Via MicroStock Group:
Photographer SLP writes:
My attention has been drawn to the use of one of my stock images in a somewhat controversial context. Apparently, in Ireland they’re having a referendum on same sex marriage.
My stock image, of a happy mum, dad and baby, is being used by the NO Campaigners on a poster saying …‘Children deserve a Mother and a Father – Vote NO’.
The poster includes the statement ‘Persons depicted in this image are models and content is for illustrative purposes only’
Obviously, the ‘models’ signed model releases, but they are real parents with a real baby. I’m sure these parents will be quite upset to see the image used in this manner.
The image was with all the usual top/middle tier agencies. Having a keep look over the Licensing T&C’s at a couple of these agencies, I notice the following …Shutterstock: Restrictions of Use …. ‘You May Not Use Visual Content ….c) as endorsing a political party, candidate, elected official, or opinion.
However, at Istockphoto, regarding prohibited uses…“If any Content featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement adjacent to the Content that indicates that: (i) the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Content, if any, is a model,
So, I guess it depends from whom they licensed the image! Would you take any action on this? I suppose I could ask the organisation who published, where they licensed the image from, but it feels like somewhat of a lost cause already.
Thanks Seamus White
There that’s fixed.
“they are real parents with a real baby. I’m sure these parents will be quite upset…”
Authentic parents? Imagine that. Young, fertile couples who believe in the family unit will be an endangered species in about 20 years.
And as for the “quite upset” bit, is the money-grabbing photographer “sure” about how this couple would vote? They look Eastern European to me – I suspect the money-grabber might be surprised how many folks don’t buy in to force-fed homosexualist propaganda.
What’s money-grabbing about questioning the use of one of your images?
if you make an image available freely don’t complain about how it is used. It would be like BIC complaining that their pens are used to write things they don’t like. He could have made a restricted sale but would have been unlikely to get any buyers.
it’s not “freely available” though, as a number of the clauses cited in the Broadsheet post (amongst others) demonstrate.
Again, what’s money-grabbing about it though? Seems an unusual thing to accuse someone of when money wasn’t mentioned once.
But then I suppose the No side do tend to throw random irrelevant accusations into the argument so I should hardly be surprised.
I would hug you for a lost childhood but I’m afraid of catching contact self-loathing.
Classic stuff, a return to form
+1 vintage abm
and in the midnight hour as well
It seems ABM has no understanding of the term “stock photographer”. Not surprising, given that it’s a post 19th century idea.
ABM, surely the extension of the right to a loving and stable marriage to the 10% of our population who are homosexual will actually strengthen marriage in general?
Well done m8. I for one, have been missing your spiritual guidance.
I reckon straight people will continue to “make babies”.
Humanity is quite safe.
Personally I can’t wait for the homosexual agenda I subscribe to catch on and traditional family unit will become an “endangered species”. That was the plan outlined by Panti sure at the last AGM (Annual Gay Meeting). We don’t really want equality but the drag everyone down to our sordid level.
ah here it’s actually the LGBT agenda
Here, don’t tar all of us with the same brush. I’m having a baby as part of an Iona Loonstitute mandadated hetrosexual married couple but my husband kindly informs me that we don’t actually believe that “the family unit will be an endangered species in about 20 years.”. He informs me that not only is this a complete fabrication of our point of view, but also that there is no reason to suppose that it is the point of view of the couple in the photo, either.
How very dare you – a married couple having a baby is it? Quis seperabit?
@ ABMI didn’t know the seminary allowed students to access the internet in the small wee hours!
This referendum must be real important to those training to be celibate!
HOORAY! ABM’s Back…. It’s like one of those late edition Rocky movies that nobody went to see.
Heh. “the gays will take our babies” argument. Nonsense.
I know this couple. They’re not Eastern European and they won’t be voting as they don’t live in Ireland
Ooh homophobic AND making sweeping derogatory statements based on ethnic origin. Arent you just a glowing endorsement of the average no voter. Please carry on.
The couple are Australian not Eastern European, but that was a great guess. And they have expressed their disgust that their faces are being used to campaign for No, as they believe in equality.
In fact one is British and the other German (I know them both).
I would ask they are all for taking the gorgeous mural in Dublin City , would like to see the tables turn and for them to have to take down those horrible posters, that insult many people
Who done their blusher, it’s fierce.
was thinking the same, it’s insane
Bitch is serving up some traditional marital family #REALNESS for the GODS!
