Peter,
Your comments about posting the wedding photos to the web site are not
valid even for fat Aunt Bessie chowing down. At a wedding ceremony no
one could argue right of privacy. Maybe in the the bathroom at the
wedding but certainly not a a reception or events attended by others.
Privacy can only be valid if one is in a private place such as inside
their home. Even the backyard is not considered a private place by most
courts. Maybe the back yard of a house a hundred miles from
civilization would be considered a private place. The basic rule is
that if one appears in a public place they can not argue invasion of
privacy. This is the basis for paparazzi. This is why it is hard to
sue newspapers such as the National Enquirer. Whether or not the person
is a celebrity has nothing to with violation of privacy rights. Just
remember if you appear in a public place anyone can take your photo and
use it for non-commercial or journalistic expression. However if the
intent of the photo is used to harass or damage a person by making false
or misleading statements about where the person was or what they were
doing .... well that's another story. But the photo alone by itself
with no editorial or doctoring is basically open to fair use.
The celebrity issue has an interesting twist with fair use. Some movie
stars had their image trade marked in the 1980's. This was done in
hopes of preventing unauthorized use of their photo. However the last I
heard this would not hold up if the photographer shot them in a public
place. Again photo journalism rules rules apply. However if that photo
or likeness of the person were to be used in an add to sell widgets than
that is obviously not fair use; so the the trade mark issue is not
relevenant.
The ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) has made most of this
information available in their various forms of literature. I'm sure
it's easy to research and find. Thus for those who merely shot for
journalistic expression the fair use standards make it easy to publish
your works with out the fear of lawsuits. It's when you cross the
bridge from journalism to purely commercial imaging is when model
releases are absolutely mandatory.
In today's litigious world of everyone suing everyone else for looking
at them it is important to know your rights as a photo journalist. Most
amateur photographers who just take their camera outside and shoot what
ever interests them are considered photo journalists. So shoot away and
remember this is still the good ol USA (for us Americans anyway). We
still have the First Amendment the last time I checked.
< 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 >
|