I am not a copyright lawyer.
This position was stated at a recent exhibition sponsored by the Bay
Area Press Photographers Association... one of their more successful
local photographers who has sold such work broadly to both national
and international magazine publications for editorial use gave this
guideline for when releases are necessary in his experience:
'Photos of people taken in public places where the "expectation of
privacy" is not assumed do not require releases if used for editorial
publication. There's a lot of qualitative assessment in that
statement, but unless the photo is being printed as advertising for
some brand name product or event, it would be considered an editorial
photograph just like a print I sell out of my gallery listing. I
don't have releases for such work, and the act of obtaining releases
would likely make it impossible for the work to be done in the first
place.
Work that is to be used in promoting events and/or products, where
the significance of the person in the photo is linked to the value/
use of the advertisement and desirability to a purchaser of the
promoted item, always requires a release.'
If the T-shirt is not being used as an advertisement for some product
or event, I think it would fall under the notion of editorial use and
therefore not require a release unless it were a photo made under
private or exceptional circumstances that assume an expectation of
privacy.
Godfrey
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Cotty wrote:
Without a doubt, unless you have a signed model release form of the
subject, you are infringing personal liberties by 'publishing' the pic
in this way - especially making financial gain from it.
That said, it was 5 years ago and the chances of the subject coming
across the one T-shirt are remote, so why not. If she sees it, your
friend can claim ignorance and say he picked it up at a flea
market :-)
Publish and be damned!
