Neither the model or National Geographic own the photo, the photographer does. (By default that is, yes alternate arrangements are [too] often made.) It's the owner who gets to put it up on their website, or sell prints, or license it for use in National Geographic (print edition only, print+web, CD, whatever.)
But law shouldn't matter in any of this. The photographer should be able to do the right thing without having his hand forced. Sandy Harris wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 9:10 AM, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Professional Photographers Rule #1: Do not publish, in any form, nude photos >> unless you have a long Form (SMP) Model Release specifically allowing you to >> do so. >> >> It does not matter whether you are morally, legally, and ethically entitled >> to; >> you are still into a world of woe if you do. ... >> >> Sure you will probably win the case, but the cost in time and money is not >> worth it. > > Also, if she's objecting to having her nude photos on the net, where anyone > can > copy them and a potential employer or a boyfriend or whoever might find them > by Googling her name, then she has a point. I'd say you should respect her > wishes on this. > > There have been legal cases around "re-purposing" of data. Should National > Geographic give photographers more money when it use their photos on CD > as well as in print? What about newspaper writers whose work is later used > on the paper's web site -- I think it was New York Times who went to court > over that one? That sort of question is the main issue in the current strike > by Hollywood and TV writers. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
