> HI100@xxxxxxx writes:
>
>> Does that mean a wedding photographer who takes a photograph
singling out a
>
>> wedding guest has to get permission to produce a wedding album for
the
>> couple?
>>
>That's a very good question, Tim. You can argue from a purely legal
>standpoint "yes" , and you can also argue "no" since it being
customary that
>there is a photographer at most weddings, the guests should also
reasonably
>expect to be photographed. It's a little like a baseball game- Fans at
a game
>cannot sue the team if they're struck by a batted or thrown ball. (The
team
>sometimes will pay the medical bill only as a goodwill gesture, not
because
>of an obligation). The one big difference is that the back of your
game
>ticket has a short legal disclaimer stating that fact, so maybe a
disclaimer
>should be included in the wedding invitations!
>BTW- I know of a couple of weddings that involved organized crime
figures
>that the photographer was instructed not to take any photos of "Uncle
>so-and-so" and the person was pointed out to the photog so there'd be
no
>mistake. I don't know if they would have sued the photographer, or
just sent
>him and his OM gear for a swim with the fishes!
>
I think that if the photos were used for any other commercial purpose
that a release would be required. I think also that since the photos
are not for sale to the general public a release is not required. If
there was a famous relative at the wedding, and you took a picture of
him drunk and dancing with a 15 year year old, then sold the photo to
the Enquirer with a racy caption, then I think you'd be in deep doodoo.
You'd have to spend all the money you got for the photo on defending
yourself in court. bummer.
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< 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 >
|