sized print which still hangs in the Student Union at the school.

I did similar smaller numbers of subjects shots from the scoreboard of the football field.

Mike
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-30-2015, 08:22 AM  
makeup artist tripled my work flow.
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 41
Views: 3,308
OUCH!!! Find a new MUA! You NEVER darken the inner corners of the eyes for a photoshoot! If anything you lighten them slightly.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-20-2015, 08:10 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
Sorry Gene... You are of course correct. Testimony IS evidence, but with out corroborating evidence it may not carry much weight...

For instance.

I say I saw you run into my car with your car. That is evidence, but if I have no independent witnesses or physical evidence to support my statement it's weight is likely to be taken less seriously than if 5 other people saw you hit my car and there was a traffic camera present that captured the collision.

It can be even less weighty if I don't have any witnesses or video showing the accident but you produce a traffic camera image of you and your car 20 miles away at the exact time of the accident that damaged my car.

Yes, my statement is "evidence" but might also be considered "hearsay" without support. But then, that's the whole purpose of the "trial by jury" system...

At this point, the claims by all parties in this model/photographer lawsuit are "he said, she said." The truth will out once they get into court.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-16-2015, 11:59 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
I'd like to see citations and links to those comments. I've not seen that and I find it hard to believe that many photographers, especially those who deal with models on even an occasional basis can manage to misunderstand or so strangely interpret a common term of "adult" to authorize use in "adult" material



I'm not supporting him just because he is a photographer, I am supporting him because he says he can provide EVIDENCE. He may be lying, but making the claim lends a certain amount of credibility to his story. The model admits she cannot provide any evidence corroborating her claims about what they negotiated or what the photographer said. She just say "take my word for it. I can't prove anything but seeeeee, I have a pretty face!" There are as many sleazy models out there as there are sleazy photographers and this is why I always have my wife or another witness present when I shoot any model.



You are right that this is the real sticking point... he says it was a paid shoot and claims to have evidence to back that up. She claims it was a trade shoot. It would be interesting to see if her or her agent's bank statement reflects a payment from him to her account. I hope the photographer's attorney has checked into this.

Another point you are not considering is that trade shoots, while commonly limited to portfolio use are not legally required to be. The model is essentially being paid to model with copies of the photographs. This is, in the terms commonly used in releases, a "valuable consideration" in that to get the same photos when the photographer wasn't interested in using them himself, SHE would have to pay him for them. The TFP contract I use with my models states that the shoot is being conducted as a trade... her modeling services for my photography services. I am essentially paying her by giving her photos rather than cash. She compensates me by providing a release that allows me to use the images as I desire from portfolio use up to commercial sales. The contract also states that I, and only I, the right to sell the images to anyone. She can use them in whatever form she desires to promote herself, web sites, lobby cards, business cards, etc but any sales or third party commercial uses have to go through me. And even though I am not required to, since she/he has already been paid for their services (photos) the contract also states that they will get a cut (up to a certain amount) of any commercial sales.

p.s. My contract also states that I will not use or market the images as or in a "pornography" situation (paraphrasing here since I do not have a copy of the contract in front of me) or to discredit or defame the model... however I am not responsible for unauthorized uses by other parties.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-16-2015, 11:28 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
When one side says they can back their claims up with evidence and the other side only has "I said, he said" then it's pretty easy to pick a side.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-16-2015, 11:26 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
She says!



I would have no right to pawn it since I am not the owner so yes, I would be responsible but so would the pawn shop. You could sue me, but I could sue the pawnshop for violating their policy.



The photographer did not call her a prostitute, the people who purchased or stole the images did, by implication anyway. That is not the photographer's fault.



Not in the least, but it does point you to the people who misused the images... the end-users... NOT the photographer.



Again you assume she is telling the truth and that he lied to her, which is a logical impossibility under your statement "assuming everything he alleges is true."
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-16-2015, 11:03 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
Why would anyone think that it implies it's for porno use? A reasonable person would assume correctly that it is used for adult human vs children.



