knowing who and for what reason our pictures are sold

I worked with one company that would tell you who bought your photo and for what purpose it would be used. They also gave you info if it was going on the web or for print so you could acquire a copy for your portfolio. 

This is helpful for the photographer so they can show prospective buyers of their work ad campaigns with their photos in them. Saying my work was used in National Geographic, or Time, or For a Coca Cola ad and producing the ad with your photo is impressive to would be buyers.

I can also recall a situation where there was a picture of a girl who looked rather sad. It was a wonderful image and they had a model release. The photo sold and one day the model contacted the photographer about an ad she saw with that image and she was steaming mad about it. It was an ad for sexually transmitted diseases and her sad look was used in the ad about teens having unprotected sex and dont let this be you.

Obviously Had the photographer or model known to what use the image would be going for they would not have released the image to the buyer. Last I heard the model and photographer were both in court against the stock agency and the ad company that used her photo.

Is there anyway we can be informed to what use our images will be used?

Just a thought. I know the one company always gave me a heads up and asked me if I wanted to do that before selling it to the buyer.

Just a thought you may want to implement here.

Thanks Mike :)

I guess what you are describing is basically rights managed image licensing, as opposed to royalty free, where the photographer can evaluate and approve the use of his/her images on an individual basis. To offer rights managed services at royalty free prices would not be possible.

Your example about the model and photographer being unhappy with the use of an image brings up some important issues though: it is very, very important that both the model and the photographer fully understand what they are doing when they are signing the model release and agreeing to the licence agreement. By signing a model release, the model usually agrees that they will not be able to approve or reject individual uses of the images in the future. Usually there are some restrictions regarding contexts considered defamatory, illegal, discriminating etc (so your STD example would probably be borderline at least), but that is about it. 

So in other words the model has no legal right to decide in retrospect that they don't want their photos associated with a specific brand for example, once they have signed a model release where they waive that right. For photographers it is equally important that they explain to the model what the model release entails, and not pretend that it it doesn't really mean anything, just to get a model's signature. 

From a customer's point of view, the last thing you want is of course to launch an ad campaign only to be contacted directly by a model or photographer who have had a change of heart when they suddenly see their images in actual use, although the customer is well within the terms of the image license and model release.

I should mention that it is already possible for customers who have bought an image at Crestock to leave a comment for the image that they have used, and perhaps post a link to show it in use. In fact we encourage everyone to do exactly that, even if we understand that this wouldn't always be on top of your list of priorities to do so. 

Thanks for the responses all.

lephotography some people may say any sale is a good sale. This could be true.

But it will limit what I post here as far as my model portfolios. I'm very protective of those type of photos and who uses them and for what reasons.

As far as my nature and scenic stuff I'm not as picky there as there is no person that would be impacted by it.

Good info for others to think about though when posting images.

Thanks again :)