Ivy Wild wrote:
Hello,

I pose nude quite a lot, though I don't produce erotic or fetish photography. I want to ask photographers to include a clause in the release that specifies that our work will not be uploaded to pornhub/any venue that is specifically for porn/marketed as porn.

I feel that this is hard to write and even harder to enforce because porn is challenging to define. For instance, I wouldn't care if my photos were on Tumblr (RIP tumblr), even though tumblr had a lot of porn on it. I would care if they were uploaded to pornhub.

Has anyone done anything like this, and, if so, can you recommend the verbiage?

Note: I don't have anything against porn or erotica, I just don't want to be associated with it because I don't want to bear the stigma.

I doubt that still photos would be uploaded to Pornhub.

I have seen releases that specified no "pay for view" sites.
You would be well advised to have a lawyer's advice on specific wording.

BTW many people would consider MM to carry a stigma.

Ivy Wild wrote:
Hello,

I pose nude quite a lot, though I don't produce erotic or fetish photography. I want to ask photographers to include a clause in the release that specifies that our work will not be uploaded to pornhub/any venue that is specifically for porn/marketed as porn.

I feel that this is hard to write and even harder to enforce because porn is challenging to define. For instance, I wouldn't care if my photos were on Tumblr (RIP tumblr), even though tumblr had a lot of porn on it. I would care if they were uploaded to pornhub.

Has anyone done anything like this, and, if so, can you recommend the verbiage?

Note: I don't have anything against porn or erotica, I just don't want to be associated with it because I don't want to bear the stigma.

While that may be somewhat effective in the United States, there are many sites of all types all over the world and some may be difficult or impossible to engage in any legal fashion.
Somebody in Outer Kombuchastan may simply download your photos from your MM portfolio and post them to a website, what then?
Yes, I know that is a bummer but it is also the real world.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I'd be more concerned with images being stolen by someone other than the photographer and provided to sites on which you wouldn't want them.  The problem really lies in once you place images on the web, they can end up anywhere and will live out there for eternity.

This,  over which the Photographer has no control.

Ivy Wild wrote:
Hello,

I pose nude quite a lot, though I don't produce erotic or fetish photography. I want to ask photographers to include a clause in the release that specifies that our work will not be uploaded to pornhub/any venue that is specifically for porn/marketed as porn.

I feel that this is hard to write and even harder to enforce because porn is challenging to define. For instance, I wouldn't care if my photos were on Tumblr (RIP tumblr), even though tumblr had a lot of porn on it. I would care if they were uploaded to pornhub.

Has anyone done anything like this, and, if so, can you recommend the verbiage?

Note: I don't have anything against porn or erotica, I just don't want to be associated with it because I don't want to bear the stigma.

You don't need to do anything you are already covered by US Copyright law which means that somebody else must obtain permission to as it says "transmit by wire" any copyrighted material like which includes photographs and videos.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
This,  over which the Photographer has no control.

True statement, but between the model and photographer (the initial generation of the product and first posts) , they should have an understanding and a clause to protect themselves (Photographer and model). Understanding and protections on what they can and can not do. Basically, any actions they do will not be the "direct" cause and posting to an adult site etc. Meaning, they both act in good faith to prevent this as much as they can.

The same can go for the photographer, I do not want my logo showing up on porn sites but I can't police that very well either. What the model does or what someone else does with her photos is very difficult to manage.

Create something that is tasteful and within your morale guidance and standards knowing that it could end up someplace you may not agree with.

p.s - Your portfolio is truly amazing and beautiful art. IMHO you have nothing to worry about and should be proud no matter where they are posted.. I think even the porn dogs would agree "that's artistic"

Mark Salo wrote:
I doubt that still photos would be uploaded to Pornhub.

I have seen releases that specified no "pay for view" sites.
You would be well advised to have a lawyer's advice on specific wording.

BTW many people would consider MM to carry a stigma.

someone put basically my entire body of work on xHamster, each with the caption "NOT PORN"...

xHamster is a porn site...

