 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2005Re: Photographer sued by subject over long-distance street shot
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... > "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote in message > news:11chjdtqq630eae@news.supernews.com... >> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:j9ednczqL-jcM1XfRVn-2Q@comcast.com... >>> >>> "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote >>>> That's just silly. NG is a documentary journal. >>>> >>> I wasn't aware that, "documentary journals" don't have to respect the >>> privacy of people on the street, and don't have to get model releases >>> from people whose likeness they put on the front cover of their >>> mags...... >> >> Well, now you are. >> >>> Also, I didn't see the words, "documentary journal" in the New York City >>> privacy laws........ >> >> Possibly because it's not necessary. > Please give documentation for the above. In fact, Google gave me no hits on documentary journal laws.....AFAIK, there is no separation between these journals and any other kind of publication when it comes to privacy laws and published photographs of private individuals...... > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > when it comes to privacy laws and published photographs of private > individuals...... Have you ever seen a tabloid newspaper in the checkout lane of your local supermarket? Do you believe ANY of the celebrities on these front pages have signed a model release? Are you aware of ANY photographer being successfully sued for selling a picture of a celebrity to one of these "newspapers"? Are you aware that photos may be used for EDITORIAL (newspaper/magazine/ book) purposes WITHOUT a model release? >> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Are you aware that photos may be used for EDITORIAL (newspaper/magazine/ > book) purposes WITHOUT a model release? Celebrities (apparently) operate under different rules from the rest of us. Their photographs appear on the cover and inside tabloids all the time, and they (the celebrities) usually love the exposure, although sometimes they do sue successfully. The girl I spoke of in my original post was just a random person on the street in Afghanistan, and after her picture won some awards, and appeared on the front cover of NG, they went back to Afghanistan and tried to find her. They were successful, and they apparently did obtain a model release from her after the fact. (probably gave her some money, too) Besides, I find it hard to compare NG with the tabloids of which you speak.... "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message >The girl I spoke of in my original post was just a random person on the >street in Afghanistan, and after her picture won some awards, and appeared >on the front cover of NG, they went back to Afghanistan and tried to find >her. They were successful, and they apparently did obtain a model release >from her after the fact. (probably gave her some money, too) Please, William, substantiate your claims that NG was obligated to get a model release from the first picture. If you cannot or care not to, I am sure NG would be happy to tell us. After you, Sir. > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > model release from the first picture. If you cannot or care not to, I am > sure NG would be happy to tell us. After you, Sir. My information comes from a NG special on our local PBS channel.....I am sorry that you are so skeptical. Tell me, why the hell do you care, anyway? > My information comes from a NG special on our local PBS channel.....I am > sorry that you are so skeptical. Tell me, why the hell do you care, > anyway? I care because I want to know. Is there something wrong with that? > My information comes from a NG special on our local PBS channel... To recap then, in order to honor a law, NG was required to find the woman and attain a model release, which they did years after the fact. If that is true, then it is unfortunate because it discourages journalism. I am surprised it is true (if it is), and would expect NG to fight it. Recently, johnboy <okaynow@nospam.no> posted: >> My information comes from a NG special on our local PBS channel... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > journalism. I am surprised it is true (if it is), and would expect NG > to fight it. I believe that William's implication that they sought out the woman to obtain a model release is incorrect. I did hear a an inteview discussion of this on NPR and there was no mention of model releases at all, though the content of their reporting may differ from whatever William heard on PBS. However, it would seem to me that a "release after the fact" would have no legal standing against a claim for damages. One cannot 'undo' their usage of the image and benefits or consequences of that usage. Beyond that, journalistic use of images obtained in public as described by others in this thread are common, and I doubt that those that get photographed are tracked down and have releases signed. Interviews, advertising and other such uses are a different matter. Neil > Recently, johnboy <okaynow@nospam.no> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Neil I don't know why they sought her out. Apparently they have been looking for her for years. I e-mailed the NG editors yesterday to find out why, but I doubt if they will tell me. They made a special (50 minute tape) about