Re: How do we feel about these?
- From: Pyromancer <pyromancer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:30:06 +0100
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Richard
Fairhurst <richardf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> gently breathed:
On Aug 21, 12:33 am, a...@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
This is absolutely standard. If an image is to be used publically (and
this includes websites and such) then permission has to be obtained from
anyone photographed (i.e. present in the image).
[...]
Remember: there's a precedent in law that using images of people without
their permission is cause for award of significant damages.
Do you have a citation for this, please?
I always understood there was a test as to whether the person concerned
was the main feature of the image or not.
So a close-up shot of someone, with them as the main feature, and a
train in the background, would need permission. But a shot of a train
that just happened to also feature someone getting off it wouldn't, as
the person was incidental to the main purpose of the shot.
Otherwise tourists would have great difficulty ever photographing any
landmark building in almost any city.
I'm pretty sure I've read something like the above on a legal advice
page of a photography website.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
.
- References:
- Re: How do we feel about these?
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Re: How do we feel about these?
- From: Richard Fairhurst
- Re: How do we feel about these?
- Prev by Date: Re: How do we feel about these?
- Next by Date: Re: How do we feel about these?
- Previous by thread: Re: How do we feel about these?
- Next by thread: Re: How do we feel about these?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
