I've done a few portrait and event shoots lately that are non-model shoots, where the clients have been signed full model releases (because the pictures were going to be used in a newspaper and for advertising by myself and other involved companies).

I know that because they read and signed the releases, this means I have the technical right to sell the images for stock for any use...and the pictures are very topical and I think would sell well as stock (gay marriage related). The clients also know that these were not paid shoots and therefore they dont have the same privacy considerations that a paid client would have (ie they know that one of the reasons I did the shoots was to have images I could use and publicize).

BUT because these are real life events and real people (ie not models) I want to preserve my good relationship with the clients and not sell the images for something that might offend them. They know the images will be used widely for editorial purposes, and would be ok with some types of advertising, but I know they would not like it if for example they were used for advertising that disparaged them in some way...like my gay wedding couple photograph being used by an anti-marriage equality ad, or an AIDS prevention ad, etc...

Hence my question:

Is there any way to control the usage of the images you sell on the stock photography sites? I have seen things like on Photoshelter where the photog can specify editorial use only, no advertising, etc...does it vary from site to site or can you make those kinds of specifications on all sites?

Can you do it on microstock sites too?

As far as I know from reading about the stock sites you have no control over what the images get used for.

As a client I would be pretty upset to find a picture of myself that was purchased as stock anywhere...even it was for a good thing without being told what my pictures were going to be used for.

So my personal preference would be to shoot images of people who knew the shots would be sold to stock and that was the intent of the shoot, rather then sell my portrait or wedding clients pics.

Do a search for stock on here and you will find a giant thread that Matt started regarding stock, how to do it and what subjects work best.

Hi Lauren,

I do a bit of work with two stock companies. When I have people sign model releases, I explain to them that the images will be submitted for stock. From what you wrote in the first part of your note, it sounds like your clients were signing releases with a clear understanding of what the images could be used for (editorial and the involved companies). Unless you specifically told them that it would be used for stock as well, I would really reconsider selling the images. Or else, return to the client and ask again.

I wouldn't only worry about risque ads, etc.. but also, perhaps these clients thought their images would only be used in local advertsing. And then... 6 months later, a year later, 2 years later... they see themselves in a national ad for cereal or Toyota or fedEx... and think... whhhOOOA. I never gave permission for that! Model releases for a personal portrait business or newspaper are different than a stock release. Take a look at Getty's release here. It specifically states the images can be used for ANY type of product or service.

As for controlling the use of your images with a stock company, I would say no. And defintiely no to microstock. I will say that the larger macrostock companies do tend to check in with photographers if the subject matter is really "risque". My teacher Bryan told me a story about an image he sold through Getty or Corbis (can't rememebr which one) of his elderly father praying, a very simple head and shoulder shot. His father is a pastor and of course signed a release for the image. Fast foward a bit later... his father began receiving emails and letters saying, "I had no idea, please let me know if I can help".. "I'm so sorry you are struggling.." etc. etc. Turns out the image was being used for an alcohlic recovery program... His father was of course not an alcoholic

So, again, this is my 2 cents... if you're unsure of putting the images out there, I wouldn't.

Meredith

They did sign a full release, similar to Getty's that you posted. But we did not discuss the possibility of selling the images for stock specifically, so I think I'll just revisit the issue with them to make sure it's ok with them.

Any idea on the best way to word this? I want them to understand what I am asking without alarming them or making them likely to say no.

Also just a question about the Getty release, where it says the client gives permission for the images to be used for anything (except pornographic or defamatory). I was suprised to see that on Getty's release---can that kind of thing even be controlled? If you cant control the use of the images at all, how could you keep it from being used for something that would be "defamatory"? (that is such a loose term--the example of the alcoholic pastor could probably be considered defamatory by him).

These shoots were unpaid btw. So their value for me was specifically whatever advertising/promotional value there was to the images themselves, and they know this.

I would never submit any client images for stock, especially if they don't know ahead of time. It's just not a good idea. I'd be horrified if I was a client and saw my picture somewhere I didn't know it had a chance of being.

I imagine they do have some way of ensuring images arent's sold for pornographic or defamatory (their words, you would have to ask an agency what they feel to be defamatory) uses. I've never worked on that side of things, so I really don't know how they do that. Although, they are powerful players in the media world, so it would behoove a client to not break a model release unless they don't mind the litigation soon to follow. Microstock agencies have less legal weight behind them, so I'm not sure how they track it, if at all.