their search, so they are making money from it. If I get an answer to my e-mail I will post it. A "release after the fact" would be the same thing as settling out of court. People do that all the time. It saves a lot of money in lawyer fees and other court costs. >Recently, johnboy <okaynow@nospam.no> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >have no legal standing against a claim for damages. One cannot 'undo' >their usage of the image and benefits or consequences of that usage. I have to believe that an organization of the size and prestige of NG has lawyers bright enough to ensure that the language of the relaease obtained absolved them of liability for all prior and future publication/use of the phto(s). In the woman's place, I'd likely be happy to sign such a release, assuming I didn't feel harmed (i.e. I was not made into a Taliban target for appearing on the mag cover), for a reasonable financial settlement. >Beyond that, journalistic use of images obtained in public as described by >others in this thread are common, and I doubt that those that get >photographed are tracked down and have releases signed. Interviews, >advertising and other such uses are a different matter. > >Neil > In the woman's place, I'd likely be happy to sign such a > release, [...] Irrelevant. Who cares about you? It's about the original subject. >> In the woman's place, I'd likely be happy to sign such a >> release, [...] > >Irrelevant. Who cares about you? It's about the original subject. Pissy little thing, aren't you? >> My information comes from a NG special on our local PBS channel... > > To recap then, in order to honor a law, NG was required to find the woman > and attain a model release, which they did years after the fact. If that > is true, then it is unfortunate because it discourages journalism. I am > surprised it is true (if it is), and would expect NG to fight it. I don't believe they had to find her for any legal reason. I think they found her just to be politically correct, because they put her photo on the front page of their magazine and she got no money for it, and their readers felt bad about that. But I e-mailed the editor of NG and asked them. - I haven't received any answer yet. If I find out more, I will inform you. >Please, William, substantiate your claims that NG was obligated to get a >model release from the first picture. If you cannot or care not to, I am >sure NG would be happy to tell us. After you, Sir. The picture was taken in Afghanistan in 1985. I don't claim to be an expert on Afghani law, but somehow I don't think the privacy rights of the native citizens was high on the list of things the occupying Soviet Union was trying to enforce. Privacy laws vary widely both over time and from country to country. Had that picture been taken on a public street in London in 1985, I don't think U.K. law at the time would have required a model release.  SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >>Please, William, substantiate your claims that NG was obligated to get a >>model release from the first picture. If you cannot or care not to, I am [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Had that picture been taken on a public street in London in 1985, I > don't think U.K. law at the time would have required a model release. I don't know about their laws either, but I do know that NG went back to Afghanistan and looked this lady up, and filmed a special about their trip and about her, and they aired it on PBS several months ago. Whether they felt that they had to do that, or whether they just did it to get the special, I don't know. Or, perhaps they had received some flack about not giving her any money and they are so rich, and she is (probably) very poor, and etc, and etc....So they decided to make the attempt just for good public relations. They did not tell us all their motivations on the special, nor are they required to, but the special was interesting to me, so I remember it. For one thing, the photograph of her on the cover of their magazine did not show her in the best light...It was a very angry look. Perhaps they just wanted the public to see what she looked like when she smiled......I don't know, and I really don't care. If others are interested, I suggest that they contact NG and ask more questions about it. >>>Please, William, substantiate your claims that NG was obligated to get a >>>model release from the first picture. If you cannot or care not to, I am [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > interested, I suggest that they contact NG and ask more questions about > it. The NG website has a tape for sale about the Afghani girl....Here is their advertising hype on it: The Search for the Afghan Girl The search for the mysterious "Afghan Girl," whose haunting, green-eyed gaze captivated the world in a NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine cover photograph, takes you on a world-wide journey in an attempt to solve the case of a missing person. In January 2002, photographer Steve McCurry, who took the 1984 photograph and who has been searching for the girl ever since, traveled to Pakistan with a National Geographic team to search one last time. Has the "Afghan Girl" survived? With a lot of detective work and a little luck, the National Geographic team, together with McCurry, finds a woman who could be the "Afghan Girl." How can they confirm that this is the same person as the child photographed