Re: [messengers] I fell down yesterday

Date: 25 Apr 2010 16:50:48 +0200
From: "Andy" <az@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

For the record, Joel's did not take the photo in question.
Also worth considering: How much $$$ is the model actually entitled to? What if the photographer was not paid (often a photographer will let someone use their photo just for the exposure and to add to their portfolio)? 
I admit I don't really know the laws regarding all this, but I still think it is weird that we "own" our image and everything we say or produce. Everything is for sale. Everything is owned by somebody. This may be the way the Native Americans felt when the Europeans came over and started taking ownership of the land. What a strange concept.
I'm also fascinated by the concept of photography. I mean, in a way we have come to accept that photography is an indisputable reflection or reality. "The photo never lies." Yet we also know that a photograph can be manipulated, and in fact, is essentially a digital or chemical "translation" of what we actually see. Before photography, people drew and painted. What are the laws regarding model releases for that? If I drew you riding by, however photo-realistically, do the same sort of image rights apply? Isn't taking a picture just a mechanically assisted way of interpreting what we see, not unlike creating a drawing? Whoa, that is heavy.
Philosophically, it is very interesting. The unfortunate reality that the society I am a part of is so overwhelmingly driven by money is depressing.
I hate money.
Can someone lend me a buck?

>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: chenwengseng@xxxxxxxxx
>To: messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:49:17
>As a photographer (and ex-messenger but not a
>lawyer), my understanding is
>that any person in an image used for commercial
>purposes must sign a
>release. For art and editorial use (as crass as TMZ
>may be, it probably
>falls under this classification, regardless of
>whether someone is a
>celebrity or not), model releases are generally not
>signed, but that does
>not mean they are not required and many
>photographers (myself included) will
>ask a subject sign if only in case the image has
>commercial value. Cover of
>a magazine is a gray area I'm not entirely sure
>about, though, again, as a
>photographer, I get a release to cover my ass.
>It is a not a question of whether the image was
>taken as part of a
>constructed photo shoot v. a grab shot in public
>space or whether one party
>was working harder than another. Most working
>models only sign over rights
>for a specific purpose, ie even if I spend
>thousands of dollars to close off
>a street, hire a crew, rent cops, etc., so I could
>take photos of someone
>riding a bike which look like they were just shot
>during a regular day on a
>regular street, if the model signs a release saying
>the image can only be
>used for a specific ad for whatever company, they
>are in the right to claim
>damages I sell any image from the shoot, directly
>or through a stock agency,
>for use in another ad at any time from here to
>eternity.  That is for USA, I
>don't know about other countries.
>Huge stock photography agencies like Getty require
>releases for any image
>with talent, I can't imagine they would put up with
>the extra administrative
>hassle or lost revenue from unsold images if they
>didn't need to for legal
>reasons. The thing with most stock agencies (with a
>few exceptions, or which
>Shutterstock is not) is that once they accept an
>image, they sell it to
>whoever they want, the photographer really has no
>Sorry for the big rant, but even though it makes my
>life harder as a
>photographer, I feel like not paying a model, even
>an inadvertent one,
>especially when everyone else in the process is
>getting seeing way larger
>financial return (the photographer, the ad agency,
>the company whose running
>the ad), is shady and it's illegality shouldn't be
>supported. If the
>photographer is really a good dude, he would take
>care of his subjects- if
>not, he's basically like messenger company owners
>who 1099 you when you're
>W-2, ie running illegal business practices on the
>assumption that you don't
>know any better or are too beat down to raise a
>On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Andy
><az@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> as a courier and a photographer, i see both sides
>of this. however i feel
>> that if someone is out in public, they are fair
>game to be photographed.
>> besides the fact that that's the law, i think it
>is a weird notion that
>> people somehow feel they "own" their image, and
>that their image is somehow
>> worth money when used commercially. even if
>jerome sold that picture
>> (directly or indirectly through shuterstock) to
>the mcaa mag, i don't see
>> how ben, the anonymous courier in the photo could
>feel he deserved any $.
>> jerome (or whoever took the photo) did all the
>work - he had all the
