Brief cases: nearly £2,000 lost to modelling scam

I disagree that “Not being given the photos in return for the money amounts to fraud“. It’s simply a breach of contract. Only if one can prove that the business asked for the money in bad faith with no intention of supplying the photos would it be fraud.

As I said earlier, if Media Style routinely took money but did not supply photos……. I see that as fraud. But I’d simply like more information so that Media Style can be assessed.

@gmartin, George, I don’t doubt the experience. I know nothing about Media Style and have no interest in modelling, but what concerned me was that one instance given in this Convo labelled them as a “scammer” – “Lisa researched the company and realised she’d been scammed. “.

I do not consider one bad experience as sufficient to put such a blanket description; in my book it needs a clear intent to defraud as a regular occurrence to define a “scam”. I have asked for more evidence of MS repeating this practice but have seen none. It also seems that other agencies use MS for photography and those “agencies” might be the scammers, according to online reports. I won’t repeat names here.

Thanks, Wave. I should have included that link.

I believe it is.

Lisa’s son attended a photo test shoot with Media Style

Media Style are currently running a seri4es of online articles on how to recognise and avoid scams.

Thanks George. The link seems to be about the general scam by some so-called model agencies, rather than about the specific one accused here. It is mentioned, but one post suggests they went to an “agency” that apparently then “ used Media Style in Bateman street for us,“. I wonder whether Media Style were complicit or simply used as a photo service by the perpetrator.

I’ve just read those Google reviews and they are so conflicting, my thought is ……….Which ones are fake?

The allegation in this Convo is that Media Style took nearly £2000 for a portfolio of photos but then refused to hand over the photos. As far as I can see non of the reviews in the above link said that had happened to them. Most negative reviews complained that they were asked to pay for the photos that had been taken.

Whether Media Style operates by misrepresenting what they will achieve is a different matter.

Some say they used a different “agency” that sent them to MS for the photography; I presume Lisa did not take this route? I’d simply like to see evidence that taking money without giving photos is a practice – “scam” – , as alleged, that Media Style indulge in as it is a serious accusation..

Okay as a victim, i am going to be clear about the confusion on here. Media style owns a company called Identity management and i was scammed by them in thinking exactly what Lisa was told, they change their name alot they are one big scam linked altogether. Media style claim they are not a platform or anything. This is ridiculous because in the assessment they claim to be. They verbally enter into a contract with you that one cannot prove then entice you to sign a contract that says theres a no cooling off period but you will be guareented jobs if you pay for the package now otherwise if you do not then we will delete the photos on spot. New york fashion week, GT models and identity models is all i know about so far but they operate under different names. I actually have evidence to prove this but will not supply it here as he/she could go on here and see it. I got scammed 2K. At the end of the day you do not need to pay for a portfolio to be a model, if an agency is reputable and wants you they will pay for it for you as stated by modelling agencies ive spoken to. Ive learnt my lesson to research alot but the damage has been done they are smarter than people think. Smaller banks are refusing chargebacks but it seems the bigger banks are saying yes to getting their refund back because this is bigger than people think. There is no misleading you they are a scam Media style linked with other names such as also TMMC. I am indeed still fighting for my money back a long with other people who i speak to with a group on going regarding investiagations aswell.

I should also add, they promise you jobs, its been 4months with crappy photos i never needed to pay for in the first place and no jobs offers either you are told you were paying for the photos and to land jobs.

Until surcharges were banned it was often more expensive to use a credit card, but that is history.

I cannot understand why anyone buys lottery tickets because there is not much chance of winning and if you want to support charities it’s better to do that directly.

Lottery tickets – the same reason people gamble on the pools, horses, casinos online. They will, as a group, always lose because the prize money is less than the stake. But some do win and it is for many the only way they might have a (slim) chance to become substantially richer.

I only buy one ticket in each lottery draw, just so I have a chance, albeit a tiny one, of winning millions of pounds. It’s better to have a tiny chance than no chance. I often win small amounts and once won £1500, which significantly funded the purchase of more tickets. Since a very young age, I’ve been lucky with winning money, and you can’t win unless you have a ticket.

NFH, many older people don’t possess credit cards. They have bank accounts and will have been issued with debit cards, but having used cash all their lives have never seen the need for credit cards and write cheques for any larger payments.

It’s not that long ago I realised my dad doesn’t have a credit card, only a debit card that does get used in a few High Street stores. I think have scared him enough to never use it online. He is under strict instructions that if he wants anything online I will get it for him and he then calls his bank to transfer the money to my account.

I don’t accept the argument about older people preferring debit cards over credit cards. Credit cards existed long before debit cards first appeared in the UK in the late 1980s. Before then, if you paid by card, it was a credit card. So older people are generally more used to credit cards than debit cards. If there’s generation that favours debit cards over credit cards, it’s the youngest in society.

