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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Bluesea writes:
We're talking about the same Afghan girl, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? Yes. The one who looks 100 years older than she really is today. In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. My mistake. So, did they get a signed release when they took the photo? Pro'lly because she was a refugee and not precisely situated to find out and press her case? So there is no need to respect the rights of someone without lawyers? Then again, do the requirements about releases apply to people there as much as they do to people in the U.S. or Europe? In the U.S., you obey U.S. laws. The publication occurred in the U.S., not in Pakistan or Afghanistan. When the question of renumeration was raised, NG said she's being taken care of now. Twenty years later? I don't think that would go over very well in most courtrooms. Besides, if she is being paid now, that's a tacit admission that a release was required all along. Yes, with good reason. As many times as I've seen it, it still moves me. It's a great photo. Too bad the model has been living in dirt for two decades while National Geographic profited from it. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Bluesea writes: We're talking about the same Afghan girl, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? Yes. The one who looks 100 years older than she really is today. 100? I'll go 10. To me, she looks like she's in her late 30's or early to mid-40's. In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. My mistake. So, did they get a signed release when they took the photo? I don't know. Pro'lly because she was a refugee and not precisely situated to find out and press her case? So there is no need to respect the rights of someone without lawyers? I was speculating on the situation, not on the need to respect others's privacy w/ or w/o attorneys. War situations, in particular, make people forgetful of otherwise ordinary things and I don't know under what pressures McCully was working at the time. Then again, do the requirements about releases apply to people there as much as they do to people in the U.S. or Europe? In the U.S., you obey U.S. laws. The publication occurred in the U.S., not in Pakistan or Afghanistan. You have me at a disadvantage since I know very little about publishing photos of people in other countries, much less refugee camps. I would have thought that it depended on the laws of the subject's residence since it's the subject's privacy that's at stake. She had no idea that her face is famous. How was her privacy violated when no one knew who she was or where she was? When the question of renumeration was raised, NG said she's being taken care of now. Twenty years later? I don't think that would go over very well in most courtrooms. Besides, if she is being paid now, that's a tacit admission that a release was required all along. The website didn't say she's being paid, just that she's being taken care of. They did provide medical treatment for the ill members of her family as soon as they could. She didn't want anything for herself, just her family. Besides, McCully and the NG have been looking for her all these years. Where would NG have sent the checks in the meantime? Yes, with good reason. As many times as I've seen it, it still moves me. It's a great photo. Too bad the model has been living in dirt for two decades while National Geographic profited from it. From our perspective, yes. From her perspective, maybe not. We need to remember that not everyone is materialistic. Some enjoy a simple life and I've known a few, myself. I may wonder if they're just being weird or on a tangent or what, moving off to the boonies, but it's their lives, their choices. The NG website says that she doesn't want further contact and that her family has moved her to a remote location. Since she's never known another lifestyle, that doesn't seem odd to me. We should also consider how strongly people's religions can mold their lives and remember that she's a Muslim who apparently doesn't have a problem with purdah. -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"Bluesea" wrote in message ... I was speculating on the situation, not on the need to respect others's privacy w/ or w/o attorneys. War situations, in particular, make people forgetful of otherwise ordinary things and I don't know under what pressures McCully was working at the time. snip Besides, McCully and the NG have been looking for her all these years. Where would NG have sent the checks in the meantime? Not McCully. It's McCurry. Steve McCurry. -- ~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Bluesea writes:
100? I'll go 10. To me, she looks like she's in her late 30's or early to mid-40's. She either had a bad case of acne after puberty, or she survived smallpox. I was speculating on the situation, not on the need to respect others's privacy w/ or w/o attorneys. War situations, in particular, make people forgetful of otherwise ordinary things and I don't know under what pressures McCully was working at the time. I doubt that would help in court, especially after profiting from the photo for twenty years. You have me at a disadvantage since I know very little about publishing photos of people in other countries, much less refugee camps. I would have thought that it depended on the laws of the subject's residence since it's the subject's privacy that's at stake. She had no idea that her face is famous. How was her privacy violated when no one knew who she was or where she was? The law doesn't address that point. Additionally, it's not a privacy issue in this case. The issue is using someone's image for commercial purposes without a release. In the U.S. (but not necessarily in other countries), you can use someone's image for editorial or informational purposes without a release. However, NG went _far_ beyond that in this case, using this girl's image over and over to promote the magazine. That made it commercial use, and commercial use requires a release. In theory, this woman could sue in the U.S. on this basis. National Geographic probably gambled (successfully) that she would not. The website didn't say she's being paid, just that she's being taken care of. She is receiving "valuable compensation," in other words. They did provide medical treatment for the ill members of her family as soon as they could. She didn't want anything for herself, just her family. Where she lives, what she wants is irrelevant, as only her husband has the authority to decide that. Besides, McCully and the NG have been looking for her all these years. He had her in front of him when he took the picture. Where would NG have sent the checks in the meantime? NG should not have used the photo commercially until it found her. From our perspective, yes. From her perspective, maybe not. We need to remember that not everyone is materialistic. So it's okay to do without a release if you believe the model is not materialistic? We should also consider how strongly people's religions can mold their lives and remember that she's a Muslim who apparently doesn't have a problem with purdah. Still, a release is required for commercial use. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Lewis Lang writes:
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. Every instance of litigation in image rights is a roll of the dice (to a lesser extent, this is true of all IP litigation). The only consistent winners are the lawyers. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Bluesea writes: We're talking about the same Afghan girl, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? Yes. The one who looks 100 years older than she really is today. In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. My mistake. So, did they get a signed release when they took the photo? Steve mcCurry says - "Life is too short for model releases..." he is right. NG - being American - presses on with trite exploitation at light speed. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
Bruce MacNeil writes:
Steve mcCurry says - "Life is too short for model releases..." he is right. He has better lawyers than most photographers. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|