Photo legal issues

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Cindy Procious

Steven, I would be very interested in any recent case law that you discover.

What quickly becomes apparent upon even a brief attempt to nail down this mass of gelatin is that even a survey of the law would require a small treatise. I can

[Cindy Procious]

Wow.

These cases are very illuminating. It says that the law is very mutable, and subject to interpretation as each particular judge sees fit.

The only one that surprised me was the First amendment case where it was considered parody of the judge. Since the artist wasn't a journalist, there was no editorial content to the painting of the judge in horns, so I'm surprised at that ruling.

I love your analogy of the blackjack hand. I think it's very apropos.

So no painting parade scenes, then, without first going to each person in your photo and obtaining their written authorization to use their likeness! DARN.

[Steven Sweeney]

Not so much what an individual judge might think, but what the law of the particular jurisdiction is. (As a practical matter, though, an individual judge -- and god forbid, a jury -- can wreak havoc with reason.)

I think the parade scene is tricky . Who would argue that such a deliberate public spectacle wasn't newsworthy?

Yet the trouble seems to come when you, as a private individual (that is, for example, not as a journalist, and not with consent or other privilege) use an image of another private individual for commercial or other "profit" purpose, or if your methodology in either acquiring the image or using it is particularly offensive.

I guess my personal "test" would be to put myself on the other side of the lens or the publicity and consider whether I would regard similar unconsented use of my own image unpleasant or unacceptable. If I wound up on the "Froot Loops" box instead of "Wheaties," I might feel the whiplash of umbrage and have to visit my legal adviser.

"Street photography" generates a huge amount of discussion on these issues. One does need to be very careful when reading Internet pronouncements from the uninformed ("I believe that if you're out in public, you're fair game!!" and "Photographers have legal rights, too!!" Well, duh.)

Here are a couple of URLs for further consideration:

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

http://www.baja.com/sensuousline/sli...releases.shtml

[Cindy Procious]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

"Street photography" generates a huge amount of discussion on these issues. One does need to be very careful when reading Internet pronouncements from the uninformed "I believe that if you're out in public, you're fair game!!"

That's my husband's "intelligent and informed" argument. LOL.

Thanks for the links - I will check those out.

(Edited: I should note that my husband *is* a journalist - an editorial cartoonist, to be specific, and I suppose he applies that journalistic protection of the first amendment to almost everything he does, however erroneously that may be.)

[Cindy Procious]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

I guess my personal "test" would be to put myself on the other side of the lens or the publicity and consider whether I would regard similar unconsented use of my own image unpleasant or unacceptable. If I wound up on the "Froot Loops" box instead of "Wheaties," I might feel the whiplash of umbrage and have to visit my legal adviser.

Good point.

To put it in terms more relevant to this forum - say a painter snapped a photo of a beautiful woman at the beach, mabye building a sand castle with her young daughter. The artist went back to the studio to paint the scene, including very recognizable faces.

The artist then makes a ton of giclees of the painting, and sells them for $1000 a pop.

If I were that beautiful woman (a whopper of hypotheticality) - and I walked into a gallery and saw a print of myself and my daughter on our last vacation being sold for a $1000, and furthermore there's a rack with dozens more for sale, and even notecards & postcards with the image on it, I THINK I might start to get a wee bit perturbed.

I think that I would want some recompense, and maybe, even, a slice of the pie, so to speak. I think I'd be on the phone to my lawyer.

The dealer just hit the artist's 17 with a jack.

[Jean Kelly]

I'll be talking to a gallery about producing a series of paintings of an historic area here in Wi. They will be made into giclees and sold by the gallery. Now I fear that the printer, the gallery owners and the non-profit organization will have all the rights to everything, and I will get sued by all and anyone else who wants a piece of the pie! Guess I'll just give up and go eat worms.


Seriously, all this discussion couldn't come at a better time. I've bookmarked the sites and will read and check things out completely before I sign on the dotted line.

Jean

[Michele Rushworth]

Just be sure to get models releases signed by any people who appear in the paintings, and get the printer to sign a release saying that the artist retains all copyrights to the image.

[Steven Sweeney]

I think you can go ahead and get a good night's rest and not worry too much.

A lot of this is worst-case scenario, just to give the full lay of the land. Siting the tar pits and the geothermal pools on the park map doesn't mean it isn't perfectly safe to skip down the boardwalks and work from the viewing platforms, as almost all of us are happy to do.

Warning signs rarely deter those with a bent for mischief, but this kind of information could, at the least, alert many well-meaning practitioners to hazards of which they might have been unaware, and to precautionary steps.

As our Vice-President can affirm, once you pull the trigger, somebody's "liable" to get hurt.

[Jean Kelly]

Thanks Michele and Steven, as this thing pulls together I'll probably ask more questions. I'm really excited about it and can't wait to get started.
But it all has to wait till summer when the gardens and foliage are all blooming!
Jean