I am a photographer in California. What about using candids/wedding
photos in my portfolios without model releases. I have read that this
is OK. Is California an exeption in this case?

Chris M.


Michael Benveniste wrote in message . ..
On 03 Oct 2003 08:19:00 GMT, ospam (Lewis Lang)
wrote:

Civil Code Section 3344. See:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...dy=3344&hits=1
http://tinyurl.com/niz9

That list of exceptions seems a bit narrow or perhaps not well defined to me.
What exactly is the definition of "public affairs"?

You ask some good questions. I wish the answers I had were as good.

My reading is that California courts try to balance the amount of
intrusion with the interest of the public in legitimate subject
matter. One oft-cited case is Dora v. Frontline Video Inc., 15 Cal.
App. 4th 536 (1993). Mickey Dora was a surfer in the 1950's. In
upholding the use of period film in a surfing documentary the court
stated:
Matters in the public interest are not "restricted to current
events; magazines and books, radio and television may
legitimately inform and entertain the public with the
reproduction of past events, travelogues and biographies.
and
Although any one of them [the surfers] as individuals may not
have had a particular influence on our time, as a group they had
great impact. This is the point of the program, and it seems a
fair comment on real life events "which have caught the popular
imagination."
In other case, the courts denied a plaintiff compensation for a
segment of "Cops" where he was filmed telling the cops he was looking
to buy some drugs when his motorcycle got stolen. Not well defined?
You bet, and worse, the definition varies among jurisdictions and
judges within a jurisdiction.

Would a gallery show or a book of photos be a "public affair"
(informational?/educational) usage?

It depends on the subject matter of the show or book. A
collection of candids shot at Logan Airport on an ordinary day might
not rise to the level necessary. A collection of candids shot at
Logan Airport the morning of September 11th, 2001 would certainly make
the grade.

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?

There are two sets of rights involved. Neither is absolute. A
photographer has certain rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st, 5th, and 14th
amendments to grant certain privacy rights to subjects of the photos.
Lack of commercial use is a defense to a section 3344 action or a
common law appropriation of image and likeness, but it's not a defense
for the other privacy torts. Being in "public" obviously limits one's
reasonable expectation of privacy, and if you're a politician or
celebrity, the expection is further reduced.

But Jackie Onassis would have gotten her injunction against Galella
even if he never sold a shot, based on the tort of intrusion.

It's a complex subject. Entertainment law is a specialty in its own
right, and for questions about specific situations you really should
ask for professional legal advice.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.