Actually, within the limited subset of older people that I help in my role as a volunteer computer buddy, I tend to see greater use of debit cards than credit cards.

Possible explanations are that drawing cash, even over the counter, requires the use of a debit card and that using a credit card entails the risks of neglecting to pay the bill and/or spending beyond ones means.

The interest rates charged on credit cards are so high that unless you are an organised person or pay credit cards by direct debit you are at risk of interest charges.

I suspect that many are simply accustomed to using debit cards. Until card surcharges were banned it was necessary to check for surcharge fees, which were far more common with credit cards than debit cards.

I didn’t say older people preferred debit cards, some have just never got credit cards. Years ago, I heard my Dad talk about his Barclaycard, but only recently realised he was just referring to the debit card on his Barclays bank account.

Older people will have bank accounts that initially came with a cheque book and cheque guarantee card. The cheque guarantee card automatically turned into a debit card at some stage. If they wanted cash, they wrote out a cheque and went into their bank to cash it. If they made a large payment, they wrote out a cheque. And that is the way many still operate their finances especially if they are not well-off.

You have to physically apply for a credit card, they are not given out automatically, and why apply for one if you live within your means and are happy with the way you handle your finances?

Someone knocked on my door the other day and showed me an aerial view of my house and garden – taken by their light aircraft he told me. £99, then when I demurred reduced to £45. I had no intention of buying one and he flew off.

I would have security concerns about such activity. Presuming that the aerial photograph is at a much higher resolution than is provided by Google Earth it could reveal features or private objects whose images should not be tradable without specific prior consent. Even if you had bought the picture, I bet you would not have owned the underlying data rights to the image; in the wrong hands they could be valuable. I can’t believe this isn’t somehow illegal.

I might have been sunbathing naked on the lawn – not for public consumption. Otherwise nothing to hide and no WMDs.

Not sure about the law, but Google land images are presumably legal, as are satellite images. Aerial surveys will also photograph private property in the course of their task. Does anyone know? Which? Legal?

We bought an aerial shot of our property at the door quite a while before they appeared online. I can’t remember how much, but we thought the price was reasonable at the time.

There are such good aerial views online now, I would not have thought there was a market for hawkers trying to sell them.

Apart from Google, I found this site not long ago that has some quite good aerial shots although it might depend where your are.
https://www.getmapping.com/
You click on buy to view various years.

It’s a bit of a rat’s nest: “Firstly, it’s legal to take photos in a public place. There is no right to privacy that forbids you taking a person’s photo so long as you are standing on public property. You can even take a photo of someone in their house or backyard so long as you don’t step on their private property.

Secondly, nobody can claim copyright to their own image. So long as you are on public property you can publish the photo. But if you publish a photo taken by someone else you run into copyright issues. Get permission to use it.

Using a photo for commercial purposes is different. You are welcome to take happy snaps of the Opera House, but if you then use the photo to advertise a product without permission of the Opera House you will be in trouble with the managers. This is “commercial use” and needs approval.

Similarly if you are standing on private property it is illegal to take pictures or film without permission. This includes shopping malls, industrial sites, farms and office blocks. Technically it’s illegal to use your camera phone to film a rock concert, but they’ve given up policing it.”

“Generally you have the right to photograph anywhere that is public property, including public roads, footpaths, rights of way and between high and low tide at least if not the entire beach areas throughout the UK. Generally no person has the right of privacy of themselves or their property photographed from such a place.”

Switzerland is one of a handful of countries that has prohibited street view imagery.

I suppose if something is visible from the public highway there can be no objection to filming it [Google Streetview], but people are surely entitled to privacy in their back gardens? I assumed there was some form of control over aerial surveys, but perhaps not. Certainly, aerial photographs taken for military purposes show an incredible amount of detail – but they are not hawked around for monetary gain or used for inappropriate purposes [I hope]. I recall the hoo-ha when it was suggested that the water companies would spy on people using a hosepipe during a water shortage. Publicly available satellite images are too blurry, or are obscured by shadows and trees, to provide much detail but a plane at low altitude [or a drone] can be manoeuvred to get the full picture. Of course, from a more useful point of view, a heat sensing camera could probably register the hot air coming out of a tumble dryer vent pipe should there ever be a need to identify the locations of such appliances.

Thanks alfa. Shows my property in 2015 and I could have a pic for £18.90+vat.

Did you click on the show preview to check the quality?

I would not be surprised if it was extremely similar to the one someone tried to sell you at the door.

I suppose a ‘light aircraft’ could be a drone with a camera.

I did. It was OK. A pilotless light aircraft – even more worrying than a driverless car.