Money Grabber who points out twice that the photo has already been licensed? Lol weak attempt .
The referendum is being held on the 22nd of May, so I doubt you would be able to get it withdrawn before then.
Fortunately people with these backward views are fewer with each passing year.
Let’s hope for a “Yes” vote.
Op pls post gay couple wedding photo.
Please action this against them. It an offensive poster that is causing a lot of anguish to people here in Ireland. It should be removed for copyright infringement. A campaign can’t endorse one side of a rights argument and then flagrantly ignore another right of yours
Although I get your point, your argument is flawed. There are often cases where competing claims for “rights” weigh up against each other and the public have to decide which is the supervening right.
As many here have pointed out that it’s all about “equality” I felt I had to make this point. Equality my ass.
It’s a weak argument as the No side are using it now to claim some notional right to a father and mother. I wouldn’t even go there. I would much rather focus on the discriminatory practices enshrined in current law.
Much easier to attack. I’m open to others view on this however. Thank you.
Six of one, half dozen of the other isn’t it?
“I would much rather focus on the discriminatory practices enshrined in current law.”
That’s the definition of inequality isn’t it?
I do kind of get where you’re coming from on the word though, it’s overused in too many contexts, more specifics would work better IMO.
Well that’s it. Everyone when challenged is against discrimination but not everyone is for equality as much as we might like to have that as the ideal.
In my personal conversations I think ‘equality’ comes across as a political term, it’s something the left uses more. Whereas ‘fairness’ tends to appeal to more conservativey types. Same thing really though.
Oh I totally agree I suppose I am thinking more of sloganeering and nuance for those with limited attention spans. Strictly speaking is the right to a father and mother what most people see in those posters or the picture of a baby and two heterosexual parents? You can see what they’re getting at and rather than whining about how unfair it is Etc I would stage the argument on my own talking points or change the conversation eg by say having a slogan like “it takes a village to raise a child” you know? Put a positive counter message out there rather than be sucked in.
I just say Jennifer Aniston and I both hate kids and don’t want any, but how come she can get wed and not have to go into production mode, but I can’t? *puppy-dog eyes*
if Jennifer does it….
Don’t worry. Young vulnerable people will have their prophylactic protection fail, and they will be denied the right to control over the woman’s body, so there will still be babies. Relax, halo-heads.
Stupid poster anyway. There’s nothing to stop a gay couple having a child these days given things like surrogacy and IVF. In terms of adoption can’t a single gay person adopt today on behalf of the couple (which in fairness does seem really odd that an unmarried couple can’t adopt but a single person can’t, significant for those of us who don’t believe in marriage but that’s a different argument). In other words, it’s relatively easy in todays Ireland for a gay couple to be parents and the vote won’t really have any effect on that.
Usually you’d find an enterprising gay of the opposite sex. I’ve known a few gay ladies who prevailed on their gay fella friends to get in on the act, and the kid gets four parents – can’t see how Mammies and Daddies Matter can argue with that.
yep and the good news is that you don’t even have to be gay either – I’ve been asked to do this
Im sorry but if you sell stuff to a stock image website be grateful that it got used, you knew the deal when you hit upload and you lost the option of controlling your clients when you do so. If youre so upset, maybe give the profits from said photo to a charity that spreads awareness of homophobia.
Whiny little b*tch
As someone raised by a single mother in my early childhood, the offence of this poster extends far beyond the lgbt community.
+1 lots of folks I speak to say the same
Maybe the people at thejournal.ie might be interested in your story? Email firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to say to ABM et al that this referendum is about equality for all married people. I demand the right to have sordid affairs with gay married people as married heteros have unfairly been positively discriminated in favour of for years, free to visit hookers, ride the babysitter and have all manner of illicit thrills enjoyed only by married folks since time immemorial. I demand the right to inseminate my lesbian daughter’s wife and not have to face any consequences because the shame would kill everyone and then have the lass committed to some institution or other to make her work for her keep.
Surely the correct riposte would be for the “Yes” campaign to use the same picture (available here, BTW: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/parents-kissing-happy-baby-45660676?st=9101d5a) with a different caption. “Surrogacy for all.” “Support transgender rights.” “Gay or straight: your child deserves equal rights.”