It's likely a different scenario risk-wise, liability-wise, etc., depending
on whether one T-shirt is sold or 100,000.
If a photographer makes, for sake of argument, $1000 on the publication of
an image, does their potential liability extend beyond that $1000? To my
way of thinking, no. In today's legal system, likely yes.
Tom C.
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: "pentax list" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: copyrights
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:38:46 +0100
On 3/4/06, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
>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.
This is all editorial useage.
The question is whether the act of walking down a public highway,
wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a person(s) on it comes under this
same editorial useage, or whether it is classed as 'commercial' (as in
commercial gain).
This would be an interesting test case!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
