From: Paul Stenquist
On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Paul,
Regarding the last sentence in your comment, more specifically,
the word anything. Can you sell merchandise (a T-shirt or a
calendar) with a photo of a celebrity you snapped on a city
street or at a public event?
From: P. J. Alling
Here's a question, what if your photograph of a random person made them
a celebrity. Could they then turn around and sue you for misuse of
their recognizable image. I'll bet you could get an attorney to ague
that they had that right.
If you've registered your copyright
My take on this ...
MARK !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
--
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.
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
From: Mark Roberts
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have yet to find a publisher who requires a release.
Rodale Press. They did when I did a shoot for Runner's World.
It's basically a matter of CYA, I suspect.
Am I correct that this was a requirement the buyer made as a condition
of sale?
-
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...
John Sessoms wrote:
From: Mark Roberts
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have yet to find a publisher who requires a release.
Rodale Press. They did when I did a shoot for Runner's World.
It's basically a matter of CYA, I suspect.
Am I correct that this was a requirement the buyer made as a
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
John,
I don't see much about this subject beyond what I quoted already.
The 4th (2010) edition may have more material on that.
BTW, try from your university/college - it may have access
to this e-book from campus/library:
http://www.netlibrary.com/Reader/ - enter the book title to search
*
On Jan 21, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
John,
I don't see much about this subject beyond what I quoted already.
The 4th (2010) edition may have more material on that.
BTW, try from your university/college - it may have access
to this e-book from campus/library:
Paul,
Regarding the last sentence in your comment, more specifically,
the word anything.
Can you sell merchandise (a T-shirt or a calendar) with a photo of
a celebrity you snapped on a city street or at a public event?
The way I read the book (and other materials), - that would be a
On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Paul,
Regarding the last sentence in your comment, more specifically,
the word anything.
Can you sell merchandise (a T-shirt or a calendar) with a photo of
a celebrity you snapped on a city street or at a public event?
The way I
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 06:11:14PM -0500, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Paul,
Regarding the last sentence in your comment, more specifically,
the word anything.
Can you sell merchandise (a T-shirt or a calendar) with a photo of
a celebrity you snapped on a city street or at a public event?
Here's a question, what if your photograph of a random person made them
a celebrity. Could they then turn around and sue you for misuse of
their recognizable image. I'll bet you could get an attorney to ague
that they had that right.
On 1/21/2011 7:44 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Jan
On 21/01/2011 7:14 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Here's a question, what if your photograph of a random person made them
a celebrity. Could they then turn around and sue you for misuse of their
recognizable image. I'll bet you could get an attorney to ague that they
had that right.
Good question.
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
I've ordered a copy. But I'd also like to hear from some publisher's in-house
lawyers regarding this issue. I worked for Hearst Magazine Division in a
previous life, and model releases were never a concern for them. My photos
appeared primarily in /Popular Mechanics/. If fact, I have yet to
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have yet to find a publisher who requires a release.
Rodale Press. They did when I did a shoot for Runner's World.
It's basically a matter of CYA, I suspect.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Ok, I give up, I can¹t stay out of the conversation (I don¹t have anymore
wall space that would like good with a fist punched through it). If I wait
longer to email again I won¹t be polite so I¹ll email now while I still have
some reasonable control over my language.
Just read this it goes
relax. many people = many opinions.what's the big whoop?
cheers
ecke
2011/1/19 Elizabeth Masoner lizmaso...@bellsouth.net:
Ok, I give up, I can¹t stay out of the conversation (I don¹t have anymore
wall space that would like good with a fist punched through it). If I wait
longer to email
Explanation: http://xkcd.com/386/
On 11-01-19 3:48 PM, eckinator wrote:
relax. many people = many opinions.what's the big whoop?
cheers
ecke
2011/1/19 Elizabeth Masonerlizmaso...@bellsouth.net:
Ok, I give up, I can¹t stay out of the conversation (I don¹t have anymore
wall space that would
Well, if she's right every newspaper in the country and most of the magazines
are in big trouble.
Go put your fist through a wall.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
Ok, I give up, I can’t stay out of the conversation (I don’t have anymore
wall space that would like good
For the 50 billionth time Paul. In EVERYTHING I've said I have NEVER said
newspapers fall under this.
On 1/19/11 3:02 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Well, if she's right every newspaper in the country and most of the magazines
are in big trouble.
Go put your fist through
Don't mean to be rude, but we debate many issues here, most far more
contentiously than this. But like most of our debates, this one invites a
variety of opinions, each with an element of truth. No need to get upset
because others don't agree with you.
All newspapers and mags are intended to
But according to the copy you entered below, any endeavor designed to create
income, newspapers would be subject to this requirement as well.
I shoot more for magazines than newspapers. I haven't had to secure model
releases for those pubs either. It just doesn't happen very often in the real
On 2011-01-19 13:40 , Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
Just read this =AD it goes into the when/why/how more succinctly than anything
any of us have typed so far.
http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
interesting and valuable, but not at all succinct
With regards to
And as I've said repeatedly (hence the frustration as you are either
extremely dense or deliberately dodging those sentences just so you can
argue more), the courts have made numerous exceptions for newspapers.
Newspapers, not magazines. News stories fall under parts of the fair use
clauses and
You really don't have to resort to insults. This isn't a big deal. But as I
said, I shoot for magazines as well, and I don't have to provide releases. Some
are Sunday supplement magazines that are published by newspapers, but others
are newsstand/subscription automotive buff books.
In any
That's the disagreement,l they aren't exceptions they're the rule.
On 1/19/2011 4:31 PM, Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
And as I've said repeatedly (hence the frustration as you are either
extremely dense or deliberately dodging those sentences just so you can
argue more), the courts have made
I find myself in agreement with Paul?
Probably means it's time for me to butt out of this conversation. 8-D
From: Paul Stenquist
Well, if she's right every newspaper in the country and most of the
magazines are in big trouble. Go put your fist through a wall.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:40 PM,
From: steve harley
the two paragraphs above do not appear in the source you linked; i think
the PDF from Andrew Kantor puts a much finer touch on it
The Andrew Kantor PDF is one of the two I linked to in my original rant.
The other one:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
-
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
On 19/01/2011 5:01 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I find myself in agreement with Paul?
Probably means it's time for me to butt out of this conversation. 8-D
Probably.
Yer both wrong.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
Of course its news vs not news. The vast majority of magazines are not news
though. And magazines require releases inside and outside (at least most
reputable ones). The rest throw it back on the photographer if anything
comes of it.
On 1/19/11 5:12 PM, Paul Ewins paulew...@optusnet.com.au
argumentum ad hominem
From: Elizabeth Masoner
And as I've said repeatedly (hence the frustration as you are either
extremely dense or deliberately dodging those sentences just so you can
argue more),
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 /
From: William Robb
On 19/01/2011 5:01 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I find myself in agreement with Paul?
Probably means it's time for me to butt out of this conversation. 8-D
Probably.
Yer both wrong.
Well then. Please, enlighten us, do.
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
