Thanks for this, Igor. That's exactly what I've always heard, and it is in keeping with the policy of all the publishers for whom I've worked. Paul On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
> > > I hate you, Mark for providing a good reference. > It caused me searching for this book... :-) > Our library has only older editions (2001, 2004), so I ordered it > via interlibrary loan, also encouraging the library to purchase the new > edition. > > In the mean time, I can see the electronic version of the 1st (2001) edition. > On page 3-22 it has the section "3. When your phtograph contains > people". > >>>>>>> > In general, you don't need permission to use a photograph of a person > if your use is editorial and does not defame or invade the person's > privacy (see below0. An eidtorial use is an informational use -- one in > which the photo is used to elaborate or illustrate and article or story. > For example, no permission is necessary to use a photo of a paratrooper > in an article about the Vietnam War. however, you do need permission > (known as a "release" or "consent"), for the uses described below. > > * Your use is for commercial purposes such as advertising or to sell a > product or service. > Under right of publicity laws, you cannot use a person's name or image > for commercial (selling) purposes without obtaining a release. For > example, if you sell sweaters from your website, you would need > permission to use a photo of a model wearing one of your sweaters. This > right of publicity can survive a person's death (sometimes for as long > as 50 years depending on state law). There are some exceptions to these > rules. If your use is editorial -- for example, a photo of a fashion > model in a book about the fashion industry -- you can use the photo to > advertise the book without obtaining a release. > > * Your use invades a person's privacy > [...] > > * Your use is defamatory. > [...] > > <<<<<< > > I am not typing it all up (it's a gif image in the e-book, so, I cannot > just copy-n-paste)- just the excerpts most relevant to the previous > discussion. > > As all legal debates, it is open to interpretation (``It depends on the > meaning of the word "the". ''), so you draw your own conclusions. > Personally, I think the situations described by > Paul fall under the category of "editorial use" described above. > > HTH, > > Igor > > > > Thu Jan 20 08:49:44 CST 2011 > Mark Roberts wrote: > >> For those who want the straight dope on model releases: >> >> Getting Permission >> By Richard Stim >> Nolo Press, ISBN 9781413312706 >> http://www.nolo.com/products/getting-permission-RIPER.html >> >> This book is written by a real IP lawyer and published by a company >> specializing in legal books; this particular book is used by many >> colleges. Chapter 12 covers model releases. >> >> Rich Stims's blog on copyright/trademark issues is very good: >> http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/ >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >> www.robertstech.com > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
