Commercial photo use w/o release???

"me" wrote:

Before you use/sell a photo for commercial purposes without a signed release
from the subject you may want to read this story first:

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap1794628.html

Even if you don't lose 15.6 million dollars like Nestle did your loss could
easily out weigh any possible profit.

Yeah, that's virtually impossible. That's why all you see in
photography, anymore, are pretty actors and models - professional
posers. That is, the present law conspires to drive the face of
humanity from all photographs for sale.

Those great dust-bowl era photos - not possible. You'd get sued.
Photos of the plains Indians. Nah - get sued today.

It's gotta stop. Society is being hurt by this prohibition and threat
of suit. There are some public venues where it is clearly posted that
anyone may be photographed. And there's the notion that public news
makes for an implicit authorization, as well. But a lot of shots,
while in public, are not in such venues or such circumstances, and
probably would require a written contract. Those 'travel' shots people
take of the colorfully dressed natives, even if it's just at
Disneyworld. They can't expect to throw an English language contract
in their face and say - sign here. Like I say, it's gotta stop. Let
reason prevail, instead.

I think you are missing the point ... the case referenced was regarding a
*professional* *model.*





"Mark Johnson" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote:

Before you use/sell a photo for commercial purposes without a signed
release
from the subject you may want to read this story first:

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap1794628.html

Even if you don't lose 15.6 million dollars like Nestle did your loss
could
easily out weigh any possible profit.

Yeah, that's virtually impossible. That's why all you see in
photography, anymore, are pretty actors and models - professional
posers. That is, the present law conspires to drive the face of
humanity from all photographs for sale.

Those great dust-bowl era photos - not possible. You'd get sued.
Photos of the plains Indians. Nah - get sued today.

It's gotta stop. Society is being hurt by this prohibition and threat
of suit. There are some public venues where it is clearly posted that
anyone may be photographed. And there's the notion that public news
makes for an implicit authorization, as well. But a lot of shots,
while in public, are not in such venues or such circumstances, and
probably would require a written contract. Those 'travel' shots people
take of the colorfully dressed natives, even if it's just at
Disneyworld. They can't expect to throw an English language contract
in their face and say - sign here. Like I say, it's gotta stop. Let
reason prevail, instead.