| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2005 07:59:41 AM · #1 |
| I hope that you have licences from the photographers to use their pictures... especially at the rates you are charging! ;) |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 06:50:57 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Cool. So then I can go ahead and publish this?
 |
actually, you have raised another interesting issue...the difference between internet publishing and print/radio/video publishing.
a case was just decided against a blogger in CA for releasing information about Apple. he argued 1st Amendment protections, but the courts found against him and ordered him to give up his sources. i'm not sure of the final disposition of the case.
another factor that comes into play is parody. if your work is an obvious play on something else, you typically don't have to have a release.
to be safe, though, in your example, based on the case i mentioned, i think you would be able to get away with it as is if you printed and mailed a few copies, then made it available on-line.
at this point, i am really crossing that line of 'practicing law without a license'...i would in no way encourage anyone to behave as badly as me, or even worse, as badly as you, without having a good attorney on retainer ;-) |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 02:21:58 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by debitipton:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Cool. So then I can go ahead and publish this?
|
YES! The nitty gritty DPC "facts" please publish this monthly |
Sorry. I uncharacteristically derailed this thread. I'm moving out. You can find me here. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 01:36:10 AM · #4 |
Whew!!!! I almost afraid to get into this one. It was sorta hashed over the other night to.
It all has to do with public domain. If you (the photog) are in public view and the subject is in public, on a street or in a building, you do not need a model release, although as I always say "it never hurts". If you hide in the bushes or hide your camera, then you are not in public domain___BAD PAPPARAZZI!!! Then it doesn't matter where or who you shoot, you can be in bad trouble if you publish. Jane Fonda can do nothing about it if she out in front of her house stripped to the waist and you walk by, see her and publicly and openly take the shot. If the camera is under your coat, then you got issues.
but as skiprow says; be sure_support your local attorney
Message edited by author 2005-04-12 01:38:39. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:47:29 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Cool. So then I can go ahead and publish this?
|
YES! The nitty gritty DPC "facts" please publish this monthly
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:47:22 AM · #6 |
| kpriest - YOU should get a ribbon just for the April Fool's issue! That is terrific! Publish away, my man! |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:36:43 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Clear as mud. So...the shot above requires model release. This shot does not? |
well...you put out an interesting image. i think if she was blended in, you would be ok; but, to make her stand out, you would need a release. that is, if you were to use it for a commercial purpose. if you were to sell the image to a magazine showing that she was out in public, enjoying a ball game, you wouldn't need a release. |
Cool. So then I can go ahead and publish this?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 09:27:34 PM · #8 |
ok, i am NOT a lawyer, but i have been digging into this, as street/event/candid photography is one of my main interest.
NOTE: if you want to skip this, there are some good links at the bottom of this post
first, this is not about how YOU want to interpret things for the sake of arguement. it is a matter of understanding the legal definitions and constructs that go along with defining individual's rights and photographer's rights. i can give you my best interpretation of what i've read and studied, but if you want the real deal, you should talk to a lawyer, not a photographer.
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by ScottK:
morally, in your opinion, why is there a difference. Photojournalism is just a business. |
My question exactly. |
my opinion has no bearing. what has bearing is what holds up in court. it doesn't matter that the publisher is a commercial interest--that has nothing to do with it. their business is providing information to the public. anything shot for editorial purposes requires no model release.
Originally posted by ScottK:
On the lawyer who tracked down the subject and sued: I wonder how much the lawyer made on the deal. If he made a nickel, was he doing it on principle, or was he just exploiting the photographer and the subject to make a few bucks? |
he was in it entirely for the money. he saw an opportunity and he exploited. i definitely have got to dig this article out.
Originally posted by kpriest:
Clear as mud. So...the shot above requires model release. This shot does not? |
well...you put out an interesting image. i think if she was blended in, you would be ok; but, to make her stand out, you would need a release. that is, if you were to use it for a commercial purpose. if you were to sell the image to a magazine showing that she was out in public, enjoying a ball game, you wouldn't need a release.
