My best friend Gabe moved to L.A. to be an actor back in 1998. He got involved with a guy who does stock photography, and Gabe did some modeling shots for him - the best of which is him shirtless and cheering like a deranged football fan. He got paid a couple hundred bucks for the shoots, which, for a young actor, was much-needed.
This shirtless Gabe photo has since been used in national advertising campaigns for a Coleman grill, Pontiac, art in newspaper sports sections, in all sorts of stuff overseas, and, just recently, at Target - [www.target.com]
Ten+ years later, and Gabe is still everywhere. And no kindly shop-owner in the Czech Republic has offered to give him a nice bottle of wine.
@telecomic the thoughtful red panda: This happened to me as well. The thing is, when you're paid for your shots -- you are basically being paid to sign away your rights to those photos.
It weirds me out sometimes to think about what of me exists out there in the world, but I have to know that I really needed the money at the time and that I'll never run for political office because of them.
@tomatoheart: fortunately for Gabe (and, frankly, for us - great guy, but not in the best shape ever) - he kept the majority of his clothes on, and didn't do anything too shocking. Sorry you got taken advantage of.
Many of these stock photo companies take advantage of the good looks or genes of others and make small fortunes.
i love the vagueness of the term~~ almost like a a random program in a computer lab somewhere is churning out various photographic prototypes. when i think of "computer-generated" i usually envision something more 3D-looking. damn, pixar wishes it could "computer-generate" humans to look this real!
I've actually taken a picture from Flickr and used it for a client presentation, and my boss continued to use it for the whole year. I felt a bit guilty about it, but the picture is similarly innocent and was being used internally so it's not such a big deal.
I've only recently realized that other people can do this to me too, so I just started putting privacy controls on my pictures a few months ago.
@femaledwightschrute: Concert pictures I've taken have been used without my permission, one on particular has shown up in more than one place. MIne are not CC, but I probably would have let those who lifted them use them anyway, had they asked. (I'm not a pro, but I take pride in what I do.) Yeah, it bugs me.
Watermarking is a solution, I guess, but I hate the look of a watermarked photo.
@curioushair: this happened to me and some friends...the best solution is to stamp your photos with a personal logo. this way it's copyrighted to you. otherwise, i agree, watermarking takes away from the picture.
people that don't understand you can't just take personal photos, i do not understand. just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's free-reign. there are copyright laws!
@monkeydance: Copyright laws treat snapshots and planned pictures differently though-- so your shot of a friend might not be copyrighted, if you didn't put any planning into it. And if it is copyrighted, putting a personal logo on doesn't change anything, a copyrighted creation is copyrighted the moment its created.
This is why I'm glad I grew up in the era of Olan Mills photographs that were quickly shoved under couches in giant photo albums as opposed to being posted online for the entire world to see.
@hortense: Also, every photo had Olan Mills embossed in gold at the bottom to prevent even the most determined Czech storekeepers from such shenanigans.
@PersonalBest: I was wondering how they discovered it. It made me wonder if there were billboards scattered across the world with pictures of me on them that I would just never know about!
@PersonalBest: Or like National Lampoon's European Vacation where Beverly D'Angelo's character finds herself on a billboard in Italy after their camera gets stolen...
06/11/09
except it involved a picture on flicker being used in a Herpese commercial.
I got a C+.
06/11/09
06/11/09
This shirtless Gabe photo has since been used in national advertising campaigns for a Coleman grill, Pontiac, art in newspaper sports sections, in all sorts of stuff overseas, and, just recently, at Target - [www.target.com]
Ten+ years later, and Gabe is still everywhere. And no kindly shop-owner in the Czech Republic has offered to give him a nice bottle of wine.
06/11/09
It weirds me out sometimes to think about what of me exists out there in the world, but I have to know that I really needed the money at the time and that I'll never run for political office because of them.
06/11/09
Many of these stock photo companies take advantage of the good looks or genes of others and make small fortunes.
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
i love the vagueness of the term~~ almost like a a random program in a computer lab somewhere is churning out various photographic prototypes. when i think of "computer-generated" i usually envision something more 3D-looking. damn, pixar wishes it could "computer-generate" humans to look this real!
06/11/09
I've only recently realized that other people can do this to me too, so I just started putting privacy controls on my pictures a few months ago.
06/11/09
06/11/09
Watermarking is a solution, I guess, but I hate the look of a watermarked photo.
06/11/09
people that don't understand you can't just take personal photos, i do not understand. just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's free-reign. there are copyright laws!
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
Can you imagine stumbling upon it yourself?
It would be the real-life version of the Simpsons Mister Sparkle episode.
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
FF to 2:44:
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
06/11/09
[thisrecording.com]
06/11/09