I hate to pull this card but you seem to be taking every claim the model makes at face value and refuse to accept anything the photographer says, even when he has (or claims to have I'll admit) supporting evidence (paypal receipts and a signed model release)? WHY? And how can you conclude and claim that he is unethical with just the unsubstantiated claims made in this lawsuit?

I'm actually attempted to post a disclaimer that PF, as a business entity, does not support or endorse your statements regarding this photographer.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-15-2015, 11:27 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
I understand Gene... the link to the Wikipedia entry is sufficient.

Thanks!
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-15-2015, 09:22 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
Gene,

How should that "integration clause" be worded? This is something that everyone working with models and relying on releases should consider adding to their boilerplate.

Mike
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-15-2015, 07:24 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
That makes sense Gene... I'm just coming at this from the viewpoint that a signed piece of paper (the release) and evidence of payment (PayPal records) and a prominent TOS (Shutterstock's) are potent defenses for those who have them. The model's claims of additional oral agreements however are hearsay and if they were truly important to her, she should have amended the release and countersigned it with the photographer.

I'd agree that Playboy, Amazon, Clear Channel, etc are the real targets because they have the real deep pockets, but that doesn't really help the photographer because they are going to throw him under the bus from the word go.

I don't understand her suing Model Mayhem though, as a member there, she is undoubtedly cutting off her nose to spite her face since it's likely a major marketing avenue for herself. They are bound to suspend or remove her account.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-15-2015, 06:28 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
Actually I did read the complaint. No need to be snarky about it! Since the photographer can produce proof that the money was paid, her claim of "trade for portfolio (most commonly "TFP"... not "TP") is toothless.



I am well acquainted with TFP work. I do it frequently. Each time there are clear conditions set forth in my release stating what I can do with the images and what the model can do with the images. My "commercial use" clause specifies that the model will receive a portion (generally 20% - up to a certain dollar amount) of any proceeds obtained from the client.



Again, you are assuming that the model is being truthful in her TFP claim. The photographer's ability to provide proof of payment can easily destroy her claim.



Even if the original notice says TFP a subsequent payment overrides it.



You seem to have American jurisprudence turned on it's head. It is the model and her lawyer's responsibility to prove that the photographer released, gave or sold the photos to the end-users with the willful intent that they be used to advertise pornography and adult services. You know... the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?



This could rise to the level of "slander" if it negatively affects the photographer's ability to earn a living and could be actionable in recovering financial damages from both the model AND her attorney personally as her willing agent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly, what most likely happened here... IMHO... is...

The photographer arranged a shoot with the model, perhaps as TFP and when the shoot began he decided the photos had commercial potential so he decided to offer her payment, OR the shoot was specified as a paid job from the get-go. It doesn't matter either way since he can offer evidence that he paid her/her agent.

The photographer, having obtained a signed release from an experienced model, posted the images on Shutterstock (not everyone can afford or has access to the big agencies) and relied on their TOS to control usage. Shutterstock then relied upon the integrity of the people purchasing the photos to honor their TOS. They only have an affirmative responsibility to enforce misuse AFTER it is discovered. They cannot prevent it affirmatively before it occurs other than through the agreement of their clients to honor the TOS.

In the meantime the model posted the photos on her on publicly accessible internet presence.

At some point the images were either purchased fraudulently or were outright stolen either from Shutterstock or the model's website and the photos were used by the end users in ways which the model found objectionable. In neither case, should the photographer be held liable since he was acting in good faith under a signed model release and under the auspices of Shutterstock's marketing and TOS.

I'll repeat that if the model was smart, she would team up with the photographer and Shutterstock and go after the parties who actually misused the images.

