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