In what will serve as a stark warning to anyone dealing with model release forms, one author is coming forward with her story: after taking part in a free photoshoot some years ago, she has found her photo (and face) being used for campaigns and endorsements across the globe, without her consent and without any financial compensation.
Shubnum Khan, a South African author and artist, took to Twitter to reveal more about her situation. Six years ago, she and a friend had taken part in a shoot by a photographer who promised professional headshots, free of charge. Khan recalls signing a form, but admits the process was quick as the shoot was due to start, and that she didn’t give it her full attention. “We didn’t read the small print. I know. It was stupid,” she says.
Unbeknownst to her then, she had just given permission for the photographer to sell her headshots as stock photos – with no credit, no further consent from her, and no financial compensation. In what was undoubtedly a laugh or cry situation, Khan initially saw the humorous side to her image being used all over the globe. It wasn’t until discovering that her face was being attributed to false testimonials that the joke wore thin.
Utilizing Google’s reverse image search, Khan found her image was being used in fake endorsements for everything from skin lightening cream to foster care endorsements. She queried this with the photographer, who told her she “signed away rights to ‘distortion of character including false names.’” So far she’s also appeared on dating sites, in dentistry ads, and as campaign manager by the name of Phoebe Lopez.
Speaking to BBC News about the incident, she said:
The testimonials are the most shocking for me. I thought I understood how stock images work, you know, like having a picture of a house to illustrate a house. But it was so dishonest, I never knew you could use stock images with false testimonials and fake names.
So beside the fact that all of us were never paid for ANY of these advertisements, there’s also the misleading and downright dishonesty of promoting these products. Eventually I contacted the photographer and said I didn’t know I signed up for any of this.
While Khan laughs that it serves as a “great party story,” she ends by warning others: “read what you sign and also don’t believe most of the things you read on the internet.”
The use of models in stock images has always been a turn off for me. I care about my subjects and don't want to see them end up on a herpes billboard for less than a sitting fee.
Well it's her fault for not reading the contract.
There are photographers who shoot stock photos of models and I would like to start doing that but I don't like that someone might come back years later complaining to the news.
good lord...then FOREWARN the models.
Hahahaha sure dude.
Cuz being up front and honest about your real intentions is a bad thing?
Obviously all of that is in the contract as my contract clearly states all of that. The girl in this article should have read what she was signing.
This story broke a week ago on Twitter and you guys are finally running with it because Petapixel ran the story? Is that the only source of news for Fstoppers? Maybe we should all save ourselves some time and start reading Petapixel and not Fstoppers because at least they don't run with stories that you feature since you guys are always late to the table.
please do exactly that
My apologies for having a photography career to contend with. I promise to spend more time in future trawling Twitter so as to appease anonymous internet users who don’t even have a profile photo.
Is there a race to be won? A Gold Medal? This entire concept of having to be FIRST is part of what has corrupted journalism to the point it no longer resembles journalism. Believe me, I understand that Ratings Whores believe being first is more important than the second coming of Jesus, even more so than truth, facts, ethics and morals. Welcome to the scourge of 2018 Americana.
My feeling on what Felix said? "Meh..." I went over and looked at Petapixel and more than half of the stories posted there I had read elsewhere. My feeling (for both of these sites) is "So what?" These are not global news services, they're sites with small budgets and done more for the love of photography. Yes, maybe they could find some more original material, but both are constrained by the realities of the world and will pick up a lot of content second hand or even third hand. They're also going to cover a lot of the same material. Let's face it, photography news is a narrow subject and, compared to news in general, there's not a lot of new stuff to report on. And, speaking of news in general, how often do you see significant news stories on one station but not on all the rest? Yes, there's always room for improvement, but I'm happy to have fstoppers here to read!
So why are you even here, Felix, trolling the comments? You're getting SOMETHING out of being here.... Please, go back to twitter or petapixel.
She says she wasn't paid, yet she went to the shoot to get 'free' headshots.
So she got paid in services, either that or she was exploiting the photog is she thinks he should get nothing out of it. She can't have it both ways.
Having said that, I still think it's a sleazy business model.
-
My thoughts exactly about the free shoot.
He told her it was for an art project. People will often volunteer to help out the Arts as a good cause. Yes, she should have read the release, but the photog never even did the 100 Faces art thing, just sold the pics. Legal? Yeah. But really sleazy. Why are people villainizing her? She was young and naive. He took advantage of her. She's less of a villain than him.
When the unscrupulous meets the naive, this is the result. Yeah, it's all legal and her image is out there forever. I wonder if this photographer's name should be out there too to serve as a warning: "Work with this guy at your own risk!".
Why though? She should have read the contract.
She was compensated with free images. So her claim that she wasn't paid is a lie. That's why he gave her the free photos for his right to repurpose the photos as he saw fit. He did the marketing he did the editing. People need to understand what a model release is for. It allows a photographer to use that photo without additional compensation unless specified in the agreement. She's lucky it was just head shots, I've known models that had a lot worse photos used that they didn't think about.
Exactly.
Should have watched Zack Arias' video on copyright and stuff...