Andrew is right. I can just hear the boys in the boardroom now. 'By the
time he finds out and objects, we'll have exposure like you could never
buy. And if he objects too loudly or sues us, he looks bad, so he won't.
We win no matter what.'
Editorial use is not the same thing as using a person's likeness "For
advertising or purposes of trade," as U.S. law puts it.
--Peter
> Well said, Andrew. And, in all probability, the reason they did not
seek permission from the White House was that they knew it would not be
forthcoming anyway. The White House never gives permission to use a
photo of the President for commercial purposes. That company just
thought they might get away with it.
> Paul in Portland OR
>
> > On 4/3/2014 11:33 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> > If the photo is used editorially, on a newspaper front page as part
of a story
> > for instance, no problem. The rights remain wholly with the
photographer unless
> > the the subject is demeaned or ridiculed in some way and even then
'public
> > gaze' would be an adequate defence if the subject is normally in
the public eye
> > and if no malice can be proven.
> > If it is used commercially, as part of an advertisement or
'inducement to
> > purchase' (package shot for instance), then a model release is
required. No
> > exception. Or the rights of the unwitting model are transgressed.
This is the
> > law just about anywhere where English Common Law prevails and quite
a few
> > places where it does not.
> > The President (personally, not the institution) is indeed relying
wholly upon
> > the law and the company has been behaving very badly indeed. Or at
the very
> > least incompetently. I suspect that if the subject was a film actor
or similar
> > non-political actor, or a simple member of the public, they would
have had
> > their arses sued off. If you submit images to a stock agency you
become rather
> > expert in these things quite quickly - iStockphoto will not even
accept images
> > that show company logo's on buildings or political messages on car
bumper
> > stickers as they may transgress 'property rights'.
> > I also suspect that this company and their agency thought that they
might be
> > able to get away with because many people would react just as you
have and put
> > any objection down to political bullying - which it most certainly
is not.
> > Assuming that the President would be unable to object to this
exploitation
> > because of the sensitivity of his position - that is a form of
bullying
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|