Some legal systems, particularly in French-speaking countries, beyond commercial use do indeed restrict broadcast and print and Internet journalism use of recognizable images of persons without prior permission, with fairly well-defined exceptions particularly for the press. In the case of minors, the parent or guardian must provide prior authorisation. The UK and USA have no such legal tradition as far as I know. This is called the "droit à l'image" and dozens of cases are brought each year. If you read French, http://www.educnet.education.fr/legamedia/legadico/lexique/droit-limage is an excellent starting point.
This creates work for those who have to blur faces and disguise voices, but does protect individuals and children in particular better than in the English-speaking countries. Sean On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Zen <[email protected]> wrote: > People, places and possessions get used all the time without their consent > by the big broadcasters. The only difference is that the broadcasters have > used their own hardware to capture the image or sound, etc. Why is okay for > broadcasters to consider their work copyright protected, but they have no > consideration for the initial 'copyright' of the people involved? > > > On 9 Oct 2009, at 11:45, Michael Smethurst wrote: > >> and this old chestnut >> >> http://www.creativecommons.org.au/node/126 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] on behalf of Robin Doran >> Sent: Fri 10/9/2009 11:25 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' >> >> Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy >> and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family >> picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent, >> attribution, etc. >> >> http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture >> / >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson >> Sent: 09 October 2009 11:09 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' >> >> Mo McRoberts wrote: >>> >>> On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote: >>> >>>> For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject >>>> anymore. >>> >>> It's not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when >> >>> the words "children" and "photograph" appear in a sentence together; >>> it's, for want of a better term, childish and ridiculous. >>> >>> It's also pretty salient, given it's a straightforward example of a >>> copyright-holder having a current ability to exercise control without >>> having to resort to onerous trust mechanisms. >>> >>> Your position has a distinct lack of great upsides as compared to the >>> status quo, but it -does- have some significant flaws, and I say that >>> retaining the view that copyright as it exists today is flawed in some >> >>> fairly serious ways. >>> >> No the mention of Children and Photograph just distorts everything it >> touches, so there are better examples, where privacy or personal images >> are concerned. Copyright is almost useless for controlling something >> that does not involve commercial interests in practice. >> >> The fact is that most images are not worth anything unless used >> commercially, except to the owner. And that is a privacy and personal >> respect issue. >> >> This text is copyright, even if I don't care if someone copies it, but >> that is another thing, attribution and source become important, in other >> >> words reputation systems etc. >> >> As for upsides, the only one copyright has, is you are familiar with it. >> >> The Besson and Mason paper covers the accumulation of rights, that forms >> >> a thicket and stops progress (patents). A similar thing applies with >> copyright. You can find the copyright owner, the rights clearance >> process is complex. >> >> Quintin Tarentino who has resources available talked at length on Radio >> 4 about the difficulties of getting clearance on original music for >> films. >> >> Having a designer chair in the background of a shot in a film is a >> nightmare. Speaking of films, they also suffer from the monopoly >> attributes of runaway costs and marketing so as to limit choice and >> exclude competition, and thoose poor A lister have to manage on 20 >> Million USD per film (2 per year ?). >> >> I have just started to put the case, to do so requires a book. >> >> http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm >> >> Here is one that makes the case, it is available free as a pdf from the >> website. But even this does not cover the whole argument in favour of >> abolishing copyright and patents. >> - >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, >> please visit >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> - >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please >> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> <winmail.dat> > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