People will do basically anything. And Pornhub has made a stunt of telling the tumblr refugees that they'd be welcome so...who knows Where I previously wouldnt expect photographers to do it with their own work, it would surprise me less these days now that people are losing places to put their "art"

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
A while back, there was a photographer raising money for his defense on crowd funding site, because his photos were used as covers for porn coming out of Eastern Europe.  He had no control over it.  The model sued him anyway.  I haven't researched how the case came out. Maybe someone here is up to date.

As a result of the above frivolous lawsuit (even if she won it was absurd), how does the photographer protect himself against you if the photos are misappropriated by a third party.  Or by you?  I will use a limited release because I have both pro models and friends who take their clothes off for me and depend on my integrity to protect their privacy, but that usually includes a stipulation that no one has the right to release the photos outside of defined terms.  I use them as resources for art work only. I really can't see a photographer paying a model who wants to use my most restrictive release.  He would have absolutely no outlet for the work.  I can only use the concept because my paint brush creates plausible deniability for the model on the finished product.  I would include hold harmless clauses in the agreement, relative to unauthorized use and if I have to make adjustments to a release that require an attorney's input- it just ain't going to happen.  Reviews of contract clauses when there are a bunch of "if then" statements, gets pricey.  When I use a limited release, everything is hashed out between me and the model well in advance of the shoot and we have both approved it.  The standard release is designed to mostly protect the photographer.  It further protects the photographer if they have sensitive issue clauses.  The release does provide protections for the model if there are limits to the duration, type of distribution (print, TV) and size of the distribution.  The model gets additional protections if sensitive issues are not part of the release.  Sensitive issues could include nudity.  The publisher- not the photographer- is the person that should be held responsible if the the image is used in a matter inconsistent with the release or any other documented contracts which involve the work.

You should read "The Copyright zone" for more information about releases and usage licenses.  I am not an attorney and anything I say on this site is for conversational purposes only, and I strongly recommend you retain a competent IP attorney if you really want to write something up.  But this is MM, and the strength of your port will not necessarily help you overcome additional obstacles like a specialized release, so you must weigh the lost work against your hoped for results.

In this world, certain risks and results come with the territory.  Theft of intellectual property is common place.

I don't post some of my better photos because of possible theft.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

You don't need to do anything you are already covered by US Copyright law which means that somebody else must obtain permission to as it says "transmit by wire" any copyrighted material like which includes photographs and videos.

Copyright law has nothing to do with a model. The photographer owns copyright and if he has a full release can do what he wants with the pictures. Some photographers will have no problem adding your clause, but some will. That's because definitions or websites may change.  A website that you're okay with today may decide to turn "porn" in the future. It could cause problems if not worded correctly. But back to my first point, Copyright has nothing to do with this thread.

Vito wrote:

Copyright law has nothing to do with a model. The photographer owns copyright and if he has a full release can do what he wants with the pictures. Some photographers will have no problem adding your clause, but some will. That's because definitions or websites may change.  A website that you're okay with today may decide to turn "porn" in the future. It could cause problems if not worded correctly. But back to my first point, Copyright has nothing to do with this thread.

Hey Vito,

I have to disagree in some respect that copyright and usage have nothing to do with the model involved.  While I agree that the creator of the image, a photographer in this case, holds the copyright if the finished image, copyright and usage are great negotiation tools when models are setting rates and the like.  Models can and do use an image's copyright and usage to dictate terms of contracts every day, it being one of the best bargaining chips they hold.  Without them (the models) in the image, there is nothing to advertise new fashion or any other the other products we see in our everyday lives depicting a captivating model.  I seriously doubt Calvin Klein would have had the same level of success some years back with selling their jeans had it not been for Brook Shields' behind being used to promote them.  I'm very sure that her agent was very specific about how and where those images could be used and by whom.  Imagine seeing those same jeans laid out on a backdrop or shown on some sort of possible figure.  Definitely not the same effect.

I do agree that there's little anyone can do about a site changing its viewership to a more liberal audience but how often does that really happen?  If someone is that worried about their images beings used in a manner they did not intend, it's probably best they never release them or have someone with a great business law background doing their bidding.

