The illustration on the front cover of a magazine is considered an
'inducement to buy' the product (the magazine). The articles inside
are considered to be journalism. An advertisement is not.
The prime purpose of an illustration to an article is to inform.
The prime purpose of an illustration in an advert is to sell the
product.
Of course, there are substantial grey areas in this. So-called
advertorials and so on. Most media er on the side of caution.
Of course, journalism is a 'commercial' use but it has a special
status conferred on it, in your case related to a constitutional
freedom of expression. Artistic endeavour is another special case,
also being a commercial use as soon as the artist sells a print. But
in both cases they have such a broad range of implications that most
of the images that we see around us don't need legal release.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/11/2007, at 9:47 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> But one question. Why is it that the person's image appearing in an
> illutration for an article in the magazine rather than an
> advertisement
> is not considered commercial use promoting the magazine rather than
> another product?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|