 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / People Photography / October 2003gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission for commercial purposes
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 -- Sincerely -- Randyman > 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 -- In general, when people are on public property, model releases are not required. I say "in general" because the state of TN got crazy several years ago and made model releases required for all purposes even editorial. I haven't checked to see if they ever calmed down and relented.  Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. When in doubt I always check with the American Society of Magizine Photographers: http://www.asmp.org/ In CA I need a permit to photograph in a State Park it I use it in an show. They say a show is Just like publishing. Just my 2 cents ~THOM~ http://home.earthlink.net/~thom_b_foto > 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 -- Generally, no, in the United States. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > 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. Especially if the people were on public property during hours when the property is normally open to the public and where photography is not banned. No expectation of privacy. Don't think, of course, that just because your picture was in the newspaper you are then home and dry - you still can't, for instance, sell t-shirts with the photograph on them, even if it's a reproduction of the newspaper page. That's commercial exploitation. Exhibit, maybe. What is the purpose of your exhibit? If you are trying to sell prints, then no, you may not. If you are demonstrating your talent, then probably you can depending on your jurisdiction. D >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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. -- JC > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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. Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. >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 > 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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> 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. Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright eyes that appears in all their ads? Was that taken in Afghanistan? I ask because I've not subscribed in well over a decade, but I remember getting that issue. So if your talking about the photo that I have in mind, its pretty old. -- JC > >National Geographic certainly played that card with its photo of that > >young girl in Afghanistan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Was that taken in Afghanistan? If we're thinking about the same photo, no. While the girl was Afghan, the photo was taken in a refugee camp in Pakistan. > I ask because I've not subscribed in well over a decade, but I > remember getting that issue. So if your talking about the photo that I > have in mind, its pretty old. It was taken by Steve McCurry in 1984. Here's a follow-up, dated 3/7/2003, which includes a photo of her as a woman: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html or, http://tinyurl.com/4tja. Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. > Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright > eyes that appears in all their ads? Yes. > Was that taken in Afghanistan? Yes. They finally found the girl (now a woman) recently and turned it into a Major Media Event. The fact that they (presumably) never got a release from her to begin with is never mentioned, even though her image was used in some pretty commercial ways for decades. > So if your talking about the photo that I > have in mind, its pretty old. It has been quite a cash cow for National Geographic. Much more than you'd expect for mere "editorial" usage. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Are you talking about that photo of the girl with the burningly bright > > eyes that appears in all their ads? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes. We're talking about the same Afghan girl, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. > They finally found the girl (now a woman) recently and turned it > into a Major Media Event. The fact that they (presumably) never got a > release from her to begin with is never mentioned, even though her image > was used in some pretty commercial ways for decades. Pro'lly because she was a refugee and not precisely situated to find out and press her case? Then again, do the requirements about releases apply to people there as much as they do to people in the U.S. or Europe? I don't mean *should* they. I mean if they actually do, by law, considering how many basic civil rights aren't observed in that part of the world as they are here. When the question of renumeration was raised, NG said she's being taken care of now. > > So if your talking about the photo that I > > have in mind, its pretty old. > > It has been quite a cash cow for National Geographic. Much more than > you'd expect for mere "editorial" usage. Yes, with good reason. As many times as I've seen it, it still moves me. Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. > 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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > 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. Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. > 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. Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. > 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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > We're talking about the same Afghan girl, > > http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. > Steve mcCurry says - "Life is too short for model releases..." > > he is right. He has better lawyers than most photographers. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > >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. Yes, of course. It would have been better if I had inserted "necessarily" or "automatically" between "isn't" and "editorial" and "generally" between "It's" and "to." "But, a cover photo isn't necessarily editorial. It's generally to sell the magazine...." Signature~~Bluesea~~ Spam is great in musubi but not in email. Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply. > 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: www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=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. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >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. What a drag! I read the CA statute since that's where I live. I love taking candid people pictures and have tons of them. Here's my technique: I wear my hat with the colorful hatband and multiple feathers and walk down the sidewalk or wherever with a big smile on my face. I'll pick likely interesting areas. I have a little non-threatening Nikon 885 3 MPixel which hands on its neck cord at about diaphragm level. Periodically in the environment I'll put it up to my face and seem to take a picture of a building, statue, etc. to make me look typically touristy to bystanders. The camera is set at full wide angle and max resolution and is sometimes deliberately slightly crooked with my right hand seeming to keep it from moving around. When I see an interesting subject close by - who will usually look at me and automatically smile, they get snapped. I aim the camera blind, even off to the side, etc. Usually, the people are perfectly framed although if the camera is deliberately slightly crooked, I have to straighten it out in Photoshop 6. I'm pretty good at getting this right. The camera has weaknesses, and as soon as another one that physical size comes out with better dynamic range, etc., I'll buy it. Dynamic range is the insurmountable problem - I can deal with the others such as oversaturated reds. But what a bummer - I can't do anything significant with my sometimes exhibition grade compositions without risk of getting into trouble :^( Anyway thanks very much to you and all for these legal notes on people pictures. The increasing emphasis on privacy issues makes this issue even more critical. >Subject: Re: gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission >for commercial purposes [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >This is not a legal opinion. 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 >>Civil Code Section 3344. See: >>www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=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. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. -- Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >Subject: Re: gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission >for commercial purposes [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >right, and for questions about specific situations you really should >ask for professional legal advice. 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 > 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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. 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. > >>Civil Code Section 3344. See: > >>www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=3344&hits=1 [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > right, and for questions about specific situations you really should > ask for professional legal advice. > 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? This is the sort of question to ask a California attorney. On its face, the statute doesn't distinguish between using to photo to promote yourself as a photographer or selling the pic to promote, say, the champagne being used for the toast. But since the statute doesn't require written consent, given the limited nature of the use a court might well accept an estoppel or implied consent argument, especially for the invited guests. Section (e) also gives the courts a lot of wriggle room. To paraphrase William Faulkner, "at some point the law ends and people begin." Judges and juries don't like boors any more than the rest of us do. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. 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. > 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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >Subject: Re: gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission >for commercial purposes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >other than what it is (i.e., showing a person's face and saying "this >could be a crook"), and so on. SNIP That last bit about "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")" is about libel and libel applies to both editorial (non-commercial) and commercial usages as well. Libel and commercial usages are two entirely different matters/subjects that may or may not overlap, depending upon whether whether the subject was indeed mis-represented regardless of whether they were mis-represented in a commercial or an editorial usage. Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply >Subject: Re: gatherings of people - does a photographer need people permission >for commercial purposes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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 http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketingandpr/story/0,7494,978552,00.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. > http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketingandpr/story/0,7494,978552,00.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. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
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.