“chick”
“hon”?
Seriously, douche?
1 Like
That’s a point, though the other shots in the photo session make it clear that sexualization wasn’t an issue for the model. It’s a poor case because of that, but it might make good law if the court makes clear that sexxing-up a not-particularly sexxed image so graphically is a no-no. That said, damages in this case aren’t really an issue.
In stock photography, you can write restrictions on use.
Number 6 on iStock’s Prohibited Uses is:
use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStock (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute;
Number 11 on Shutterstock is:
Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content.
Basically, here’s what I think was going on — the model was trying to claim “immoral use” so that the image would get pulled as a stock image, and BK would have to buy it full price from the photographer or yank the ad campaign.
4 Likes
Look, she’s trying claim she’s pure as the driven snow. It’s sturm and drang - she’s after a paycheck. EDIT: I already said, this is the type of claim that makes serious claims harder to be taken seriously.
BTW: I AM a “CHICK!” - and a graphic designer.
7 Likes
Darn, Jason_Bass found the stock photo before I did. I don’t think this woman has a legal leg to stand on.
They should probably stick with pornographic, though given some of her other stock photos, that might not work.
Stop and think here–do you want a judge to rule on the morality of oral sex?
Fair enough - but I think it is a stretch to call the ad pornographic.
If I showed this to my 8 year old she would probably say, “The lady looks surprised at how big the sandwich is.” Like many things, it’s a double entendre.
I think your assessment is a good one.
No judge would be involved. The site would pull the image according to their rules (which are there to protect the site from liability) and then because the image couldn’t be used without a contract, the company would have to either yank the ad campaign or write a new contract directly with the photographer and/or model.
This is one way people will try to cash in on the use of stock images by major companies. They try to find a way that the image use could possibly break the site use contract, and then they claim the image breaks use. It’s a way to up your income off of a stock image when a major company tries to use it. @Mister44 I’m not saying that the ad is “pornographic” at all. I’m saying that the model is crying “wolf” when she says it.
1 Like
I don’t blame her for being angry or trying to take action. However–and I go into this fully knowing this is one of the things that gets me silenced–this pisses me off:
I believe in sexual expression in art and the media; it’s beautiful and necessary for a healthy society but IT MUST BE CONSENSUAL otherwise it’s RAPE.
No. No, it’s not. No one forced you to have sexual intercourse, you are not a victim of a violent act, and if we go with ancient definitions, you were not carried off as a spoil of war. What happened is that your image was used in a way that was not consistent with the intent, and carried heavy-handed sexual connotations.
I’m sorry to hear that it has harmed your reputation among your friends and family. But people, please…stop trivializing rape.
7 Likes
Does anyone know the etymology of this? As in, how did something that’s used to clean vaginas come to be a major insult? It it because men hate women? That’s it, isn’t it?
1 Like
Fifty years from now, “cleanse” may follow the same trajectory.
1 Like
Well, it’s a weird word to me, because some of the older uses are clearly used against people who didn’t conform to societal gender roles, but have, over time, just sort of lost all meaning, but it’s still pretty clear to me that, devoid of previous decades’ meaning, it’s worse to be a douche than to be an asshole, and as “douche” has a pretty clear, specific meaning to most people, it sure seems like it’s preferable to be the thing shit comes out of, than to be a feminine hygiene product.
Anyway, yeah, I guess I kinda derailed that. Sorry.
Also bear in mind that the ad was for Singapore, which is notoriously strait-laced and oral sex was only legalised there in 2007 (yes, really)… So it’s not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that the picture was made by someone innocently clueless. Not that I didn’t have a quick snigger at the ad when I saw it in the wild there …
The little bag my dad put his razor, toothbrush, etc in when he went on trips he called a douche bag. Was that just him, or did people used to call it that back in the day?
Obviously I don’t have all the details, but this seems kind of ridiculous. It looks like it’s just stock photography where they wanted a side-view of a girl with mouth open. I would guess they didn’t steal her image and if anyone should get in trouble it’s the person who sold the photo if indeed she is in the right. Honestly though, when I first saw the ad, blowjob did not enter my mind.
She has a wide array of images available on the stock site, and from multiple shoots. No one stole her image.
1 Like
It’s a dopp kit, isn’t it?
1 Like
Aw geeze. Maybe that was it.
Is it pronounced DOPE?
It’s good to be the King.
Is this wrong? It seems wrong, but I’m not sure why…
…