Originally posted by Travis99:
what about celeberties? |
you can take pictures of whoever you want in public. it's not the taking of pictures that is the issue. it's what you do with them. you cannot sell images of other people without their permission, unless you are selling it to satisfy an editorial purpose (ie, the news). if you are on private property (which includes theatres), you cannot shoot without their permission. if you have the venue's permission, you can take pictures, but you cannot do anything (ie, publicy display them or sell them) with them without the subject's permission.
Originally posted by ahaze:
So tabloids are considered newspapers? I know plenty of stars have sued tabloids/photographers for wedding photos |
their suits have been along the lines of invasion of privacy and/or tresspassing. you cannot go onto someone else's property to take pictures without their permission. it's that simple. that's why the paparazzi have such long lenses. the suits typically have to do with crashing private parties or violations of airspace.
public figures do present interesting questions. on one hand, courts have found that they have less expectation of a right to privacy (ie, eating dinner in a restaurant), but that they have a higher expectation of compensation for the commercial use of their image (ie, try taking their picture in your restaurant and then trying to use that image as an endorsement for your restaurant without paying them...).
these are all excellent questions, and really, the best resource i have is bert krages book the Legal Handbook for Photographers. here are some links:
Bert Krages
Legal Handbook
Photographer's Rights |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 08:51:04 PM · #9 |
Yes, the tabloids are considered part of the "free press." The usual problems come from where the photographer trespassed or used fraudulent means to gain the position from which to shoot the photos.
If you are on public property (not the same as a public place) you can shoot any celebs your see, and sell the photos to the publication of your choice. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 08:36:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Public figures" are more-or-less exempt for photojournalism, but you still need a release for any "commercial use" (selling newspapers is not "commercial use"). |
So tabloids are considered newspapers? I know plenty of stars have sued tabloids/photographers for wedding photos, etc, but I would assume just as many don't sue. Is that because, even in the National Enquirer, it's still considered photojournalism?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 08:33:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
How do the papparazzi get away with it I wonder? |
"Public figures" are more-or-less exempt for photojournalism, but you still need a release for any "commercial use" (selling newspapers is not "commercial use"). |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:35:55 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
And chances are much higher that a famous person will come after you than a Tibetan monk! :D
|
It's not the Tibetan monk, it's the American Lawyer who hunts down the Tibetan monk to represent him after seeing his picture on a can of "Tibetan's Choice Instant Coffee" that you have to worry about. :) |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:28:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by PollyBean:
I'm not sure about the exact legalities, but a photo of a person for editorial use can be used without permission. However a shot of a person intended for commercial use (advertising, etc.) needs a model release. |
Makes sense. And chances are much higher that a famous person will come after you than a Tibetan monk! :D
How do the papparazzi get away with it I wonder? |
Hard necks! |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:24:35 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by PollyBean:
I'm not sure about the exact legalities, but a photo of a person for editorial use can be used without permission. However a shot of a person intended for commercial use (advertising, etc.) needs a model release. |
Makes sense. And chances are much higher that a famous person will come after you than a Tibetan monk! :D
How do the papparazzi get away with it I wonder?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:23:06 PM · #15 |
I'm not sure about the exact legalities, but a photo of a person for editorial use can be used without permission. However a shot of a person intended for commercial use (advertising, etc.) needs a model release.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:22:05 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by PollyBean:
I think for anything that's going to be sold a release is simply good manners not to mention good sense(on the part of the photog).
Ever heard of the coffee jar guy who discovered his image on a major coffee brand jar.....Coffee Jar Model Case, via Google |
LOL something interesting about this story too that I read. This guy initially did a model shoot with the company for the purpose of using his image as they eventually did. However, it was decided at the time that they would go with a different image. Years later, someone going through a photo archive at the coffee company saw the image and decided to run with it.
Unfortunately that person did not do the required research or they would have found that when they initially decided not to use the image they did not purchase the license or rights to it, instead they kept the image for future consideration and paid the model for his time, as was the custom. It was never intended to be an illegal use of an image it was just a very expense blunder as a result of not doing the proper research.