Todd Meredith wrote:
One way of avoiding this issue all together is to not shoot with questionable photographers.  Most photographers don't even think about sending images to porn sites.

The best way is to avoid shooting pictures which could be used as "pornography"...

Dan Howell wrote:
Getty's standard stock release has this language:

Permission to license the Content and to use the Content in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic or defamatory) which may include, among others, advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service.

That is a completely ambiguous clause because it has no definition what shall be considered as "pornographic" (definitions differ from country to country) or "defamatory" (an attribute which is even more ambiguous).

TomFRohwer wrote:

The best way is to avoid shooting pictures which could be used as "pornography"...

I agree with your statement but let's remember that one person's artistic nudes are another person's porn.  My statement was to illustrate that shooting with people of questionable practices (in terms of their I tented usage of images) is a good method of not ending up finding your face on a porn site.  It's impossible to know what anyone is really thinking at any given time, but doing a bit of checking on whoever you plan of working with is always a good practice.

Ivy Wild wrote:
I know that you can't control the spread of images on the internet. I just want a good faith promise from a photographer that he will not specifically upload the pictures to a pornographic site. I'm sure I would never get litigious about it, because its so hard to define where artistic nudes end and porn begins.

Also, plenty of pictures may not look like porn, but may start to look more like porn if they are in a set full of pornographic images. I'm careful about what I produce (ie, I never open my legs for the camera) but you cannot control everything, especially when you are moving around. A photographer reached out to me recently - he had a lot of very high quality erotic nudes in his portfolio. Good stuff, often with an element of humor. I won't produce erotica, but I respect the genre. I ultimately decided not to work with him, not because I didn't trust him or his art, but decided that any picture of me posted alongside all of his other erotic images would probagbly look significatly more erotic than I'd like to appear. Does that make sense? Anyway, I'd just like to avoid someones art tumblr getting uploaded to pornhub because tumblr decided to crap out on us.

Everything you post is entirely sensible. I've no problem with any of it personally.
Where it seems it might get "complicated" is if we were to create an image that we both liked and used in our ports, and then somebody else stole a copy of it from one of our ports and posted it in a manner that you object to being portrayed.
Proving who did or did not do what and when could become time consuming, complicated and sadly, possibly fruitless.
Neither of us would be to blame and neither of us would benefit from that outcome.
I wish I had a solution for you!!!!
Cheers!

Todd Meredith wrote:

Hey Vito,

I have to disagree in some respect that copyright and usage have nothing to do with the model involved.  While I agree that the creator of the image, a photographer in this case, holds the copyright if the finished image, copyright and usage are great negotiation tools when models are setting rates and the like.  Models can and do use an image's copyright and usage to dictate terms of contracts every day, it being one of the best bargaining chips they hold.  Without them (the models) in the image, there is nothing to advertise new fashion or any other the other products we see in our everyday lives depicting a captivating model.  I seriously doubt Calvin Klein would have had the same level of success some years back with selling their jeans had it not been for Brook Shields' behind being used to promote them.  I'm very sure that her agent was very specific about how and where those images could be used and by whom.  Imagine seeing those same jeans laid out on a backdrop or shown on some sort of possible figure.  Definitely not the same effect.

I do agree that there's little anyone can do about a site changing its viewership to a more liberal audience but how often does that really happen?  If someone is that worried about their images beings used in a manner they did not intend, it's probably best they never release them or have someone with a great business law background doing their bidding.

A model can withhold a release (but then she shouldn't get paid if that was the deal). Models can do NOTHING with copyright. It's federal law, if you (the photographer) clicked the shutter, you own the copyright. Usage is a whole third form that the photographer grants the model use of his copyrighted images. And NEVER should the three meet on one document (well, there is no document for copyright until filed).

