On Nov 10, 2007, at 1:26 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <snip>
> 'Non-commercial use' is tricky - it does not cover art so you may
> sell the image as an image.
Seems to me the US Supreme Court weighed in on this last year. Memory
is far sketchier than it should be, and I'm too lazy to look it up
now, but as I recall the court ruled that street-type photography
displayed and sold in gallery and gallery-like environments did not
require permission or release. So when I shoot the lobster boats
leaving the harbor, and the sternman is recognizable, I don't need a
release. I've been known to get them, but apparently I don't need
them. On the Working Boats page of my site there's a shot titled Dog
is My Co-Pilot. I took that image two years ago, but never have
displayed it because I never got around to tracking down the people.
I was pretty sure I could have used it anyway, but it seemed like it
wouldn't hurt to get permission, which I got a couple of weeks ago.
> However, the front cover shot is considered an inducement to purchase
> (the magazine) and so the editor purchase a stock shot for that.
Again, there was a celebrated case in the US a number of years ago on
just this point. I know it was a number of years ago because I was
still in the newspaper business. <g> As the paper I worked for was
owned by the New York Times Co., every year the Times Legal Eagles
would make the rounds of properties holding seminars for editors and
writers about libel law. Fair usage of images was always a part of
the discussion. (Our staff photog never got releases for news shots,
and always got them for feature shots, even though he didn't really
need to,) Seems the New York Times Magazine ran a cover story on, I
think, upwardly mobile black executives, or some such as that. They
used a street shot of a dapper black man striding purposefully down a
Madison Avenue-like environment. As it turned out, the young black
man in question took exception to the newspaper using his image to
illustrate the story. It's been so long I can't recall the exact
details, but I think the crux of the argument was that by using the
picture, the newspaper labeled him as something he was not, or did
not want to be known as. The shot was not illustrating an actual news
story in which the man was involved. I believe the Times had to
extract its checkbook on that one, but again, memory fails.
My guiding philosophy is that the local folk here provide me with a
supplemental income through furnishing subject matter for my
photography, and I ought to do what I can to keep the waters smooth.
Sometimes this means giving away prints, too, which I have been known
to do. Sometimes I just spend two years being too lazy to track the
people down. <g>
--Bob
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|