I agree this man deserved to be paid for the use of his image retroactively (not his fault they didn’t do their homework) I do hesitate to compare the entire situation to someone knowingly using an image without permission.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:16:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
what about celeberties? |
I'm curious about that too:
I'd love to be able to do something with these!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:12:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
I don't think the photographer got a release for this famous shot, which I think has accumulated great commercial value:
 |
There is an interesting story behind this picture. Here's an update to what happened when National Geographic re-found the "Afghan Woman" the subject of this photo. At the bottom you'll notice that she is being looked after financially and as a result of this image a fund was set up for people in similar situations.
Sure initially there was no written permission given (but obviously given the life she lead as a female there was verbal permission) and I'm willing to bet even "finding" her was a commercial as well as emotional project - but ultimately she did benefit.
It would be nice to think that we could go through life always looking after the individual’s rights from our 1st world perspective – but in reality sometimes you have to look at a situation in broader terms. It’s foolish to think that what we consider moral or legal overrides the beliefs of each individual country.
Do I think a model release should be attempted in every situation? No. Sometimes a smile, a willing face and an open attempt at communication convey more then enough permission.
The key I think is whether you are only looking to profit financially from another persons condition or if you are also looking to profit from shared experiences with humanity. Just because you gain money from an activity, it does not mean it is only ever about the money.
Afghan Woman |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:08:55 PM · #19 |
I think for anything that's going to be sold a release is simply good manners not to mention good sense(on the part of the photog).
Ever heard of the coffee jar guy who discovered his image on a major coffee brand jar.....Coffee Jar Model Case, via Google |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:07:46 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:55:01 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by skiprow:
it's one thing to be shooting for a news agency, it's another thing altogether to be taking travel shots to sell. |
Why? Not legally, but morally, in your opinion, why is there a difference. Photojournalism is just a business. The photojournalist sells to the publication, which in turn sells to the public. Why does who the image gets sold to make a difference. |
My question exactly.
Originally posted by ScottK:
On the lawyer who tracked down the subject and sued: I wonder how much the lawyer made on the deal. If he made a nickel, was he doing it on principle, or was he just exploiting the photographer and the subject to make a few bucks? |
Ambulance chasers become photographer chasers. If the model did not seek out the lawyer, I would be hard-pressed to think the lawyer did it for any other reason than money.
Originally posted by skiprow:
...you have a picture of people in a crowd
however, if you have a picture of people in a crowd, but crop out everyone to single out a specific person, you would need that person's permission to use the image commercially. |
Clear as mud. So...the shot above requires model release. This shot does not?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:47:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by phreakon:
Keep in mind so far, we're only assuming that the guy at the festival didn't do this beforehand, and we can only hope he did. Those images are absolutely astounding. Wow. |
Assuming he didn't do what beforehand? Get model releases? He specifically told me he did not. |
oops, I'm sorry. I must have misread, I thought we were all speculating. I apologize. I didn't realize he had been specific, as to not getting the releases. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:42:56 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
it's one thing to be shooting for a news agency, it's another thing altogether to be taking travel shots to sell. |
Why? Not legally, but morally, in your opinion, why is there a difference. Photojournalism is just a business. The photojournalist sells to the publication, which in turn sells to the public. Why does who the image gets sold to make a difference.
On the lawyer who tracked down the subject and sued: I wonder how much the lawyer made on the deal. If he made a nickel, was he doing it on principle, or was he just exploiting the photographer and the subject to make a few bucks?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:37:06 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
Keep in mind so far, we're only assuming that the guy at the festival didn't do this beforehand, and we can only hope he did. Those images are absolutely astounding. Wow. |
Assuming he didn't do what beforehand? Get model releases? He specifically told me he did not.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:33:56 PM · #25 |
| This is a good thread. It is definitely a tough situation, especially regarding releases when you're in a country that doesn't speak your language (or well enough to understand a legal document), so I can see photographers snapping away regardless of their rights. Keep in mind so far, we're only assuming that the guy at the festival didn't do this beforehand, and we can only hope he did. Those images are absolutely astounding. Wow. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 09:54:21 PM EDT.
