Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >>Shel, >> >>You are right that they have every right to object (Part of the entire >>'Freedom of Speech' thing) although there is no concordant requirement >>for the Photographer to respect that objection beyond courtesy. >> >>-Adam >> > > > NOT true, Adam - > If I took a picture on the street, sent it to my stock > agency and they sold it to someone > for an ad, the stock agency could easily get sued. > > And now it also appears that you can't sell and animal pic > taken in some zoos without > a say so from the zoo. Or a photo of someone's > livingroom... > > at least that is the way it is now in the USA > > ann >
Ann, Commercial use is an entirely seperate category from actual photography (And note the Zoo is private property, even if publicly owned, ditto the livingroom). The photography itself, and editorial and art use come under the 1st ammendment, as long as there is no 'expectation of privacy', which would cover the livingroom, but not the zoo or the guy on the street. You NEED releases for any recognizable subjects for commercial use. Other uses have less stringent rules. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
