Robert, Sorry I misread and thought you were referring to the attorney of the photographer who took your sons picture. All the same sucks.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > So I forwarded this e-mail to my brother who is a professional > photojournalist. I'm going to include his reply below to my question > which was "Do you have people sign a waver for release when you do > work for the AP and newspapers?" > > <Professional photojournalist> > In response to your question, no release is necessary or required. > Editorial content does not require a release, as it is not using the > individual, subject, or property to promote a product or idea. > > In terms of the individual's issue with privacy rights, in public you > have very few rights in regards to your image being used for editorial > content. If you did then it would be impossible for people like me to > do their job, inadvertently there are people or things that are owned > that are going to appear in photographs. 99% of the time an image you > see in a newspaper is never used again, however with the advent of the > internet it will live online in some form of digital format until > deleted. No different i guess then the microfiche of old. > > As to the child's photograph, it is usually good form on the part of > the photographer to find the child's immediate caregiver or parent and > ask for consent. This way you get the consent of an adult and you > don't inadvertently piss someone off, like the individual in the > email. After all who knows, maybe the child is in protective custody > or the spouse is separated from an abusive wife or husband and hiding > themselves and their child. In this day and age its tough to tell, I > was taught to do my best to obtain verbal consent. Even in a classroom > setting I almost always ask if there are any kids that shouldn't be > photographed for that exact reason. If the parent is concerned they > should let the child know that they don't want them to be photographed > and to have the child let photographers know that, if the situation > should arise again, and inform the child's teachers/school. > > As to the image of child being sold online, most likely the paper will > never sell a copy of that photograph. The one paper I worked at that > sold "fine art" prints did so mostly to people that had some kind of > connection to the original story, or occasionally images that were/are > beautiful in their own right and not connected with a story at all. > I'm sure if the individual called the paper and asked nicely the image > would most likely be taken down. If that didn't work, I'm sure if > they suggested that they were going to take legal action to have the > image removed from the site, the paper would simply remove it rather > than deal with going to court over an image they will never make any > money off of. > > I do take umbrage to the suggestion that the photographer and or the > paper are exploiting the child in the context of the article on saving > the library. The image is not being used in a campaign to save the > library, it simply depicts a child using the library resources. The > story and the photograph are not about the child, its about the > library and the loss to the community if it isn't there. The story is > about the library which is why the child in the photo could be > replaced with anyone or not have anyone at all. The child in the > photo just makes the photograph more interesting and gives context to > the potential loss of the library, it tells a story. > > As to the persons concern about a child predator, I suggest they stop > watching the evening news and Nancy Grace. The odds of the child > being kidnapped, molested, or abused by a stranger are far less than > the kid getting in a car accident, let alone having a stranger take > the child's photo and sell it to fellow perverts. The media fills > people with irrational fears, and people need to wake up to the fact > that what the media portrays and sensationalizes is not the norm but > rather the abnormal and unlikely, which is why they, the media and > viewers, fixate on it. > > In all of my travels and work as a photojournalist I have found one > commonality, people on a whole are good and tend not to do evil > things. If it were the opposite I think the world would be a very > different place, so people should stop living in fear and treating the > world and those around them as though they are going to rob, rape, or > kill them because of what they see on the 5 o'clock news. Be > cautious, aware of your surroundings, and don't do stupid things and > most likely you'll live a carefree life. > > </professional photojournalist> > > enjoy, > > -mmiller > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Robert Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> While I know this is going to boil down to it happened in a public place >> stop my whining... but this still upsets me and I have no legal recourse WTF >> >> <rant> >> >> A few weeks back my son, 12 years old, was at the local library after >> school working on the computer when a local newspaper reporter came in >> and took pictures of the people in the library using its services. The >> story was regarding the fact that my county is considering closing some >> of the libraries. Now after the interviews were completed and the >> pictures were taken, the reporter told my kid to tell his folks his >> picture would be in the paper that coming Sunday. So as any parent who >> gave a flying crap about their kid would pick the paper up to look at >> the article. As said to my son his picture was nice and big with his >> first and last name along with a little blurb about why he don't want >> the library closed. >> >> At first this really pissed me off since my son is under age and no one >> asked for my permission, let alone offer a business card or a means to >> contact anything about the article. After a few days of mumbling, and >> some deep investigation I found that I have ZERO legal recourse for this >> happening so I rolled with the punch and picked my self up telling my >> kid he displayed himself very well and expressed himself in his >> statement like a young man should. Then it hit me... >> >> I was on the local newspapers website and noticed my son's picture in an >> article, not written the same as the newspaper itself but still >> displaying my son's picture, well now I get concerned and begin to do >> some digging on the metadata (thanks larry) to find misc normal data but >> nothing too detailed. Then it smacked me in the face like a truck load >> of bricks! Those (stealing a statement from Jack's comments earlier >> just because I can :-) ) "... monkey sodomizing rat bastards..." have my >> son's picture posted on the website for sale. They are selling my son's >> picture for profit, WHAT IN <many fool words omitted for John's safety> >> gives these people the right to make a profit off my 12 year old son! >> >> Well I had sent an email to a well known photographer regarding this and >> he consulted his lawyer only to find these newspaper organizations can >> take the pictures of children and then sell them on their website as >> "fine art", while I love my kid to death he is far from "fine art". The >> response this person got from their attorney was that unless a local law >> prohibits the taking of children pictures in public places and selling >> them I have no leg to stand on, which I have faced the fact. It just >> burns my butt that a child who knows no better, well didn't at the time, >> was exploited to save a library and someone else NOT trying to raise the >> money for the library is making a profit off this, no matter how small >> that profit might be. The attorney said if you want privacy don't leave >> your home, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT CRAP, he is a child! Does this mean a >> child predator can sit 100 feet from a school and take pictures of >> children walking home from school, throw up a website, call themselves a >> freelance photographer, and sell these pictures as "fine art". >> >> We can borrow money from China and bail out businesses that made bad >> choices but we can protect children from the basic protection of >> exploitation for any reason, so long as that reason is a sad story of a >> library closing and the newspaper can sell a couple prints. >> >> </rant> >> >> Sorry all this one just really hits me hard that a newspaper / >> freelance photographer has all these freedoms to exploit citizens while >> we fight to protect so much... >> >> - Robert >> arch3angel >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >> > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > _______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