Vito wrote:
Copyright law has nothing to do with a model. The photographer owns copyright and if he has a full release can do what he wants with the pictures. Some photographers will have no problem adding your clause, but some will. That's because definitions or websites may change.  A website that you're okay with today may decide to turn "porn" in the future. It could cause problems if not worded correctly. But back to my first point, Copyright has nothing to do with this thread.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I have to disagree in some respect that copyright and usage have nothing to do with the model involved.  While I agree that the creator of the image, a photographer in this case, holds the copyright if the finished image, copyright and usage are great negotiation tools when models are setting rates and the like.

Usage is not a function of copyright, it’s a function of licensing. Vito is correct.

I am continually amazed that this misunderstanding of copyright and usage still comes up around here. It’s very simple: the photographer has ownership of the intellectual property and is the one who decides how it will be used. If someone else wants a say in that decision, that must be negotiated.

The model has no say in the copyright issue, she can only negotiate whether the photographer gets to use her likeness. Just as the photographer owns the intellectual property and has the right to license it, the model owns her likeness and has the right to license it. That’s what a model release is.

The photographer controls usage (of the image) with a license agreement. The model controls the usage (of her likeness) with a model release. Both can be negotiated, and once negotiated the deal is done unless it is renegotiated. This would be a good time to negotiate the porn usage restriction, but this still doesn't affect copyright.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
If you really don't want your photos used by others, don't post them online.

This. I would add, if you really don’t want nude pictures of yourself being ripped off by unscrupulous porn producers and being used for video packaging, don’t pose nude.

Vito wrote:

A model can withhold a release (but then she shouldn't get paid if that was the deal). Models can do NOTHING with copyright. It's federal law, if you (the photographer) clicked the shutter, you own the copyright. Usage is a whole third form that the photographer grants the model use of his copyrighted images. And NEVER should the three meet on one document (well, there is no document for copyright until filed).

I agree with what you're saying about ownership in a general sense but there are times, such as ad campaigns, in which copyright is purchased and/or shared because it is a contractual agreement between the photographer and whomever is paying for the job.  Photographers being hired by agencies or companies for a specific job have it written in the contract that the photographer, upon being paid, surrenders copyright..

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
A while back, there was a photographer raising money for his defense on crowd funding site, because his photos were used as covers for porn coming out of Eastern Europe.  He had no control over it.  The model sued him anyway.  I haven't researched how the case came out. Maybe someone here is up to date.

The photographer won the case.

That doesn't mean he still lost a ton of $$$ in time and legal fees. (Not to mention emotional trauma.) More about that case (prior to its resolution) is here:

https://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-s … tographed/

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
The photographer won the case.

That doesn't mean he still lost a ton of $$$ in time and legal fees. (Not to mention emotional trauma.) More about that case (prior to its resolution) is here:

https://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-s … tographed/

Thank you!

From the information you provided, I looked to see if there were details or a judgement to read.  I found this link. 

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/how-th … ed-up.html

For those interested: Note that the photographer did enter into a confidential agreement with the model to settle the case.  Also note some of the legal advise in the column concerning the release and that the release should refer to itself as the entirety of the agreement.
"Check your release. If one is not already present, include a clause stating that the release is the entire legal agreement, which should exclude both verbal and written clauses both before and after signing the release."  (So much for signing away copyrights.)

Merry Christmas!

edit:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141202c63

Ivy Wild wrote:
I know that you can't control the spread of images on the internet. I just want a good faith promise from a photographer that he will not specifically upload the pictures to a pornographic site. I'm sure I would never get litigious about it, because its so hard to define where artistic nudes end and porn begins.

Also, plenty of pictures may not look like porn, but may start to look more like porn if they are in a set full of pornographic images. I'm careful about what I produce (ie, I never open my legs for the camera) but you cannot control everything, especially when you are moving around. A photographer reached out to me recently - he had a lot of very high quality erotic nudes in his portfolio. Good stuff, often with an element of humor. I won't produce erotica, but I respect the genre. I ultimately decided not to work with him, not because I didn't trust him or his art, but decided that any picture of me posted alongside all of his other erotic images would probagbly look significatly more erotic than I'd like to appear. Does that make sense? Anyway, I'd just like to avoid someones art tumblr getting uploaded to pornhub because tumblr decided to crap out on us.