Mike
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-14-2015, 12:29 PM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
DCShooter... What "portfolio trade?" This model (according to the photographer) was paid cash money for her modeling services and signed a standard release.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-14-2015, 07:21 AM  
Photographer sued for $500K by model
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 66
Views: 4,353
Unless the model can prove the photographer willfully sold or gave the photos to an end-user knowing they would be used in the fashions alleged, this should eventually get dropped because the model is suing the wrong person in suing the photographer and perhaps in suing Shutterstock. The photographer is in possession of a signed model release, (notwithstanding claims of coercion which on their face are suspect considering the model's body of similar work). Shutterstock should be protected by their TOS which clearly prohibits the use of the images in pornographic/defamatory uses. Neither the photographer or Shutterstock has any final control over the use of the images if the end-users have either stolen or misrepresented their intended use (violating both the model release AND the TOS). The misuse and misrepresentation was/is being perpetrated by the book/magazine publishers or the parties placing the ads. Frankly, the model, the photographer and Shutterstock should be cooperating to sue those parties (many of which will have much deeper pockets) for misusing the photographs they produced and marketed together.



That's a "false light" claim Gene and is generally actionable against the party making the implication, in this case the book/magazine publishers as well as the parties placing the ads. As long as there was no intent by the photographer to portray a model, who is not a prostitute, AS a prostitute (for instance) he should be immune from any judgements on this claim. Of course, if she really IS a prostitute, she has no "false light" case to begin with.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 01-13-2015, 09:47 AM  
Man Arrested For Not Handing Over His Camera
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 23
Views: 2,333
They'd have been arresting me too... and then there'd be one less idiot cop on the beat once I threatened to sue them for violating my rights as both a citizen and a journalist.

Mike
Forum: General Photography 01-08-2015, 05:02 AM  
Camera clubs
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 36
Views: 2,656
That true to a certain extent, but you can only tell people they are being elitist sycophants so many times before you realize you're not going to change their minds with logic or evidence. Lemmings don't listen to anyone but the person leading them off of the cliff.

As an aside, our local brick and mortar store, Ace Photo, does carry and market Pentax gear. I wouldn't go so far as to say their sales staff pushes it, since I figure the profit on the CaNikon gear is much higher, but they are knowledgeable about Pentax and know me when I go in!

Mike
Forum: General Photography 01-07-2015, 08:49 AM  
Camera clubs
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 36
Views: 2,656
I have no use for a camera club that makes me feel like an interloper or even a fool because of my choice of Pentax gear. The local club which I attempted to get involved in a few years ago was very cliquish and seemed to serve no real purpose other than stroking the egos of the principals.
Forum: General Photography 01-07-2015, 08:30 AM  
Other people offering you their photos to sell
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 9
Views: 843
Yeah... tell her where you get yours made and tell her to go for it. Heck, even offer to buy one if she follows through.
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 01-05-2015, 05:58 AM  
home made accessory?
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 3
Views: 834
Well done... I'd say that has some marketing potential.

Mike
Forum: General Talk 01-05-2015, 05:49 AM  
Ellie Mae passes on.
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 11
Views: 706
I STILL watch the show and it STILL makes me laugh! RIP Donna,
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 12-17-2014, 10:26 AM  
$300K Wedding Lawsuit - the end of the story
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 13
Views: 1,557
Good to see a little guy win and for the bully to get dope-slapped.
Forum: General Talk 12-16-2014, 06:09 AM  
R.I.P. Mary Ann.
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 3
Views: 917
Very sad news.... but I have to admit I thought you meant Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island who was played by Dawn Wells...
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways 12-13-2014, 07:23 PM  
3 Million Post Giveaway: Confirm your entry!
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 2,854
Views: 79,306
Would make a heck of a Christmas surprise!
Forum: General Talk 12-04-2014, 06:45 AM  
Cops.... the TV show. What's YOUR opinion?
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 25
Views: 961
COPS is to real police work as WWE is to "wrestling" or as "Real Housewives" is to, well, real housewives.

No real cop is going to go on national television and intentionally and repeatedly do things that, at the very least, would get him an ethics charge or a trip to see Internal Affairs... without a pre-release from the "perp" stating it was all a "dramatization."
Forum: General Photography 11-21-2014, 06:00 AM  
Shooting folks in the street - what does your law say?
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 55
Views: 4,078
I don't believe any of those types of laws have been challenged in court yet. If and when they are, they are likely to go down in flames. Yes, a photographer can be prohibited from trespassing on private property to get photos of barbaric animal abuse, but if it happens in plain view of a public road, then he should be good to go to shoot.
Search took 0.03 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top