| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2004 12:26:27 AM · #1 |
Who owns the rights to a photograph in the following situations:
1- A picture of a model who is trading time for prints.
2- A picture of a model who is paying a sitting fee (senior pictures, portfolio shots for a model, family photos...)
3- A picture of a person who does not know they are being photographed (sports, people watching)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:39:40 AM · #2 |
1. Photographer unless otherwise agreed.
2. Photographer unless otherwise agreed.
3. Depends. In a stadium, the team who owns it. Otherwise the photographer owns the copyright, but must get a model release to sell said picture.
That's according to US law anyways.
M
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:35:47 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
3. Depends. In a stadium, the team who owns it. |
I think it is the rare team in the USA which owns any part of a stadium these days ... they are almost all owned by various government entities and leased to the teams ... often at purely nominal rates ... |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 07:46:10 AM · #4 |
Doesn't matter. Whoever is sponsoring the event would likely own the copyright - all major league games are property of Major League Baseball or the specific team. That's what I was saying at least. :)
M
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 09:44:57 AM · #5 |
I find that surprising. I thought that the photographer always owned the copyrights unless otherwise agreed. A stadium is private property, so stadium owners can set rules for use of cameras, and may even require photographers to sign an agreement transferring copyright. I suppose they can even try to be sneaky and put such an agreement on the ticket. I don't think they can usurp copyright without notice. Commercial use of such photos would, of course, require model and location releases.
I have no experience with this, so please don't take my word for it. I just find it surprising... |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:06:08 AM · #6 |
It's on the ticket.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:14:04 PM · #7 |
| Both the Giants and A's hold a "camera day" promotion where the first 5000 fans with cameras are allowed on the outfield warning track before the game, and the players and coaches slowly walk around the inside of the perimeter to pose and wave for pictures. I haven't read whether there's a restriction on the commercial use of those photos, but they are certainly giving permission for you to take them for personal use. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:01:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
I find that surprising. I thought that the photographer always owned the copyrights unless otherwise agreed. A stadium is private property, so stadium owners can set rules for use of cameras, and may even require photographers to sign an agreement transferring copyright. I suppose they can even try to be sneaky and put such an agreement on the ticket. I don't think they can usurp copyright without notice. Commercial use of such photos would, of course, require model and location releases.
I have no experience with this, so please don't take my word for it. I just find it surprising... |
There is a lot of small print on most tickets - including that.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:06:15 PM · #9 |
Some stadiums are also banning "professional" cameras from the stands. Usually that translates to all SLR's or, in some cases SLR's with lenses greater than 6" in length.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:07:25 PM · #10 |
Regarding model release: What if you don't know who they are, or know but don't know how to contact them, but you later want to sell the photo?
Or someone who was in the background, but still recognizable? Do you have to clone them out?
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:14:14 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by airatic:
Regarding model release: What if you don't know who they are, or know but don't know how to contact them, but you later want to sell the photo? |
That's why you should carry some release forms with you. Typically, you will be asked to provide releases for all identifiable persons. The exception is if the picture is news related.
Originally posted by airatic:
Or someone who was in the background, but still recognizable? Do you have to clone them out? |
Yeah, or give them the blurry face treatment, unless of course it's news related.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:56:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There is a lot of small print on most tickets - including that. |
Also a waiver which says that if your lens or skull is fractured by a ball or bat (or berserk infielder?), you can't sue them ... |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 04:23:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There is a lot of small print on most tickets - including that. |
Also a waiver which says that if your lens or skull is fractured by a ball or bat (or berserk infielder?), you can't sue them ... |
There should be one that says if you clobber some little kid getting a foul ball you should have to give the kid the ball or the parents have the right to club you with a bat. Bat to be provided by the home team, of course.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:04:50 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There is a lot of small print on most tickets - including that. |
Also a waiver which says that if your lens or skull is fractured by a ball or bat (or berserk infielder?), you can't sue them ... |
There should be one that says if you clobber some little kid getting a foul ball you should have to give the kid the ball or the parents have the right to club you with a bat. Bat to be provided by the home team, of course. |
If a fan wants to be involved that badly, I suggest a complimentary at-bat ... against Roger Clemens ... without a batting helmet. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 04:26:24 AM · #15 |
Wow, thank you for all the excellent responses.
What if it's I'm just hanging out at a Cafe, and I take pictures of people walking by? |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 05:03:34 AM · #16 |
You own copyright to the photographs, but could be liable for damages if you use them for "commercial purposes" without model releases from all recognizable persons in them.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 08:08:33 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You own copyright to the photographs, but could be liable for damages if you use them for "commercial purposes" without model releases from all recognizable persons in them.
-Terry |
"commercial purposes"
That is the part I am trying to get more information on.
Does that include using photos on my website and business cards? Or is it strictly related to selling prints?
Also, is it illegal to take candids and post them on the internet without permission? Everyone does it, but that doesn't mean a thing.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 12:42:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's why you should carry some release forms with you. |
I have the following printed in 6 pt arial on the back of my business card (And yes, it fits, barely)...
