Not at all, IMO.
If Street Photography, as a genre, as a way of making saleable photographs
was needlessly restricted by the need for releases, it would never have
gotten off the ground and would die out.
Regardless of the letter of the law, it comes down to common sense. Most
laws are too broadly written which is why the courts continually redefine
them. Enforcement of most laws only comes about because there's an
aggregious violation of the intent behind the law which is blatant.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyrights
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:18:09 -0700
Again, I am no lawyer and have little to gain from pursuing a specific
opinion on this matter. I'm interested in that I'm showing and selling
photographs that contain people, as do many other street photographers who
publish their work. I know that the vast majority of that work is sold
without releases for the people in the pictures.
So here's a situation that comes straight home to me. My current exhibit
(on display until April 16, btw, if you are local and want to go see
it...) has several pictures of people in it. The pictures are, in essence,
about them and the city I photographed, Ramsey on the Isle of Man. I have
no model releases for any of these photographs. They were intended to be
used for display and sale, editorially and as art but not in advertising.
The Isle of Man Examiner, when informed of my show, did a feature article
on my show (see http://www.gdgphoto.com/ramsey/yank/) and chose a couple
of the photos to present in the article. They never asked me for releases,
never went to the people in the photo for releases to the best of my
knowledge. I will assume that they know what they're doing with regard to
liability and releases.
How does this differ from me taking the same photograph(s) and making them
into T-shirts for sale to those that like them?
Godfrey
