Yes, either that or send along a signed release in the event we chose to use it for personal gain. Irresponsible lot! =))
Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a difference when it comes to intent? > > For instance if one hires a model for a photoshoot, the intent > (possibly) is > to produce images that will generate income or at least be used to > promote > oneself. The need for a release is pretty clear cut. > > OTOH, simply taking photographs on the street or at a public event, > one may > not know in advance that a photograph will be used in way that may > generate > income. > > Don't people have the responsibility to stay out of the way our > lenses? ;-) > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: copyrights > >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:15:21 -0600 > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > >Subject: Re: copyrights > > > > > >>Makes sense to me. I'm no lawyer either. > >> > >>Thinking along these lines though, TV stations routinely shoot > footage on > >>street corners, at public events., etc., of persons who have not > given > >>explicit signed consent to be photographed. Nor have they given > consent > >>for the footage to be aired. That footage is shown on television > news. > >>Stepping out on a limb... Somewhat implicit in everything a news > >>organization (at least here in the US) does is the idea that it > will > >>attract advertisers and readership/viewership, hence generate > income. I > >>don't see the difference in showing a picture on the air vs. on a > T-shirt. > > > > > >News footage is considered editorial use. > >The primary intention of the media is to inform the public, not to > gather > >revenues from advertisers, not that one would know it from the crap > that > >gets fobbed off as news nowadays. > >Even then, the media needs to exercise caution. I recall Time > magazine > >landed in some shite a while back with a cover photo of a black > person in a > >business suit or some such, and a rather disparaging editorial > comment > >pasted over it. > >They argued editorial comment, the victim of the photograph argued > >otherwise, and Time lost. > > > >William Robb > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
