A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 28th 03, 01:25 PM
Bluesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #2  
Old September 29th 03, 06:20 PM
J C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3  
Old September 29th 03, 10:41 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #4  
Old October 3rd 03, 09:19 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #5  
Old October 3rd 03, 09:09 PM
J C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #6  
Old October 4th 03, 12:50 AM
Bluesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #7  
Old October 4th 03, 01:01 AM
Bluesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #8  
Old October 4th 03, 01:23 AM
Michael Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes

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.


--
Michael Benveniste --

Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
  #9  
Old October 4th 03, 01:43 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #10  
Old October 4th 03, 03:15 AM
Bluesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.