Ethical Dilemma- is this right?

[Peter]

Paul Bergman wrote:
>
> OK, it is ethical to run a pay website as a photographer and
> actually pretend to be the person herself?

Ethical, certainly not, legal, probably not.
>
> IE Gordon Broun photographs the model Tracey, and then sets up
> a website AS tracey, even answering mails AS tracey, and
> charging people to see the gallery.
>
> IS that OK, or is it deception, false advertising?

It would involve some level of fraud, as people would be paying money to talk to Tracey, not a bloke pretending to be Tracey.

>
> Secondly, what if someone takes photos of a person and actual
> sets up a profile of her, and pretends that he IS her, and also
> that she is something she is not (eg, an Adult Work profile
> claiming she offers cam services etc) when of course she
> doesn't, and probably doesn't know about the profile at all.

That would be libellous. A famous photographers wife won a huge libel payout from an escort service, who had used her pictures as its main advert pic. When asked if the girl in their ad was available and not just a model, they said she was available for bookings, so they had them 'bang to rights'


>
> A model in this position has asked me my thoughs- I have
> suggested that because the photographer owns the copyright, he
> CAN use the images, but by pretending to be her it might be
> false advertising, or a breach of the trade descriptions act.

Depends what contract she signed with him. Girls don't read things properly, if at all, so she may have signed away her rights to things she's not aware of.

[paul jones]

If the site owner and the model are in agreement and no one is being charged for things under false pretences, ethical and legal.

E.g. if the "girl" charged ?20 for a 30min MSN session - no cam - and that was done by the site owner, client could have an action. He paid for HER.

If however the guy is doing things without her agreement SHE might have a case against him, esp if such things damage her. So advertising web cams that can't exist for example.

[Sarah Kelly]

Models ,like any other person, should be treated as you yourself would like+expect to be treated...If you would find a particular practise unacceptable, you can pretty much assume others would ....... "Is it acceptable to trick the paying customer" - it is a Criminal Offence to obtain property,services or financial gain by deception (unless you"re an MP!) ... So its not acceptable, legally or ethically.. Integrity is a rare commodity,not easily won- be considered as having it ,and the money will follow,surely?

[Peter]

Paul Bergman wrote:

> Yes- two issues here.
>
> Is it right to treat the model like that?


Depends what she agreed to (different to what she thought she was agreeing to) you'd need to read the contract she signed.

I've shot some 'fake webcam' stuff recently, but everyone knew what the end result was going to be used for.



>
> Is it acceptable to trick the paying customer?

Depends on the definition of 'trick' Most advertising is a trick (Spray yourself with this deodorant and women will shag you), deliberate misrepresentation is wrong.

[Matt P]

Paul what you say in regards to using, or misuse of model/performer name is more the rule than exception I've found. I do become graduly more jaded towards porn when in return for questions I get deceptions. None of it helps with finding work & to be honest none of it matters. Who really gives a fuck because for every bad thing in the industry there's going to be a 1000 people to make excuses for it.
If I sound pissed off it's because I'm tired of false promises, hint dropping & general messing me around. If it's not people making out it wasn't them who was a cunt to me it's someone prentending to be someone else.
I just remind myself that everyone I've worked with has been fantastic & the 2 things the share is they don't fuck people around like nob-ends & they make great porn.

[RoddersUK]

Several years ago there was a photographer who did just this.
His real name was Paul and he called himself Paula, selling photosets of various girls and couples at it. I asked a few times for a session with one of the models who was supposedly Paula and eventually he owned up.
Good snapper and good sets, but does anyone buy these sets nowadays?

[jimslip]

I thought this was quite normal, what about Fiona Cooper, he's a bloke and Tanya Hyde is a bloke.I think "Ethics" and "Porn" don't really go hand in hand.

In the Sun they now make a joke of the quote from their Page 3 girls,now it'll say, "Jane of Cleethorpes says that she's delighted to learn that CERN has confirmed that a fault in an electrical connection between two magnets caused the incident with the Large Hadron Collider on the 19th September, which has temporarily shut down preparation of the LHC for experiments. The fault led to mechanical damage and a release of liquid helium, which contributed to further damage to the affected sub-sector of the machine"

Obviously "Jane" didn't really say this. Most model releases allow the producer or tog to more or less present the model in whatever way they wish. For example a girl could be shot holding a telephone and end up in the back of the Sport with a caption saying "Crack Whore Chat Now" and be able to do nothing about it, why? cos of the model release.

I think blokes posing as girls is one of the oldest tricks in the huge arsenal of porn scams. I don't like it personally and I think any benefit is short lived when fans of a girl eventually stumble on the fact that they have actually been writing to a 16 stone oaf with a bald head and chewing a tooth pick!

[one eyed jack]

It all sounds a bit deceptive so therein lies your answer.

Then again, Fiona Cooper is run by a bloke but Fiona Cooper as a real life person doesnt exist. Does anyone know what Fiona Cooper looks like?

At a guess given she has been going since the 80's I would hazard a guess Fiona could be in her fictional 50's, 60's or 70's by now