Miss California situation, does it change how we work?

[sldi]

I just watched the news conference with the "Don" and Miss CA, it seems todays events raise questions about a photographers rights/responsibilities towards models and the use of there images. It is supposed that the one issue of her bare breasted was shot "accidentally" and should not have been published. Will this change how any of you shoot models in the future?

[CaptainTom]

Will this change how any of you shoot models in the future?

No

[toverman]

It won't change photographers who act ethically and responsibly to begin with.

[srwatters]

One nipple slip is an 'oops'. Several of them (from what I saw on the web) isn't a mistake, it's either planned or an unethical photographer. IMHO.

Personally I don't see the problem with breasts or nipples. The US is far too tightly wound about nudity in general in my opinion. YMMV.

[jeffro20]

Originally Posted by srwatters

One nipple slip is an 'oops'. Several of them (from what I saw on the web) isn't a mistake, it's either planned or an unethical photographer. IMHO.

Personally I don't see the problem with breasts or nipples. The US is far too tightly wound about nudity in general in my opinion. YMMV.

How dare we tease our young ones with sensual teases....but let's load 'em up with lots of violence and murder on TV.

[Concisus Cognatus]

Originally Posted by jeffro20

How dare we tease our young ones with sensual teases....but let's load 'em up with lots of violence and murder on TV.

And don't forget the ever popular video games.

[LSCSN.com]

I think the OP raises a great question. I think we could slip into a religious/political discussion very quickly on this one.

With the type of shoot she was on it pretty well know that the end product is supposed to have no nudity in them. With that because of the type of clothing it is very likely that wind could cause her to be more exposed. I would seriously doubt that Miss California has much issue with at least exposing herself on the set, because she has to know that is a possibility with that type of clothing.

I'm not sure she has much of a right to expect a photographer is not going to snap some shots that end up with part exposed. However, I think she has every right to expect those types of shots not to end up all over the place when that wasn't the intent of the intial shoot.

Not sure we can go much further than that without taking this thread into an area that Abel doesn't want us to go.

[sldi]

it was never a thought on my part to take this into a R/P discussion, but more on the ethics of photographers.

As photographers we often deal with models that are less uptight about nudity than the general public. I was shooting pics for an event back in January, I was shooting for the MUA and was in the makeup prep area with several models in various states of undress. It would have been rather easy for me to capture an image(s) similar to the one that Miss CA said was not approved, NEVER in a million yrs would I have done such a thing.

I am just wandering, is there a code of ethics for photographers someplace, should there be one, should models expect one or should we just rely on our common sense?

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

I've been in situations where nudity was present and did not shoot since I knew that the person did not expect to be a photographed subject, while this is a bit different since she was on a set to be photographed and things can happen during a shoot that expose bits that would not make it to the intended publication.

Now as I have heard and read in the case of Miss Calif, she was 18 at the time (this was post breast agumentation which she had right after she turned 18, this was not a specific shoot for a particular clothing line but was a shoot to show how she can model that type of clothing, I would assume that the photographer had some sort of signed release from her, I also assume that he reviewed his shots with her and then gave her portfolio from the approved shots. WE DO NOT KNOW what was actually covered by the photographer and the model after the shoot-the photographer has not really made any statements about the photos that I have come across- so we are only hearing HER side of the story.

As to the ethics of any particular photographer that comes down to each's professionalism.

[brad]

I make it clear to my models that we will look at all of the images out of camera in studio, before she leaves. If there is anything there she does not want getting out to the public, it is deleted. Right there. Period.

If she agrees.. and then later goes on to be Miss California... or Miss America .. well, then.. I guess it depends on the release she signed with me. If it is for my portfolio only.. I will still show them in my portfolio. If the release allows me to resell the rights.... well, then...

At the same time, I have an unwritten personal rule that if a model contacts me in the future and asks that I stop showing certain images of her... I probably will comply, depending on how she asks and how I feel about the shoot.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

I agree with Paul, until we know what was in the release she signed we should not hold the photographer in contempt. He "may" have made a "money vs moral" decision but even then we don't know for sure what it took to get those photos public.

If you find any details on this posted anywhere, please link to them here so we can discuss.

Or, if you want to keep this going, why not post a personal example of when you, as a photographer had to make a moral vs money decision. I wouldn't mind hearing some of those...

Joe

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

OK, she was on TV on NBC this morning and one of the talking heads asked her if more photos may come out, (not counting the ones in the pink panties or the ones where she is on the cliff and her nipples kept popping out because of high winds though her hair is perfect) and she would neither confirm nor deny if more photos are out there.

She named the photographer, Dominic Petruzzi , who did the cliff shoot (she is wearing a green vest) and she said that she was alone with the photographer on this cliff overlook and that there was a lot of wind. TOTAL HOOEEE.

The photos are on TMZ
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2
First thing, the photos show her ON THE BEACH on some rocks!
Second thing, she has a wardrobe change and looking at her makeup that has to be a makeup artist there working on her.

So to be honest I won't believe another word coming out of her mouth.

BTW the TMZ shots have red stars over her bits that pop out because of high wind, RIGHT! HIGH WIND DID IT! As she is looking right into the camera! (BTW there is a thing called two sided tape and other stickums that are used to keep bits from flashing out on their own!
FROM TMZ the Photographers Statement:

Dominic Petruzzi told us he never prompted Carrie to show her breasts -- she just did it "spontaneously" during the shoot.

Dominic says he shot the photos on a "normal day" and it's ridiculous to blame it on a breeze. As for Carrie's claim the pics were taken between shots for the modeling session (she was posing for Bliss Magazine), Dominic says BS -- "she was totally posing and looking into the camera."

Dominic also says after shooting the pics he scrolled through the shots in his camera -- including the boob shots -- and Carrie said she liked them.
http://www.dominicpetruzzi.com/
(the guy is GOOD!)

[johnastovall]

It's about time the U.S.A. grew up regarding nudity. The Miss U.S.A. should recognize the beauty of the human form and have a fully nude portion as part of the competition.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

The photographer was Dominic Petruzzi based out of Newport Beach.

http://www.dominicpetruzzi.com/

Miss CA says he did not have permission to sell the photos. Not sure what his side of it is but if he doesn't come up with some evidence in his favor I'm guessing his workload might lighten up a bit...

And for what it's worth, I don't find her explanation about the wind credible but do understand what's at stake for her.

Joe

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

OK, when a model signs a release she signs it for ALL PHOTOS TAKEN and unless she confiscates the media at the time of the shoot she can't just say that he didn't have permission to use his own work and distribute it as he wishes unless she has a specific clause saying that it can only be used for XX purposes ONLY.

I think this guy has enough experience, he started shooting in Europe, and has been in the biz for 10 years, that he would not have released the photos unless he has all of his paperwork in order.

I think she is just a pampered little ***** and someone has played their hand against her and she just doesn't like it but can't do anything about it.

Like I said above, she was on NBC's morning talk show and they flat out asked her are there other potential photos out there of her in various stages of undress and she did not answer. (I think Donald stepped in and said something about not finding anything wrong with the photos that have gone public so far).

So I think she has gotten more publicity from this than it is worth and I think that she has to live with what she has done and not try to blame it on WIND or OOPS or Whatever.