On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Elizabeth Masoner >> Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper >> itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online >> properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases. >> > > You need a model release for commercial use. You do not need a model release > for editorial use. Using a photograph in paid advertising to sell a product > is commercial use. > >> Even newspapers have been successfully sued when photos are released with >> inflammatory and inaccurate captions (such as a person sitting on a park >> bench with a caption about bums sleeping in parks). >> > > The issue in that case is not the lack of a model release. > > The issue is an inaccurate caption that portrays a person negatively in a > false light. There is no question of the photographer's right to take the > photograph or to have it published; it's a question of the editor's > responsibility to NOT use a photograph to defame a person. > >> In the US (it does vary from country to country), you need a model release >> (and technically a property release) for almost every photo. Now, in >> practice, photographers are rarely sued (or even asked to take photos down) >> when they are published in galleries or personal blogs. The issues usually >> arise when photos are sold and published in magazines or other public >> consumption publications (advertisements for example). > > You do not need a model release OR a property release for non-commercial use > of any photograph taken in or from a public place. > > "Non-commercial use" means you are not using the photograph to sell a product > - you can sell copies of the image, you can sell prints, you can publish the > image on the internet, you can sell the image to a newspaper or magazine, you > can sell the image to a publisher to include in a book. > > There are some limitations for trademarked materials, e.g. the HOLLYWOOD > sign, or that pine tree out on some golf course. > > That includes photographs of celebrities - the main key is whether the value > of the photo is due solely to the celebrity of the subject. E.g. if you take > a photo of a person looking out at the Grand Canyon, it doesn't matter if the > person viewing the canyon is a celebrity or not, as long as the "story" the > photo tells is about the Grand Canyon. > > Or if the celebrity is engaged in some public, newsworthy behavior like a > movie star making a speech for a political candidate. You think People > Magazine and National Enquirer get a model release for every photo they > publish? > > You only have to have a model release if you are using the photograph to sell > products. You need a model release to use the image to sell soap on TV. > > Actually, *YOU* don't need a release. > > The advertiser needs the release. If you don't have a release and they buy > the image and use it anyway, THEY are liable. You are liable if you lie to > them and tell them you have a release when you don't have one, but not if you > tell them up front you do not have a release. They assume the liability in > that case. > > [They are not going to assume that liability, they just won't buy the photo > unless you can provide the release.] > > "Public place" means any location that is open to access by the general > public that does not require the photographer to trespass in order to enter. > That includes malls, retails stores, banks, and the lobbies of office > buildings. On private property, private security can tell you to STOP. If you > are on public property, private security can NOT tell you to stop. > > Sometimes you can explain what you're doing and show them the Photographer's > Rights pamphlet and they'll grudgingly leave you alone. It helps if you have > a photo ID that indicates you are PRESS (even if it's an ID indicating that > you are a "freelance" photojournalist). > > Most companies are sensitive about dealing with the PRESS. They do not want > to see news stories about their minions roughing up reporters, and security > guards are aware of this. > > http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf > > If they tell you to stop taking photos, you stop. They cannot lawfully do > anything further beyond that than tell you to leave, which you should do. > > IF they want to take your film, your memory card or force you to erase your > photos, you DO NOT have to let them take them. > > If they attempt to forcibly take your property, THEY are committing a crime - > theft, & possibly assault. You will also at that point have a tort against > their employer. > > Explain that as calmly & non-confrontationally as possible, and they'll > usually back off. Make it clear that they are creating an incident that will > result in negative publicity for their employer, and be clear in expressing > your firm intention to file criminal charges if necessary and to sue their > employer if they use unlawful force against you. > > The photographers rights are your RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN. You do not forfeit > your rights as a citizen just because you have a camera in your hand. > Anything you can lawfully see, anywhere you could lawfully go without a > camera in your hand, you can photograph. > > Photography is a lawful occupation and you can pursue any lawful occupation > within any public space. > > Sometimes you have to take a vocal, affirmative stand to protect your rights, > because there are many, many assholes out there who want to take your rights > away from you. > > The majority are just plain vanilla stupid authoritarian pricks, convinced > they have a superior right to tell other people what can and can't do; pricks > so narrow minded they can't conceive that others may wish to do something > they're too stupid to figure out ... something like taking photographs in a > public location. > > It's the mindset of "Anything that is not mandatory is prohibited." > > The people who keep telling you that you have to have a model/property > release for every photo you take in public ARE FOOLS! > > But the bigger fool is the one who meekly allows authoritarian assholes to > trample their rights without a word of demur. > > http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3387 - Release Date: 01/17/11 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
