If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial photo use w/o release???
"me" wrote:
Before you use/sell a photo for commercial purposes without a signed release from the subject you may want to read this story first: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap1794628.html Even if you don't lose 15.6 million dollars like Nestle did your loss could easily out weigh any possible profit. Yeah, that's virtually impossible. That's why all you see in photography, anymore, are pretty actors and models - professional posers. That is, the present law conspires to drive the face of humanity from all photographs for sale. Those great dust-bowl era photos - not possible. You'd get sued. Photos of the plains Indians. Nah - get sued today. It's gotta stop. Society is being hurt by this prohibition and threat of suit. There are some public venues where it is clearly posted that anyone may be photographed. And there's the notion that public news makes for an implicit authorization, as well. But a lot of shots, while in public, are not in such venues or such circumstances, and probably would require a written contract. Those 'travel' shots people take of the colorfully dressed natives, even if it's just at Disneyworld. They can't expect to throw an English language contract in their face and say - sign here. Like I say, it's gotta stop. Let reason prevail, instead. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I think you are missing the point ... the case referenced was regarding a
*professional* *model.* "Mark Johnson" wrote in message ... "me" wrote: Before you use/sell a photo for commercial purposes without a signed release from the subject you may want to read this story first: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap1794628.html Even if you don't lose 15.6 million dollars like Nestle did your loss could easily out weigh any possible profit. Yeah, that's virtually impossible. That's why all you see in photography, anymore, are pretty actors and models - professional posers. That is, the present law conspires to drive the face of humanity from all photographs for sale. Those great dust-bowl era photos - not possible. You'd get sued. Photos of the plains Indians. Nah - get sued today. It's gotta stop. Society is being hurt by this prohibition and threat of suit. There are some public venues where it is clearly posted that anyone may be photographed. And there's the notion that public news makes for an implicit authorization, as well. But a lot of shots, while in public, are not in such venues or such circumstances, and probably would require a written contract. Those 'travel' shots people take of the colorfully dressed natives, even if it's just at Disneyworld. They can't expect to throw an English language contract in their face and say - sign here. Like I say, it's gotta stop. Let reason prevail, instead. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
quick release and flash brackets | Mikal | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 6 | February 12th 05 08:42 PM |
WHO Photo Contest "Images of Health and Disability 2005" | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 0 | February 3rd 05 09:32 AM |
HP Photo Web Site Photo Viewing Problem | Pholus | Digital Photography | 1 | October 6th 04 01:50 AM |
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player | Michael Shaw | Digital Photography | 2 | September 24th 04 10:10 AM |
The Extinct Cable Release Socket | Mike King | Other Photographic Equipment | 2 | November 17th 03 06:33 PM |