I suggest you, and anyone else who is interested, read a good
photographer's legal guide. While the books tend to go overboard a bit,
the general concepts are not so hard to grasp. The rule of thumb to
apply is "does there appear to be money involved". If there is it brings
out the larceny in everyone involved's heart.
The US Constitution grants freedom of the press. That means that
editorially anything short of libel is ok. But it has to at least
pretend to be informing the public. Anything that looks like it was
intended to make money (yes, we all know that the press is in business
to make money, but they are usually careful to abide by the letter of
the law if not the spirit) is a violation of the persons rights unless
they have clearly given their consent for the commercial use of their
image.
About the only clear consent that will stand up in a court of law is a
written one -- hence the need for a model or property release. When I
was in business, I thought long and hard and decided that for things
like this thread is about a short easy to understand non-threatening
release would do (go check the ASMP's sample release to see what I mean
by threatening). For professional model's I used the ASMP's release, for
street work I used the short form that easily fit on a 3x5 card and
could be read in a minute flat, in exchange for signing that I offered
to send them an 8x10 print. 90% of the people asked signed one no problem.
The whole bothersome thing is just part and parcel of the business of
being a commercial photographer. About like having to keep tax records.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Tom C 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
