I'm sure you're correct. It's just the silly absurdness of this
situation... and the five years that have passed.
Tom C.
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyrights
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:08:56 -0400
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
