Elizabeth,
It is the cover of magazines that requires the release not the
interior. Why? The cover is in effect advertising for the magazine and putting
your face on the cover implies that you have endorsed the magazine. The
interior of the magazine is not on show to the general public so it isn't
advertising the magazine.
If a magazine can argue that its cover is news then it can use the image
regardless which is why you see the unflattering celebrity images on the gossip
magazines or secret car prototypes on auto magazines. It isn't newspaper vs
magazine it is news vs non-news.
Commercial use doesn't cover printing the photo and selling it as an object.
That is art, not commerce, even if the photographs sell for $1,000,000 each.
The same applies to collecting the photos into a book. The exception here is
that if the subject is famous then it can be argued that the photo is only
valuable because of them and thus requires their permission (i.e. it is the
subject you are selling, not the composition). For the anonymous person on the
street this doesn't apply.
Note that while getting a model release is sound legal advice it won't
necessarily help you if you misuse the image, i.e. book a model for a lingerie
shoot and then use the photo for the cover of a soft porn movie.
Paul
On 20/01/2011, at 8:31 AM, Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
> And as I've said repeatedly (hence the frustration as you are either
> extremely dense or deliberately dodging those sentences just so you can
> argue more), the courts have made numerous exceptions for newspapers.
> Newspapers, not magazines. News stories fall under parts of the "fair use"
> clauses and unless newspapers run afoul of civil suits due to defamation of
> character they are basically exempt from model releases.
>
--
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.
