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
  #21  
Old October 7th 03, 10:23 PM
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: " 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
  #23  
Old October 8th 03, 12:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes

http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketin...978552,00.html

I wish I knew more details about this - if there was a model relases at all
for some of the pictures, or if it is just a case of "unacceptable" use of
an image.




  #24  
Old October 8th 03, 12:59 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes

Enter Your Full Name writes:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketin...978552,00.html

I wish I knew more details about this - if there was a model relases at all
for some of the pictures, or if it is just a case of "unacceptable" use of
an image.


It sounds like he did not sign a release, and that EasyJet is just using
pictures of people who are "newsworthy." It's a touchy area. This
being Europe, I'm surprised that the courts do not come down squarely on
the side of the model, as model rights are usually given priority over
freedom of expression in Europe.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #25  
Old October 9th 03, 08:17 PM
Chris Maness
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

 




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 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.