On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:55:01 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A little more rambling than I would have hoped for...
I was thinking about this last night after it was suggested I was
morally bereft...
I did a *little* research and came to a couple of conclusions... rightly
or wrongly.
1. It seems that, at least where I live, there is not really a *law*
regarding sale, publication, or display of a photograph of a person
without their permission. It seems that act is not breaking any law in
and of itself.
2. There are laws regarding invasion of privacy.
3. People do not necessarially have the right to an expectation of
privacy when they are in a public place.
4. Invasion of privacy is considered such and is an
actionable/punishable offense only when it is proved that damage or
injury has been done because of the claimed invasion.
5. There are certain rights of publicity in which a person has a right
to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image to sell products.
Unauthorized use is not the breaking of a law either. It's just that a
person has the right to prevent it.
6. The use of release forms protects a person from these claims to an
extent, but is not neccesarialy required by the law.
As stated earlier laws are different everywhere.
IMO, while it may be prudent to obtain release forms, publication of the
photograph under discussion is not the breaking of a law and is not even
an invasion of privacy. It's not a criminal act and is really only
punishable if it can be shown to have harmed another person.
Would his publishing the photograph violate the person's rights
regarding publicity? From what I've read this is a murkier area than the
invasion of privacy issue. OTOH, I can see this issue as being easier to
act on legally than that of privacy rights. Their image is not being
used to sell anything I would gather, it itself is being sold.
There are risks involved in almost any action we decide to undertake,
whether it's getting behind the wheel of a car, engaging in a sport that
can cause injury, or stepping off the curb on a busy street.
Jerome hasn't specified how recognizable the person in the photograph
may be, how many copies of the image will be made, or how publicly the
T-shirts will be worn. The risk of someone complaining is different if a
a single T-shirt or a handful of T-shirts were made with the image worn
by private individuals vs. a large quantity being made and displayed
simultaneously in a public venue, or the T-shirts being sold to make a
profit.
(Would the image work equally well if it was a simple silohouette?)
A release may not be *needed* under the statute of law.
I'm not suggesting that a professional photographer hoping to market
their images would not normally obtain signed release forms before
taking photographs of their subjects. They very likely would.
My point is that I think the issue is not necessarially one of breaking
the law, but of the amount of risk one wishes to assume.
If you are not breaking the law, and not breaching somebody else's rights,
then there is no risk.
John
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyrights
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:30:20 -0400
Jerome Reyes wrote:
>Someone wants to use an image of mine for a t-shirt. The problem (?) is
>that it's a portrait of a stranger and her child (about 1 year old)
that I
>took about 5 years ago while just walking through a local street fair.
>I've contributed nature and animal photos before, put never people
shots
>(without permission). In short, the question is, can I really sell this
>photo for usage without permission from the person in it? I guess I'm
>picturing a hilarious (albeit unlikely) event of the person eventually
>coming across someone wearing a tee-shirt with THEIR photo on it. How
>weird would that be?
>
>Thoughts? Experiences?
No go. You need a signed model release for this kind of use.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
