-xiray- wrote in
:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:16:03 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
wrote:


Humans and corporations - same thing from a law standpoint in
a case
like this. And in the event that a photo has been used in such a way
as to be considered detrimental to the human or corporation, through
reputation or defamation or even association, yes, there's plenty of
precedents.


One exception: if the photo is news.

For example, if I get a shot of a guy in a Mickey Mouse suit robbing a
bank, I would not need a release. If I got a shot of you beating your
kid in the parking lot of Walmart, I would not need a release. If the
photo showed animal abuse at a zoo, I would not need a release. That
kind of thing.

Yes and no. Overall, "newsworthy" usage falls under an umbrella of
not requiring releases. But in the event that the image appears to be
'editorializing' or lending an inappropriate association to the subject,
this can and has been contested successfully.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread in some wild direction, so I'm
not going to go off into details. Long time back I found a website that
listed various court cases concerning 'journalistic uses', and some of the
decisions against the photographer were frightening. Wish I still had it
handy.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net