Michael O'Keefe wrote:
You're referring to pictures of public figures ?
The courts have rules that public figures can't pick and choose which
"image" they want to portray.
Private peeople though, can, and a photographer must get a persons
release to use their image for commerical purposes. I assume this is why
there are so many faces "blurred out" in Cops....
As I understand it in a general way:
If I take a picture of you, and use it to imply that you endorse a
product (Say, a picture of you on your bike used in my motorcycle store
ad), then yes, I'd need your permission and would probably have to
compensate you.
If I make a coffee table book about bikes, and a picture of you is in
there, I don't need your permission to use it. I'd likely get it anyway,
because I wouldnt want to be sued, but it's not strictly neccesary.
From an interview with the Cops producer:
Cops blurs the faces of minors and people who have explicitly asked not
to be shown and/or people who they couldn't get to sign a release.
They do it because they don't want to be sued, not because they have to.
My objection to m ike's statement was that it was too broad.
-ajb
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
