Regarding whether one needs model releases from guests at a wedding you've
photographed, Dirk says:
>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.
Actually, if the person is famous, ie. a public figure, he probably could
not successfully sue you. A public figure is presupposed to have given up
the right of privacy. He might sue the Enquirer for misrepresenting the
truth, but not for invasion of privacy.
Now on the other hand, if you posted on your Web site a wedding-guest
picture of your rather rotund Aunt Bessie munching hors d'oeuvres on your
Web site, and she decided that it made her look too fat and held her up to
public ridicule, and she decided to sue you for pain, suffering and
recovery of the cost of visits to her therapist related thereto, you might
be in the deep fry...
--Peter
--- 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 >
|