From: Igor Roshchin
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.
Igor,
Does the book say anything about selling prints (aka fine art prints) of
photographs containing recognizable people?
Here's what I mean:
HCB took this photograph of two ladies on a street in Washington, DC in
1961.
http://quicksaidthebird.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/henri_cartier-bresson02_800.jpg
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4dvbjhh
Does the book say whether or not the law required HCB to obtain a model
release from these two ladies (and from the taxi driver visible in the
background) before he could sell prints of his work?
Or, how about this photo of Dustin Hoffman signing autographs; a
possible instance where a celebrity's right to control their own image
might apply?
http://redriverautographs.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/829616actor-dustin-hoffman-signing-autographs-for-fans-posters.jpg?w=400&h=300
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4q6vb8q
Hoffman is a recognizable celebrity, and while the only reason for the
women to be there is to obtain his autograph, it could be any
"celebrity" signing those autographs. Hoffman is an integral part of the
image, but he is not the subject per se ... the subject is the women
pushing and shoving each other out of the way so they can get a
celebrity autograph.
Would the photographer require a model release from Hoffman before
he/she could sell prints of the image?
Or how about this one?
http://www.athousandandone.com/photos/0/4493b3a8a4d24_s.jpg
It's James Dean walking down the street in a cold rain; hatless with his
shoulders hunched up, a cigarette on his lips.
But does the photo stand on its own even if you don't know who James
Dean was? Show the photo to a bunch of today's college students, and ask
them what it's a photograph of. See how many know who it is, and who he
was.
Does the image still have value if you take the celebrity away, if it
had been just a photograph of some unknown guy walking down the street
in the rain? I think it does.
Or, since someone mentioned that a celebrity's estate can continue to
control the celebrity's image for 50 years after the celebrity's death,
did the photographer just have to wait until 2005 before he could sell
prints of this photograph without a model release?
I contend that in none of these instances would the photographer be
required to obtain model releases in order to legally sell prints of
their own work.
But what does the book say?
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3393 - Release Date: 01/20/11
--
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.
