In a message dated 21/5/01 5:05:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I
know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model
releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
Yes, but I don't think a snap in a public area would implicate it in most
if not all states. It's a matter of state law, not federal law, so it's
impossible to draw a general
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
With the 3 Stooges decision, one can see that the law seems to favor
whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it.
The Stooges' rights are owned by Comedy III Productions, and they're very
protective of their property. In another recent case,
A nice general overview of many of the issues that have come up here re
model/properly releases and invasion of privacy in the United States can
be found on the Photo District News website . . . .
http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html
Perhaps some of you will
: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true.
OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's
Douglas Landrum wrote:
Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If
so, what so they say?
Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give
up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a
result of your assumed
My street releases are two paragraphs.
A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ...
obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and
they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He
also prefers a cash payment on the
Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
I've
Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get
crucified for this, I hope you know. :-)
Best regards--Lynn
--Original Message--
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 21, 2001 11:47:37 AM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once
someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the
photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to
ceding to the subject's wishes.
In any event, unless someone does relatively
GMT
| Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Landrum wrote:
|
|
|
| Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things?
If
| so, what so they say?
|
| Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give
| up all rights
Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against
a
published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds?
There was a mention of a Cartier-Bresson case before. But on reading the
Stirling article in turns out that it wasn't the photograph that was at
issue but its
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea.
Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might
hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-)
--LRA
My street releases are two paragraphs.
A friend has a model release
on 5/21/01 11:07 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are various Releases at
http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:/
/www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/
nice one!
this is great
http://www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/pocket_release.html
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea.
It's a pretty simple release and I'm sure it's far from bulletproof,
legally speaking. The funny thing is this guy has no intention of ever
selling his photographs -- he's retired and living off a seven-figure pile
of
:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once
someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the
photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more
I have a problem with giving out money for photographing people on the
streets. (a) your relationship is contractual rather than a voluntary
arrangement but much more importantly (b) I'd rather people wanted to be
photographed without payment entering into it.
I
]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:30 PM
To: Filmscanners
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[re needing or not needing releases for 'art']
You do in the U.S. if the person
Dave Buyens wrote:
Art,
I am a part time photojournalist. I hope my comments below encourages
others to follow your lead.
Further, I don't need a model release for such publication. Now, if it were
for art's sake or for profit--that'd be a different story. Then, go ahead
and get
: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Laurie,
Now you're (properly IMHO) backing off from your initial statement:
You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get
sued for invasion of privacy.
Could you tell us what your background and/or training in this area or law
John wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true.
OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus
tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is
on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true.
OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus
tour (50's version
Art,
You certainly do have a point. For me, though, it's certainly not as much
profit as I'd like!
Dave
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I've never quite understood why publishing an image in a newspaper is
considered not for profit... does the name Randolph Hearst (and
granddaughter Patti) and
]
To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
I've never heard of that. I
At 05:34 AM 5/19/01, Arthur Entlich wrote:
...
My secrets for street photography without getting killed
...
Thanks for the encouragement.
- Clive Moss
http://clive.moss.net
To fight Cancer go to http://www.ud.com download the software, and join my
team by clicking on
on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My secrets for street photography without getting killed include some
fast slight of hand on occasion (looking like you are photographing
somewhere or something else). But more often its just a really big smile
that disarms people
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:09 PM
To: Filmscanners
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My secrets for street photography
on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[re needing or not needing releases for 'art']
You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get
sued for invasion of privacy.
There is no right to privacy in a public place by definition. We are
28 matches
Mail list logo
