On 20 January 2011 10:12, Paul Ewins <paulew...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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.
My vote goes to Paul Ewins. Do we get to see pictures of the well? -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
