gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"J C" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:06:42 -0500, "Dreamer" wrote: "Randyman" wrote in message ... I understand the single model concept of legal permission for commercial purposes, but when a photographer takes a photo of an example such as a crowd or small group of people at the zoo does he or she need permission (written) from all the people recognizable before that photo could be used in an exhibit or put in a newspaper? Thanks -- Newspaper, no - that's editorial (reportage) and covered by the First Amendment in the US at least. Not always. There was a case about a decade and a half ago that went like this. New York Magazine was running a story on the rise of black in executive positions. As a cover photo they ran a shot of a black man in a business suit standing on a New York street corner. He did not know he was being photographed. The man sued and won. The major point being that he did not agree to having his image appended to editorial content. But, a cover photo isn't editorial. It's to sell the magazine which makes it commercial. -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:25:06 GMT, "Bluesea"
wrote: But, a cover photo isn't editorial. It's to sell the magazine which makes it commercial. I would say that it would really depend. Surely you can think of a case where a cover photo would be editorial. I know I can. -- JC |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
J C writes:
I would say that it would really depend. Surely you can think of a case where a cover photo would be editorial. I know I can. National Geographic certainly played that card with its photo of that young girl in Afghanistan. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Subject: gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission
for commercial purposes From: (Michael Benveniste) Date: Tue, Sep 16, 2003 12:47 PM Message-id: "Randyman" wrote in message ... I understand the single model concept of legal permission for commercial purposes, but when a photographer takes a photo of an example such as a crowd or small group of people at the zoo does he or she need permission (written) from all the people recognizable before that photo could be used in an exhibit or put in a newspaper? Thanks -- "It depends," of course! In this situation, it depends on where you take the photo and the purpose of the photograph. Privacy laws change from country to country, and within the U.S. from state to state. For example, California has codified the rules in Civil Code Section 3344. See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...dy=3344&hits=1 http://tinyurl.com/niz9 The California law state that when someone is recognizable, you need a release except when the image is used in connection with news, sports, political or public affairs. The laws in other states (and the U.K.) follow the same pattern, but vary in terms of what's considered newsworthy, the assignability of such rights, and whether the right terminates with death of the subject. This is not a legal opinion. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. Thanks Michael: That list of exceptions seems a bit narrow or perhaps not well defined to me. What exactly is the definition of "public affairs"? Would a gallery show or a book of photos be a "public affair" (informational?/educational) usage? Regardless of what California/other states claim(s), people in public are/should be fair game for non-commercial usage - otherwise wouldn't California be infringing on first ammendment rights? Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:41:08 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: J C writes: I would say that it would really depend. Surely you can think of a case where a cover photo would be editorial. I know I can. National Geographic certainly played that card with its photo of that young girl in Afghanistan. Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright eyes that appears in all their ads? Was that taken in Afghanistan? I ask because I've not subscribed in well over a decade, but I remember getting that issue. So if your talking about the photo that I have in mind, its pretty old. -- JC |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"J C" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:25:06 GMT, "Bluesea" wrote: But, a cover photo isn't editorial. It's to sell the magazine which makes it commercial. I would say that it would really depend. Surely you can think of a case where a cover photo would be editorial. I know I can. Yes, of course. It would have been better if I had inserted "necessarily" or "automatically" between "isn't" and "editorial" and "generally" between "It's" and "to." "But, a cover photo isn't necessarily editorial. It's generally to sell the magazine...." -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"J C" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:41:08 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: National Geographic certainly played that card with its photo of that young girl in Afghanistan. Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright eyes that appears in all their ads? Was that taken in Afghanistan? If we're thinking about the same photo, no. While the girl was Afghan, the photo was taken in a refugee camp in Pakistan. I ask because I've not subscribed in well over a decade, but I remember getting that issue. So if your talking about the photo that I have in mind, its pretty old. It was taken by Steve McCurry in 1984. Here's a follow-up, dated 3/7/2003, which includes a photo of her as a woman: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...2_sharbat.html or, http://tinyurl.com/4tja. -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
J C writes:
Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright eyes that appears in all their ads? Yes. Was that taken in Afghanistan? Yes. They finally found the girl (now a woman) recently and turned it into a Major Media Event. The fact that they (presumably) never got a release from her to begin with is never mentioned, even though her image was used in some pretty commercial ways for decades. So if your talking about the photo that I have in mind, its pretty old. It has been quite a cash cow for National Geographic. Much more than you'd expect for mere "editorial" usage. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... J C writes: Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright eyes that appears in all their ads? Yes. Was that taken in Afghanistan? Yes. We're talking about the same Afghan girl, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. They finally found the girl (now a woman) recently and turned it into a Major Media Event. The fact that they (presumably) never got a release from her to begin with is never mentioned, even though her image was used in some pretty commercial ways for decades. Pro'lly because she was a refugee and not precisely situated to find out and press her case? Then again, do the requirements about releases apply to people there as much as they do to people in the U.S. or Europe? I don't mean *should* they. I mean if they actually do, by law, considering how many basic civil rights aren't observed in that part of the world as they are here. When the question of renumeration was raised, NG said she's being taken care of now. So if your talking about the photo that I have in mind, its pretty old. It has been quite a cash cow for National Geographic. Much more than you'd expect for mere "editorial" usage. Yes, with good reason. As many times as I've seen it, it still moves me. -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com