"PHOTOGRAPHIC RELEASE - Location:
I hereby give ________________ the absolute and irrevocable right and permission, to photograph me and with respect to such photographs:
* To copyright the same in his own (or in any other) name;
* To use/re-use, publish/re-publish the same in whole or in part, individually or in conjunction with other photos or images, in any medium for any purpose, including but not limited to illustration, promotion, advertising and trade; and
* To use my name in connection therewith if he so chooses.
I give up any right I may have to inspect and approve the finished products in which the photographs may be used. I hereby release and discharge him and his employees, successors, assigns and designees from any and all claims and demands arising out of or in connection with the use of such photographs, including but not limited to any claims for defamation or invasion of privacy. I understand the contents of this release. I have the authority to grant the rights given in this release.
Signature:
Date:
Address: "
Folks can simply fill it out, sign it and I give them a copy of my card so they'll know who I am, how to contact me and what they signed. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 12:45:49 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by livingfiction:
What if it's I'm just hanging out at a Cafe, and I take pictures of people walking by? |
I think there's a legal concept called "reasonable expectation of privacy." I have always believed that in public, a person should not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, photos taken where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists don't need a release.
How else would the paparazzi get buy with what they do?
If anyone knows whether this is true or not, I'd be interested in hearing from them. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 12:55:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
How else would the paparazzi get buy with what they do? |
You are mostly correct, but the paparazzi "get away" with it because the people they photograph are generally celebrities or other "public figures" who do not enjoy the same "reasonable expectation of privacy" the rest of us are supposed to.
If you were at a cafe, you could photograph people for a relevant newspaper story without a release, but not for a poster or an advertisement for the cafe. Posting to the internet is the gray area for which case law is still being worked out ... |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 12:55:49 PM · #21 |
I don't think that's necessarily so. If I take a picture of a homeless man, he's in public, but does that mean he automatically waived his right to privacy? I would err on the side of safety and get waivers for everything you can. Better to be covered if the homeless man decides to sue you for all your profits (though I would hope that some of the profits might go to him regardless, since you would be getting money at his expense.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 01:48:44 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by airatic:
I don't think that's necessarily so. If I take a picture of a homeless man, he's in public, but does that mean he automatically waived his right to privacy? |
In some cases ... :)
Again, it depends on the circumstances and the use to which the image is put. For personal, educational, or journalistic purposes you are pretty much free to do as you please. For commercial purposes -- selling prints or postcards or using a person's likeness in advertising -- you need a consent/release.
There are a few public places where you can still expect privacy, such as restrooms and showers, but most of the time it is reasonable to assume that you are under surveillance from some private or public entity at all times ...
=======================================
From the New York Times:
Lawyers Sue Over Tapes With Detainees
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: July 2, 2004
When lawyers from the Legal Aid Society made their way into the federal detention center in Brooklyn in the fall of 2001 to meet with detainees, they said, they were alarmed to see video cameras on the walls.
Concerned about the confidentiality of their conversations with their shackled clients - immigrant detainees who were rounded up after the Sept. 11 attacks - the lawyers asked whether they were being taped. Prison officials assured them, they say, that the cameras were turned off.
But the cameras were running. The federal prison was intentionally recording the lawyer-client conversations in violation of federal law and prison policy, according to a December report by the inspector general of the Justice Department, Glenn A. Fine.
Now, in a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn yesterday against the retired warden of the detention center and other prison officers, six of the lawyers are seeking thousands of dollars in damages for the secret videotaping of their conversations at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
"Surreptitiously taping attorney-client communications is a direct attack on the role of counsel and on these Legal Aid attorneys' well-established constitutional rights," said Nelson A. Boxer, a partner of the Dechert law firm, who is representing the lawyers without fee.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages under a federal statute that prohibits electronic eavesdropping without court approval and sets $10,000 for each violation. They have agreed to donate any money award to the Legal Aid Society, they said. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 02:21:34 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There are a few public places where you can still expect privacy, such as restrooms and showers, but most of the time it is reasonable to assume that you are under surveillance from some private or public entity at all times ...
|
Certainly there is a constitutionally(?) guaranteed right to privacy covering attorney-client meetings. And there is legislated right to privacy for things like medical information. But in a public place (cemetary, street, ball park and such) certainly there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I suppose there may also be a legal concept related to exploiting a person's image for monetary value but I don't know how the two would stack up against each other if they were at odds. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 02:40:14 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There are a few public places where you can still expect privacy, such as restrooms and showers, but most of the time it is reasonable to assume that you are under surveillance from some private or public entity at all times ...
|
Certainly there is a constitutionally(?) guaranteed right to privacy covering attorney-client meetings. And there is legislated right to privacy for things like medical information. But in a public place (cemetary, street, ball park and such) certainly there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy. |
Yes, that was my point. You are being photographed at all times ... |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 03:06:08 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, that was my point. You are being photographed at all times ... |
Still, there seems to be a difference between being photographed at all time ... and what can be done with the photos. That's probably the real point of the thread. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/03/2025 05:44:03 PM EDT.
