Reminder Secure

I wonder if a model could twist this around if she has regrets after a shoot?

Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
16 October 2014 02:18
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from dhuntuk
This has nothing to do with paid bookings



It's not unheard of for models to regret shoots they've done and request they be removed, paid or otherwise.   Hence my suspicions that there may well be attempts to use this law to try and force photographers to remove said images.

Personally if the model has a good reason (she may be undergoing some child custody battle for example) and approaches me nicely I'll gladly remove the identifiable images. 

There are many photographers however who are either hell-bent on insisting the images are theirs and there's no way they'll buckle, or it may be the images were used commercially (eg. sold on a porn website or something) and as such makes the removal procedure that little bit more tricky and somewhat out of the photographer's hands.  It is for situations like these I can envisage a model trying her (or his) luck with this new law as they'll otherwise (and arguably rightly) feel powerless to do anything about removing the images.  At the very least if a model were to try it on, I would envisage it could cause the odd headache for photographers while they have to prove to the police the truth of the situation (along with model releases etc.)*

* - although therein lies the rub, especially for amateurs who have had no intention of ever shooting for publication and may not have got releases/bunnyshots, and especially for crap/GWC-type photographers who have a God-given knack for producing incredibly poor quality photos that would indeed look like they're bedroom shots between a couple.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Amber West is off-line
16 October 2014 06:39
Amber6
Model
Amber6
Location
United Kingdom
Dumfries and Galloway


Quote from RedChecker
A photo of a girl's face with her holding up two forms of ID (eg. passport/driving licence), which is used to verify the model's age.  The fact she's holding up two forms of ID either side of her face is like having droopy bunny ears hence the name.

The fact a girl would do this would be in keeping with 2257 record keeping for adult material publication in the US (along with model releases being signed and preferably a printout of a news agency's front page on that day).




I did not know we called it that.  Cute


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
16 October 2014 08:37
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


Quote from RedChecker
It's not unheard of for models to regret shoots they've done and request they be removed, paid or otherwise. Hence my suspicions that there may well be attempts to use this law to try and force photographers to remove said images.

or it may be the images were used commercially (eg. sold on a porn website or something) and as such makes the removal procedure that little bit more tricky and somewhat out of the photographer's hands.  It is for situations like these I can envisage a model trying her (or his) luck with this new law as they'll otherwise (and arguably rightly) feel powerless to do anything about removing the images.  At the very least if a model were to try it on, I would envisage it could cause the odd headache for photographers while they have to prove to the police the truth of the situation (along with model releases etc.)*




I really don't see it as an issue. Its pretty black and white. Any model could try but its not going anywhere. Its difficult enough to get the Police to take an assault during photographic activity seriously, so the chances are the model would be shown the door before it ever got as far as the photographer even having to prove anything.
I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


Simon Chan is off-line
17 October 2014 13:42
Chandos
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Merseyside
Liverpool

Apart from a few exception there is usually a big age gap between photographer and model. Unless you are Brad Pitt it pretty hard for the average model to convince the police the average photographer was their BF Can you imagine a middle age pot bellied photographer show the investigating officer his portfolio of hundreds of young stunning looking GFs
Of course younger women do sometimes dates older men and I definitely have no problem with that


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
18 October 2014 04:23
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

I wasn't suggesting for one second that IF a model did this, they'd succeed in their efforts to have images removed and sercure a prosecution against a photographer, but at the very least a law like this would pave the way for a complaint to be duly followed up and thus could cause some agro for photographers.

As for Iain's point about rape claims, the problem is proof. Whether it's a genuine rape or false accusation, it is difficult for the police to verify claims both in terms of did contact happen, and whether or not there's consent.

At least with something like this, if you've posted photos on a website of said model, there's absolutely no denying that you've done it as the evidence is easy to obtain via IP addresses logs, usernames, your image collection, email logs etc. etc. Although stuff like email logs would put you in the clear, there's still the fact that the police may still want to verify this, it's not something I'd be pleased about.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


michellework is off-lineSilver Member
18 October 2014 13:41
michelledefeo1
Model
michelledefeo1
Location
United Kingdom
Essex
Colchester

Quote from _Maz_
Pretty much sums it up! 



