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

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

34 posts
13 Oct 2014
ChrisD
Photographer
ChrisD
RedChecker

'Revenge porn' illegal under new UK law

I suppose if anything it reinforces the practice of getting a model release & bunny shots, even if they're not legally required.


Precisely  
Posted 14 Oct 2014
ChrisD
Photographer
ChrisD
Natural_happy_girl

Surely if someone tried to cry wolf about photos legitimately taken the evidence of their modelling portfolio would show that they normally pose to the levels in question?
The basis is that it's PERSONAL content in the context of a PERSONAL relationship that you wouldn't normally expect to be shared...and in that context perhaps they're changing the onus so that the partner has to prove they 're both consenting to be on pornhub or whatever.....I think that might be more where the point of argument about onus of proof is, don't think it's meant to apply to non-personal situations...how would you persuade the police that taking your clothes off for a photographer fell into the category of creating explicit material you would never expect to be shared?

I'm not sure it changes things that much....
I'm not convinced that it will make it any easier for a model to prove that someone did/didn't grab shots they agreed not to/publish where they agree not to/whatever... unless they have a written agreement...


Well put  
Posted 14 Oct 2014
CCP
Photographer
CCP
RedChecker

'Revenge porn' illegal under new UK law

I suppose if anything it reinforces the practice of getting a model release & bunny shots, even if they're not legally required.


I was thinking the same thing yesterday, after watching the news. Even though I have releases signed, if they've used model names rather than their own, it could still cause difficulties. But having the photo i.d would most likely save the day, as it would be obviously a modelling job.

Posted 14 Oct 2014
Edited by CCP 14 Oct 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
Chrissie_Red
My god guys - you should start a "daily mail" type newspaper for all the scare stories that your mind makes up. I have never worked beyond my levels or shot anything I wouldn't be happy with my parents seeing. Have to admit on 90% of my shoots paid/otherwise the photographer will say to me "if I upload anything your not happy with please can you let me know" I've yet to actually message a photographer and ask him to take an image down but if I did politely ask then I would guess most would be happy to do that because they actually respect my opinion on it. If they refused then I would offer to send them back my fee for the day - if that gets refused then I would move on/not work with him or her again. Its not happened in 7 years - but thats what I would do if it did happen. I wouldn't go to the police or make a big deal about it - it would just draw more attention to the picture/pictures I didn't like. I know its easy to think of most models as being manipulative cows but really I doubt many will be running to the police to make up a relationship with somebody just to get a picture removed. I might be wrong, it will happen ONCE (photographer will be found not guilty) and end up in some shitty paper and you can all say "Told you so". Honestly don't worry about something that probably won't even effect any of you - its just creating a headache that you don't need to have. If you respect your models and treat them well then they won't be in a hurry to send you off to jail for taking a bad picture of them.
Finally, the voice of reason.
Posted 15 Oct 2014
dhuntuk
Photographer
dhuntuk
This has nothing to do with paid bookings. So, we can all relax.
Posted 15 Oct 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
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.
Posted 16 Oct 2014
Amber6
Model
Amber6
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
Posted 16 Oct 2014
IainT
Photographer
IainT
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.
Posted 16 Oct 2014
Chandos
Photographer
Chandos
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
Posted 17 Oct 2014
Edited by Chandos 17 Oct 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
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.
Posted 18 Oct 2014
Edited by RedChecker 18 Oct 2014
_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)

Posted 18 Oct 2014
Edited by ForumModerator 18 Oct 2014
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....
Posted 19 Oct 2014
aw72
Photographer
aw72
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).

Posted 19 Oct 2014
"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?!

Posted 19 Oct 2014
aw72
Photographer
aw72
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.

Posted 19 Oct 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join