One of the galleries I exhibited at refused to sell photos with people
in them, although they were willing to show them along with some other
pics as long as they were marked "not for sale." Another did show and
sell some of my street photography, but the Michigan gallery owner knew
that the photos were taken in Paris. Gallery owners seem to consider
the sale of people pics to be a grey area.
Paul
On Apr 3, 2006, at 7:24 PM, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: copyrights
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?
I presume the Isle of Man Examiner is a newspaper? If so, they have an
editorial license, something that you don't have, from your
description.
William Robb
