Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RogerV
I shoot girls every week and pay people to shoot for me. I let them know what the site is about I would not take a teen girl and put her on some tranny or my dirty rotten filthy whores site out of respect since they dont want to be portraid as that.
but I have my own code and ethics and rules everyone has there own. I'm just defending a friend if it was an ex of mine like Juliet or Aria etc, I would say epass is wrong but this time I feel they are doing whats right for there employee  that is there right period...wether we like it or not there is alot of shit I dissagree with daily that I have to live with its part of life.
and nobody has seen this legal contract unless I'm missing something |
On the contract, you are correct - nobody has seen it, and since nobody has seen it, there is, at this time, no reason to consider it is anything more than a standard model release. Speculation of some magical terms which exclude this specific model from appearing on X or Y website are pointless.
Suppose if you happen to be in a position where you can state what a specific shoot is for and tell a model, that's fine, but that is not normally the case. Sets are sold worldwise for all types of media.
It's also not about respect - it's a business of creating content. Models are paid as part of their side of the business they choose to engage in. If there are genuinely extra "terms" attached to shooting a specific model - that's another story, but doubt either you or any other photographer shooting content has the time or money to waste shooting and having their sales market restricted by the whims and wishes of models, which could, in practice, be never ending. We are not exactly talking about celeb content here.
To be honest, in X decades I've never once had one model care where images were eventually published - tho they'd all love a front page of Playboy for their own ego reasons. They know they are being shot to earn money and under the terms of a model release and being paid for this - that's where the deal ends.
The relevance of ePassporte in this scenario is nada. Even worse is the concept that accounts "appear" to be declined on the basis of stuff which has nothing to do with the business of e-commerce, but on who they happen to employ. It's too silly
