This thread is amusing. What if they want Jerome's photo as a cute mom & toddler promo T-shirt for an anti-abortion organization..."Wouldn't you rather see this child live?" What if it's captioned..."Don't illegimate babies have a right to life?" I'd be one unhappy grandfather if that was my daughter and grandchild. Regards, Bob S.
On 4/3/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: copyrights > >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:22:18 -0700 > > > >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 > > > > > > > >
