| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2005 09:27:34 PM · #26 |
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 |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:36:43 AM · #27 |
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?
 |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:47:22 AM · #28 |
| kpriest - YOU should get a ribbon just for the April Fool's issue! That is terrific! Publish away, my man! |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:47:29 AM · #29 |
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 01:36:10 AM · #30 |
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 02:21:58 AM · #31 |
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 06:50:57 AM · #32 |
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 07:59:41 AM · #33 |
| I hope that you have licences from the photographers to use their pictures... especially at the rates you are charging! ;) |
|
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: 04/25/2024 01:40:17 PM EDT.