It seems to me that good faith and a formal agreement as spelled out in a model release are two very different things.   

If you shoot with photographers who have a history of shooting non-pornographic images and have used them only in artistic venues, and you do a non pornographic shoot, you have less risk of images of you ending up on a porn site than if you shoot with a photographer who regularly shoots porn and has a history of submitting them to porn sites.

One thing that I think has been largely been glossed over in this thread is that limited releases that exclude pornographic use do exist and are in fact regularly used by stock companies for example.  However, there is a big difference between me as photographer using a model release that is specific and attorney reviewed for a stock company I'm contributing to, and a model walking into a shoot and thrusting a model release she wrote herself into my hands.   You certainly can draft or use a limited release that already exists, but don't expect a lot of photographers to sign a release you bring. 

I think you can greatly reduce the risk of images of yourself ending up on a porn site by being selective in what you shoot, whom you shoot with and having a good faith conversation.  That's not the same as relying on a model release.   If you really want a limited release signed, by all means use one, but realize it will limit your options much more so than simply choosing what kinds of shoots you accept and are relying on good faith.

TomFRohwer wrote:

That is a completely ambiguous clause because it has no definition what shall be considered as "pornographic" (definitions differ from country to country) or "defamatory" (an attribute which is even more ambiguous).

Tell that to Getty and their lawyers who no doubt created it. Or go shout at the wind. I don't care.

Again, probably one of the most widely used model release language going.

Dan Howell wrote:
Tell that to Getty and their lawyers who no doubt created it. Or go shout at the wind. I don't care.

Again, probably one of the most widely used model release language going.

Your first post was really the only one in this thread that actually answered the OPs question.  While, I can understand why many photographers here might not want to sign any release handed to them by a model, the fact remains such limited releases as you have indicated not only exist but are very commonly used in some venues.  It seems many here simply don’t want to a knowledge that.  It doesn’t surprise there’s a case of a photographer signing such a release being sued, just as it doesn’t surprise me there are cases of photographers signing more unlimited releases being sued.  In fact as I understand it, it’s such lawsuits that motivated stock companies to adopt limited releases.  As I recall STD ads were another motivating case.  As I understand, overall, limited releases decreased liability exposure for the stock companies and contributing photographers, not increased it, despite what a single cherry picked case may infer.

Studio NSFW wrote:
If a model insisted on that clause in a release here for a nude job, she would not get hired.

Nonsense.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:

Nonsense.

I meant "Here" as in my studio.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Your first post was really the only one in this thread that actually answered the OPs question.  While, I can understand why many photographers here might not want to sign any release handed to them by a model, the fact remains such limited releases as you have indicated not only exist but are very commonly used in some venues.  It seems many here simply don’t want to a knowledge that.  It doesn’t surprise there’s a case of a photographer signing such a release being sued, just as it doesn’t surprise me there are cases of photographers signing more unlimited releases being sued.  In fact as I understand it, it’s such lawsuits that motivated stock companies to adopt limited releases.  As I recall STD ads were another motivating case.  As I understand, overall, limited releases decreased liability exposure for the stock companies and contributing photographers, not increased it, despite what a single cherry picked case may infer.

You are correct.  A model being portrayed as having an STD was also a big one. 

However, I did not bring up the case (linked above) to show that liability can be increased.  The intent was to show the OP that the photographer did everything right and the images were stolen and used against the terms of the model release and the stock company rules.  The fact that the model blamed the photographer was pathetic.  Notice who all is a defendant in the case- Amazon?  As well as the photographer and stock company.   Definitely, she was looking for deep pockets.  The other interesting thing about that case, which hasn't been mentioned specifically, though the situation was alluded to by Ken Marcus, is the images in this suit were lingerie shots, not nudes.  Which makes sense.  The clothing was sensual, as were the poses, but a nude on the cover of the box could preclude public display of the item on the store shelves.  In a fashion, risqué, but not nude, could be more of a problem than nude.