Tue Feb 11 11:05:15 EST 2014 Mark Roberts wrote:
> Stanley Halpin <stan at stans-photography.info> wrote: > > >On Feb 11, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Igor Roshchin <str at komkon.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> I perfectly understand everybody's outrage from this craigslist ad. > >> But what if I told you that it is socially acceptable and even > >> totally legal > >> (at least in the US) and it has been going for ages? > > > >And this all makes sense, for example, in the case where I hire two > >assistants > >to help me shoot a wedding. Not just with lighting, etc. but actual > >shooting. > >Those are my photos, the assistants are doing work for hire. As a good > >boss I > >could let them use their shots in their personal portfolio, but I don.t > >need to. > > > >The craigslist example, though, is off in another dimension. The guy > >wants to > >buy existing stuff and pawn it off as his own. It might be legal in a > >copyright > >case but it is fraudulent, deceptive, slimy, inappropriate behavior as > >far as I > >am concerned. Stan, as I pointed out, it would NOT actually be legal the way it was intended in the ad. Essentially, the concern I raised can be expressed in the following question (more academic in nature): 1. If the guy did it correctly, in a legal way (i.e. hired somebody to do produce great shots for him [wedding or not - does it matter - as it can be even done with the staged "model" wedding or just a regular wedding, as long it is done correctly from the legal point of view]), would it be acceptable to display those photos in his business portfolio? And a variation of that, based on your [Stan] example: 2. Do you feel OK to put shots produced by your hired assistants into YOUR business portfolio? If the answers for 1. and 2. are different, then 3. What is the difference between the situation described in 1. and 2. above? I would be very interested to hear what different PDMLers think about this type of situation. > > And, as I pointed out earlier, he's completely screwed from the > standpoint of model releases. > Mark, that's a good point. However, it is hypothetical at this point (even though this is something that would be likely, as the photographer does not seem to be very scrupulous). In principle, if the "seller" is scrupluous and had obtained the model releases for his own needs (especially if it was on a basis similar to TFP) then that part wouldn't be a problem. Igor -- 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.
