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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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: Sat, Oct 4, 2003 12:23 AM Message-id: 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 SNIP Thanks Mike for your detailed answers. Even with case examples it does seem a bit of a legal "Wild Wild West" or at least some lines/areas seem a bit gray. Thanks again, Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
What are commercial purposes though? Surely anything that appears in magazine/newspaper/website/television is a commercial use. It may be on the News, but the TV station doesn't make a news program for fun - it makes it for a profit. It's exactly the same with newspapers and magazines. The only non-commercial use therefore, is if you publish in a free to view medium with no advertisements. This just isn't going to happen, unless you print a photo just for yourself to hang on your own wall. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Enter Your Full Name writes:
What are commercial purposes though? Advertising, product endorsement, works of fiction (movies, TV, whatever), anything that presents a person's image as being anything other than what it is (i.e., showing a person's face and saying "this could be a crook"), and so on. Surely anything that appears in magazine/newspaper/website/ television is a commercial use. No. Some uses are just for purposes of information. It may be on the News, but the TV station doesn't make a news program for fun - it makes it for a profit. But it makes its profit by collecting and presenting news, not by using the likenesses of specific individuals for their own value. Anyone who robs a bank may be pictured on TV, but since the news does that for anyone, it's not a commercial use. The only non-commercial use therefore, is if you publish in a free to view medium with no advertisements. No. News media, textbooks, scholarly works, works of non-fiction, and so on are generally considered non-commercial. Motion pictures (other than straight documentaries), works of fiction, advertisements, television commercials, and so on are generally considered commercial. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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: " EnterYour Full Name " Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2003 11:07 AM Message-id: What are commercial purposes though? When something (in this case, a photograph) is used to sell or promote a product or a service. Surely anything that appears in magazine/newspaper/website/television is a commercial use. Surely not... It may be on the News, but the TV station doesn't make a news program for fun - it makes it for a profit. It's exactly the same with newspapers and magazines. If it appears in the news program to illustrate a story/for informational/educational purposes then it is non-commercial - if it appears in a commercial during that news broadcast's commercial break in order to sell a product or a service it is being commercially used. Therein lies the difference. Same thing goes for a photo that is used to illustrate the subject of an article (editorial usage) while the same photo used in the same magazine as an ad to seel toothpaste or life insurance (or whatever) would be a commercial usage. Its a very simple concept. The only non-commercial use therefore, is if you publish in a free to view medium with no advertisements. Not so, see above. This just isn't going to happen, unless you print a photo just for yourself to hang on your own wall. See above. Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|