Rule number one: If you're not comfortable with people seeing images of you, then [don't] pose for them to begin with. 







I totally agree with this (Y)



Natural Happy Girl is off-line
19 October 2014 13:16
Natural_happy_girl
Model
Natural_happy_girl
Location
United Kingdom
Hampshire


This particular situation could cause a problem, I suppose...
But, if a model was going to lie about that, then, lets face it, she was probably going to cause people trouble anyway at some point....
Southern based art nude with creative outlook will put you at ease


aw72 is off-line
19 October 2014 15:29
aw72
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire


Much harder to find than you'd hope, but I've found the text of this proposed legislation. If your images are already published and you've got a model release you'd appear to be in the clear. More blurry if you're publishing later or don't have a release. In fact you could easily read it as meaning a model can withdraw the right for you to publish and any time up until you do by claiming it'd cause distress.

Worth pointing out that "sexual" isn't defined as it varies by context, so may well include topless or even clothed if the courts feel like it. No reason I can think of for the Police to seize equipment as it wouldn't be necessary or relevant to the investigation unless the photographer claimed he didn't publish.

Possibly more serious for Photographers and Models is another ammendment to make using a pseudonym punishable by 6 months in prison... that's if you're not bothered by the effective abolition of judical review and independent juries but that's for a different message board!

"Publication of private sexual images

(1) It shall be an offence for a person to publish a private sexual image of
another identifiable person without their consent where this disclosure
causes distress to the person who is the subject of the image.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if he or she-—
(a) reasonably believed that the person who is the subject of the image had consented to its publication;
(b) reasonably believed that the publication of the image would not cause distress;
(c) reasonably believed that the image had previously been published;
or
(d) did not intend to publish the image.

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial who owns the copyright of the published image.

(4) An offence under this section is punishable by—

(a) on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both).


Natural Happy Girl is off-line
19 October 2014 15:57
Natural_happy_girl
Model
Natural_happy_girl
Location
United Kingdom
Hampshire


"PRIVATE sexual image"... I think PRIVATE is more relevant than what is sexual, as, as long as there are lots of other photographers with similar images of this model, even if she had taken her profiles down, she could hardly claim they were "PRIVATE" images, unless alllll those guys had displayed images without her consent or she wanted to suggest that the particular photographer in question was her boyfriend, and then the absence of any intimate text/email/any other evidence to suggest they had a relationship wouldn't help, right?!
Southern based art nude with creative outlook will put you at ease


aw72 is off-line
19 October 2014 17:07
aw72
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire


We won't know what private means until a court is asked to decide. One possible interpretation is as you say - private means private between a couple in a relationship. But there's nothing in the proposed legislation to indicate that, no mention of intimacy or a relationship being a prerequisite. Remember the courts decide based on what's written down in the statute books, not what any politician may have said in a speech to Parliament or how the journalists decide to write their headlines. It's not unreasonable for the court to take the view that if it was Parliament's intent to restrict this legislation to people in a relationship then they'd have put something in the law about it.

An alternative interpretation might be that "private" means "not public". Public is fairly well defined - it usually means images taken from somewhere that the general public have access to with or without payment (e.g. a street or football stadium). A photographer's studio isn't public by that definition.

At the moment all we can do is speculate, nobody can be right or wrong. There won't be any certainty until a case has gone to appeal or the CPS issue guidance on what they'll prosecute.



40 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
abbie_walters Batch bex_24 Jessicaliu1993 kinkykaycee Krystald md2017 missminiskirt Teela
android_man angelicmodels antoinewynn chriscooze cliffc colinpierce Daddylonglense daveyboy12 diphoto Don_Dark donaldmac Forest glamorphotos Hioctane James7799 jeffers JohnDentonPhoto Jse_photography LGI malcie mghphoto mrdl Platidonio rscott360 sinimiphotography siwalters steevrosewood stevegosh steveh32 Thunder_Photos viewphotographic