Re: Legal issues with Photography of non-professional sports?
- From: "Pat" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Apr 2007 09:03:15 -0700
On Apr 1, 3:18 pm, use...@xxxxxxxxxx (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Pat <gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> That's not actually true. It isn't that they *can't* sell the
On Mar 30, 3:37 pm, "UC" <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[..]
On Mar 30, 12:32 pm, "jeremy" <jer...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with your assessment. Anyone can photograph anything in
public view, but the right to photograph does not confer the right to
sell or publish those photos if they contain the likenesses of
individuals.
This is false. That's what happens every day in the newspaper. It's
called freedom.
You are mixing apples and oranges. A news paper can take your picture and
use it for a news (editorial) purpose -- almost without limits if you are
in the public. But it can NOT use the exact same image taken under the
exact same circumstances for advertising purposes.
Let's say it is a wonderful spring day and the local muni golf course
opens. The newspaper goes out and takes a picture of someone walking off
the green carryine a golf club. It's a beautiful picture that accompanies
a story or caption about the lovely spring weather. Great. It could be
you or it could be Tiger Woods. It would all be legal, whether or not the
person is identified.
Now, let's say the golf course sees the picture, calls the paper, and they
develop an ad that uses the same image. Guess what, They can't. That's
a commerical purpose. [..]
image,
> it's that they likely won't. The image contains a recognizable
> individual, who has a stake in this. By selling the golfer's
image, the
> newspaper opens themselves to liability from the golfer, which
they
> won't do. If, however, the newspaper tracks down the individual
and
> negotiates a release, then the newspaper would be in the stock
> photography business.
>
In saying "can't, I am meaning "can't or you'll get sued", not "it is
physically impossible". Sure, you could take a picture of Tiger Woods
getting into his car and use it in a car ad. Physically it is
possible. But you "can't" do it without getting yourself sued.
As for a release, of course you do whatever you please if you get a
release. The point of the OP was a situation without releases.
So basically, you're both kind of right and both kind of wrong. It's notreally
that it's illegal for the newspaper to sell the image, it's that they
don't need the headache, so it's likely their policy to not do such a
thing.
Besides, if you're the photojournalist who took the picture, you
want your editor to say, "That golf club called, and wants to useyour
picture, but we can't..." because that means you can go and pitch a
shoot for them.
If it was a staff photographer, it would talk to him/her to if there
was no ID. Newspapers would sell of an image to make a buck. That's
the business they are in. If it was a stringer, few papers would care
if the stringer went and did a shoot and the editor might make the
referral just to put some coin in the stringer's pocket.
.
- References:
- Re: Legal issues with Photography of non-professional sports?
- From: Paul Mitchum
- Re: Legal issues with Photography of non-professional sports?
- Prev by Date: Re: Childrens sporting events in the UK
- Next by Date: Re: Childrens sporting events in the UK
- Previous by thread: Re: Legal issues with Photography of non-professional sports?
- Next by thread: Re: Legal issues with Photography of non-professional sports?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|