See Lex, it's not that I'm not a people person, it's that I want to stay
away from a suit. That's why I prefer to photograph "anything as long as
there aren't people in the picture."
Gregg
From: Peter A. Klein
> Years ago I read a book called "Legal Aspects of Photography." At least
> that's what the cover says. The title page says "Legal Problems in
> Photography." I still have it--the author is Robert Veit Sherwin, and
it's
> an Amphoto book, copyright 1957, 6th printing, July 1969.
>
> The aspect that concerns me here is "invasion of privacy."
>
> The book quotes a New York law, saying that you may not use "for purposes
> of trade, the name, portrait, or picture of any living person, without
> first having obtained the written consent of such person..." There's also
> discussion of how you may photograph a person in the context of a crowd or
> general ambience of a public place. But if you single the person out, and
> that person is not a celebrity, and you publish the picture, you have
> invaded that person's privacy and they can sue you.
>
> This doesn't apply to a news photo, where the person is part of a
> newsworthy event. But it can apply *later*, if an old spot-news photo is
> used again after the event.
>
> There's also a non-privacy means to sue a photographer--a tort action. If
> a person feels they have been wronged by the appearance of the photograph,
> they can sue for pain and suffering, holding up to ridicule or showing in
> an unfavorable light, loss of reputation, etc.
>
> What this boils down is that except for journalists covering a newsworthy
> event, a photographer may not use a picture of a person for any commercial
> purpose without the subject's consent.
>
> I remember when I read the book, I began to wonder whether it was safe to
> *ever* have a person in one's photographs!
>
> And, if you photograph someone's pet and publish the picture without the
> owner's consent, they can sue you for that, too. And if you include in a
> picture any recognizable trademarked product, such as a can of Coca-Cola
> (TM), you need permission from the company before you can use that picture
> commercially, too.
>
> But how does all this apply to the Web? If I photograph people on the
> street for art's sake, and then put the pictures on a Web site But how
does
> all this apply to the Web? If I photograph people on the street for art's
> sake, and then put the pictures on a Web site, can I be sued? Note that
> I'm not selling the picture, I'm just posted it for my fellow
photographers
> to critique and anyone who hits my Web site to admire.
>
> Just wondered if anyone has ever encountered these issues, discussed them
> with a lawyer, etc.?
>
>
>
> --- Peter
> /\: ________ __ ========= , , , , , , |' , ,
> / b | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ~|' |
> / b b ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ' ,| | ,| |__|__|__| |__| | | | |
> ~' =========
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|