I recently posted this thread about finding a stock photo in an ad.
However, someone on Shutterstock pointed out that it was in violation of the Terms of Use for almost every microstcok site. So I did some checking on all the sites it is available at:
Originally posted by istockphoto:
You may NOT... use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner that (i) would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour; or (ii) that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content;
Originally posted by Shutterstock:
You may NOT
Use an Image in a way that places any person in the photo in a bad light or depicts them in a way that they may find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to: a) the use of Images in pornography; b) tobacco ads; c) ads for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or for escort, dating or similar services; d) political endorsements; e) advertisements for pharmaceutical products, including, but not limited to personal hygiene or birth control products; and f) uses that are defamatory, or contain otherwise unlawful, offensive or immoral content.
Originally posted by 123RF:
You may not ...
viii. under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, obscene, immoral, defamatory or illegal materials; endorsement of product(s); sensitive mental/health/other similar aspect of contexts or subjects.
I guess my question is what I should do, or if I should do anything at all.
The way I read it, the ball (potential problem) is in the hands of the company that used the photo, not the photographer. Since the use of your stock image was anonymous (you didn't know the publisher, nor had direct contact with them) I wouldn't sweat it.
And what would your model and stock agency THINK a picture like that was gonna be used for? Selling ankle socks? There's already implied sexual activity before anyone even uses the photo.
I agree with timfythetoo, it only matters what you and the model think.
PS. great photo and congrats that it's in such a big ad!
... sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences,
No offense but in what other way could this photo be used?
Actually mk, I do agree. But, hmmm, I wonder if I could use those Terms of Use violations in my favor, perhaps striking a usage deal with the ad agency?