>> equipment, went out, took the photo, processed
>it, shopped it around and got
>> it sold. ben just rode by same as he would've had
>the photographer not been
>> there.
>> ben should have just asked nice for a copy of the
>mag in the first place,
>> and maybe he would've gotten a reply.
>> jerome is an awesome dude (he is sponsoring his
>services as the official
>> cmwc photographer) so i'm sure if in fact he took
>the photo in question, and
>> ben contacted him nicely (
> ), he would
>> totally do whatever he could to get him a copy of
>the photo or magazine or
>> both.
>> what's the saying? you get more honey using bees?
>you know what i mean.
>> and oh yeah: register for the cmwc. do it!
>> --
>> az
>> >----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>> >From: saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx
>> >To: kenolaben@xxxxxxxxx
>> >Sent: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:49:24
>> >
>> >ben...the guy you're talking about is Jerome.
>> >a cool cat...I
>> >doubt he let that magazine use that pick. you
>> >should let Jerome know
>> >about it so he could get on them about it.
>> >chapter 9
>> >photography for his contact info.
>> >
>> >as far as who IS shutterstock? it's not a
>> >of who but what.
>> >it's a site that sells royalty free stock
>> >basically, If you're
>> >out in the public then there's not much you can
>> >we all know about
>> >tmz...right? they have a sh*t ton of people
>> >pics of famous
>> >heads and sell the photos. it's all legal. did
>> >know you could
>> >probaly get six figures for a pic of all the
>> >Baldwin brothers? don't
>> >ask me how I know that.
>> >
>> >Anywhoo...while I agree that it sucks...I'm
>> >sure they are well
>> >within their rights. sh*t...they probably have
>> >pics of non-
>> >messengers than messengers.
>> >
>> >on another's nice out...peace.
>> >
>> >-julio
>> >
>> >On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:29, Ben Fietz
>> ><kenolaben@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'll bet that's the guy who took that really
>> >shot of Ben P
>> >> under the El tracks on Wells street. I
>> >that guy coming
>> >> through town. He had just come from Toronto
>> >was going someplace
>> >> else after Chicago to continue photographing
>> >messengers.
>> >> It sucked because I happened to be looking on
>> >Messenger Courier
>> >> World Magazine (which is a magazine for
>> >company owners)
>> >> website, and saw that picture was used for the
>> >cover of the current
>> >> issue of the magazine and told Ben about it.
>> >was pissed because
>> >> he never signed any kind of release form. He
>> >contacted the magazine
>> >> about it, and they never replied. After a few
>> >weeks, he cooled off a
>> >> bit and contacted the magazine again to see if
>> >could just get a
>> >> copy to give to his mom, and they still
>> >him.
>> >> If you are going after the guy Cory, and it's
>> >same person, I
>> >> could let Ben know. I'm sure he is still
>> >about the whole
>> >> thing. And it was good to see you at the MMI,
>> >the way.
>> >>
>> >> Ben F
>> >> On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Augustine Montes
>> ><augiem21@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> that's pretty interesting. and fucked. who's
>> >shutterstock, by the
>> >>> way? i'm gonna look them up.
>> >>>
>> >>> --- On Fri, 4/23/10, Corey Hilliard
>> ><coreythecourier@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Corey Hilliard
>> >
>> >>> Subject: [messengers] I fell down yesterday
>> >>> To: "Messenger list" <messengers@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 8:01 AM
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, do you know that Shutterstock is
>> >photos of bicycle
>> >>> messengers that may be used in magazines of
>> >than 250,000
>> >>> circulation
>> >>> for advertising purposes? Funny fucking thing
>> >because while they
>> >>> make money
>> >>> from selling the photo, the rider in the
>> >doesn't get paid.
>> >>> I'm no
>> >>> lawyer but third party commercial usage seems
>> >pretty fucking shady
>> >>> to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> The back story on this is still cooking. I'll
>> >let you know when the
>> >>> details
>> >>> are done. Then, I will fully vent and share.
>> >>>
>> >>> Corey the Courier
>> >>>
>> >>> "I am not an Extreme rider, I am an underpaid
>> >blue collar worker"
>> >>>
>> >>> Messengers mailing list
>> >>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >s
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Messengers mailing list
>> >>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >s
>> >>
>> >> Messengers mailing list
>> >> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >s
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Messengers mailing list
>> >Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>> >s
>> _______________________________________________
>> Messengers mailing list
>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>Messengers mailing list