I agree with Aylssa, I keep those two worlds very separate as well. But, if you were to approach the clients again, I would explain that stock photography is a new venture for you and that you are contacting previous clients that you feel have images that may have stock potential. Explain that if an image is selected by a stock company, that it will be available for worldwide advertising, including internet. I would be as clear as you can. If they say no, then they say no. I would much rather deal with a lost opportunity than deal with angry clients, or worse... a lawsuit.

There are a few articles floating around-can't find them right now-about how one image has shown up in a zillion ads online. If you sell an image to a microstock company at rights free, non-exclusive-it has the potential to be dowloaded hundreds of times for hundreds of uses. On the flipside, if it is accepted by a macrostock for rights-managed, it has the potential of huge exposure and your clients may end up in a national campaign. Either way, I can tell you form the shoot lists I receive, that images of gay couples are a hot item. Not only an actual ceremony, but more so lifestyle shots, such as gay couples buying a house, shopping at the grocery store, etc. Chances are good that if you did submit, they would sell. Good for you, but your clients need to be ready for it!

There are plenty of model opportunites for stock, so if they say no, you can always repeat the shoot with willing models. I know there are a few OSP'ers that do alot with stock, and I'm sure they can suggest some ways of finding models. I can say that most of my models are friends and family who know exactly what they are getting into.

Good Luck!
Meredith

depends on your agency. most reputable RM agencies have restrictions for the images. Are they RM or RF and what agency?

every single shot i do has the potential of stock, no matter it the client has paid or not, weather they are commercial clients or wedding clients. the only time they are not stock is when they are agency models or the commercial client restricts my usage, but then they pay for that...

get a good agency, gay marriage would sell like hot cakes if the subjects work;-)

Oh boy... let me tell you my story...

When I first started with the stock world I was shooting anything and everything just to have stuff uploaded. Back in 2001 I shot a co-workers engagement photos for free in trade of me being able to sell some as stock. All was fine, a few sold. Then three years later I got a panicked call from my now ex-coworker. An innocent image of her and her husband - he was kissing her on the forehead - was used in the back of Fitness Magazine for a sexual enhancement drug. Now while most of my friends would laugh at such a thing - my ex-coworker was extremely Southern Baptist and extremely offended. Plus it was her father who originally found the ad. She called a lawyer - and stuck him on me and istockphoto.

Yes, istocks agreement says the image can not be used in a defamatory way - but a definition of defamatory is the same as obscene on television court cases. It's a loose definition - and it would take a jury to figure out of it was obscene or not. That's where we were heading. To her it was defamatory because church members and apparently people on the street thought she was a spokes person for this sexual enhancement drug and would try to talk to her about it. She claimed it ruined her and her reputation in the church.

I can't really post the rest online with the settled lawsuit - but it was a MESS. Istock didn't stand behind me either - they flat out told me to get my own lawyer.

Don't assume that model release will cover you. If they are not familiar with what stock is and could be - you are at risk.

Now for safety - I have my stock models sign an extra document stating that I fully explained to them what royalty free stock photography is, and that they understand that there is no control over usage - and I am not at fault for how things maybe used - and I photograph them holding up their license and the signed model release to prove it's them.

Be careful.

Also make sure to back up and save and safe deposit box copies of your model releases. At the time of this legal mess I had moved three times and could not find my copy of her husbands release. That only made things worse.

You'll have control over rights managed usage - well your agency will - but with royalty free anything goes. There are rules they must adhere to, but they are easily broken and as in my case it could be defined in many ways.

Repeat the shoot with models. Keep your business and your clients separate from your stock. Go to craigslist, or model mayhem there are plenty of people willing to work for TFP shoots for stock.

i would never submit to istock or RF. all my stuff is RM creative on getty, corbis and jupiter.

you can restrict for certain industries and topics with rm. i do restrictions on wedding images... bit the bottom line is i dont submit tons of wedding...becasue i don't really want people to know i do weddings ;-)

but honestly, there is very little cross over in my stock catalog and my commissioned work, like weddings and portraits...

99% of what i shoot for stock is sports, lifestyle, fitness, travel, healthy living... they are hired models, but everyone signs a release.


again, i would not submit to someone like istock...i think that is just asking for trouble.

One of my images of kids on a slide at school ended up in a story about fecal oral disease. It wasn't a stock image, and it was used without permission, so I was easily able to get it removed, but I would have DIED if any of my clients had seen that before I did.

+1



I have to agree. At least with people shots.