nearly 20 years ago? National Geographic uses several methods, including state of the art iris recognition, the FBI facial recognition techniques and the technology used by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Sigourney Weaver narrates. Approximately 50 minutes. © 2002 >>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Besides, I find it hard to compare NG with the tabloids of which you > speak.... Whether a newspaper or a magazine, a publication is a publication. It is in this sense that they CAN be compared The ONLY difference, legally speaking, is that a magazine (or book) would need a release for the "cover" photo (if any) while a newspaper would not. The front page of a newspaper is different from the cover of a book or magazine because any front page photo in a newspaper is considered part of a "front page" story while a photo on the "cover" of a book or magazine is considered "advertising" (legally speaking) for what's inside the magazine or book. And "celebrities" don't operate under "different rules" (equality under the law). One last point. People have successfully sued "tabloids", but NOT for photos taken in public and printed in the tabloid without a model release. NG needed the release ONLY because of the "cover" photo. >>>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > in > this sense that they CAN be compared That's funny....You were the one who seperated out, documentary journals", and told me that they operated under seperate rules from other publications......... Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? - Are you what they call a "troll"? The above information comes from a NG special on PBS. It is approximately correct. I saw it about 6 months ago, so I can't give you the exact script, word for word. If you require more exact information, I suggest that you contact National Geographic. Otherwise, I have exhausted my information, and you have exhausted my patience.... >>>>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > contact National Geographic. Otherwise, I have exhausted my information, and > you have exhausted my patience.... Sorry, I know it can get confusing with so many people replying, but you must have me confuse with someone else. I've never said ANYTHING about "documentary journals" much less suggested they operate under different rules. You may be confusing me with "William Graham". >>>>>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > You may be confusing me with "William Graham". Perhaps I am.....A good place to end this discussion..... >>>>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > contact National Geographic. Otherwise, I have exhausted my information, and > you have exhausted my patience.... I guess you didn't confuse me with yourself after all. Maybe ""johnboy"? I said it gets confusing. :] > That's funny....You were the one who seperated out, documentary journals", > and told me that they operated under seperate rules from other > publications......... William, you have confused the attributes. Paul said no. >> That's funny....You were the one who seperated out, documentary >> journals", and told me that they operated under seperate rules from other >> publications......... > > William, you have confused the attributes. Paul said no. Paul and I have already figured out that I was the one who said it..... > Have you ever seen a tabloid newspaper in the checkout lane of your local > supermarket? > > Do you believe ANY of the celebrities on these front pages have signed a > model release? Celebrities are, for the most part, considered public figures, open game. Now I would be interested in how our attorney associate considers the recent front pages and covers showing the unidentified Englishman just after the recent bombing; is he a public figure by virtue of the scale of the news? >> Have you ever seen a tabloid newspaper in the checkout lane of your local >> supermarket? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > front pages and covers showing the unidentified Englishman just after the > recent bombing; is he a public figure by virtue of the scale of the news? A model release is NOT NEEDED for using a photo for EDITORIAL purposes. This is the case whether or not the person in the image is a "public figure" Editorial use refers to books, newspapers, other publications, and "art" exhibits. A possible exception is if the "publication" is of a religious or political nature which might imply that the person (if they can be identified by a "reasonable person") in a published photo ENDORSES the religious or political views expressed in the publication. Without a model release that specifies the photo may be used "for any purpose", the publisher of the photo (and the photographer who sold it) could be in legal jeopardy. Another exception is if the photo is used in an advertisement, including any photo on the cover of a book or magazine (or the door of an exhibition hall). A model release is needed in this case. This is all BS, so to stay with the law, If I took a picture of someone in a crowld, like at a Baseball game, and some how I sold the pictures I would need a release from all 50,000 people since they were in the picture? BS. >>> Have you ever seen a tabloid newspaper in the checkout lane of your >>> local [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hall). > A model release is needed in this case. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.