[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Stones pictures (juridical thoughts, long)

Subject: Re: [OM] Stones pictures (juridical thoughts, long)
From: Richard Schaetzl <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:57:18 +0200
Hello Olympians and Stones harassers ;-)

Some purely theoretical thoughts:

Ken Norton wrote:

> Recently on the stock-photo list (where mostly working pros hang out and
> compare notes), there was a big discussion regarding this very same issue.
> Stagesets, trees, buildings, gazebos, etc not only can be copyrighted, but
> often are.  

Would be interesting to know, who holds the copyright of the tree?

There are attempts to limit freedom in public places. Especially the
artist Cristo is famous to persuade administration to bend the law and
forbid the taking and publishing of pictures of his works in the public.
Last examples were the wrapping of a bridge in Paris and the Reichstag
in Berlin.
Obviously this violates basic constitutional laws, and in less prominent
cases courts decided always in favour of the photographer (picture of a

> In the course of my stock work, I have to get model releases,
> product releases, AND corporate image releases.  If IBM can restrict usage
> of its identifier, why cant Mick Jagger with his face?  And, sorry, these
> are not American copyrights, but Internationally recognised copyrights.

An logo has been created by someone, who is now holding the copyright of
it (in Germany, always the creator and later there descendants, holds
the copyright, which is not transferable, only the right of use can be
sold). Additionally there is the right of a company on his name, nobody
else, in this particular market, is allowed to use it.

How has created the picture of Micks face? Hans! Who holds the copyright
of it? Hans too!

And hasn?t Hans violated Micks right of his image? Mick Jagger is at
least a "relative person of contemporary history". Which means, a
person, who is at least of temporary public interest. For Micks
significance in Rock´n Roll history , I would say, that he is already an
"absolute person of contemporary history". This persons have to accept,
that there picture is taken in the public and will be published.

Is an concert in an closed stadium a public or an private event? I would
say public, there is only a limited numbers of persons allowed to come
in, but this seems to me of no significance, because the crowd is so big
and Mick had no special interest to give access only to special, known
group of persons, as long as they pay the entrance fee. 
This view might be disputable, because the same is true for museums.
But there it?s the copyright of the pictures, not the face of a famous
museum warden. ;-)
For Micks face I would still say public and for the stage show maybe
Is it allowed for security to help themselves an confiscate the film? No
they had to call the police, but I wouldn?t discuss with an gorilla. Be

Generally the law in Germany do not allow -publishing- an picture
without consent of the person whose image is taken. Publishing is a wide 
term, if the operator in the lab looks at the negative, it?s published. So
theoretically you can photograph everybody as long as you don?t publish
it. The courts however, have decided in several cases, that even taking
a picture might violate, under some conditions, someone?s rights.

But maybe Hans has violated his contract with Mick, (there was written
on the entrance, not to take photos)? 
When Hans bought the tickets and entered into the contract, there was no
hint, that Mick don?t like to be photographed. It?s not possible to
alter an contract later (at the entrance) without the consent of both
partners. So Hans didn?t violate an contract with Mick.

Probably Hans has violated the "house rules" of the concert? This rules
could be part of the contract as "general terms of business",
automatically part of every contract is made by Mick with his customers
(AGB´s in Germany). For that, Hans must have been the possibility to
know them beforehand and this rules has to be applied on several contracts.
Both might be possible. 
And what would be the consequences of this contract violation? Hans will
still hold property and copyright of the pictures, they only could have
kicked him out and sued him for damages. But what damages?  
Again purely theoretical thoughts, because the concert was in the
Netherlands and not in Germany, and I doubt US law is applicable there


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz