|
Forums >
General Industry >
To beat a dead horse.... "likeness" question
I know that this topic has been talked to death - model releases what they are, who needs them, etc. I guess I'm still running into issues regarding the idea of "art" and "editorial" both of which do not need releases and "commercial" which does. To illustrate my questions better: I'm currently dancing for a show on the weekends. It's on a fair ground and you have to pay to come in. Photographers have taken my picture during the performance. Whatever, that's fine (even though it irks me that some of these pictures are really bad and I hate knowing they are out there making me look bad). He has approached the other dancers about "autographed photos." To me it seems like a scam, he wants us to buy stacks of these photos he took so we can sign them and sell them to the rest of the public. I don't think there is a market and I don't want to do it. However, he would be within his rights to come with stacks of photos of me and sell them to patrons in the parking lot, correct? Because they are just photos of me, it would be "art" and he has every right to sell them? I understand that he can't make me sign them, but it still seems... creepy. Sep 05 08 06:01 pm Link The idea that calling photos "art" exempts you from Right of Publicity and Right of Privacy laws is simply wrong. My opinion is that in California and other states with Publicity and Privacy laws, a Release is required for what he is doing. I would also be surprised if, assuming he is actually on fairgrounds property, the fairgrounds permits such commercial activities. Sep 05 08 06:06 pm Link This whole thing is confusing to me as well. If---as models are constantly reminded here on MM---photographers own the pictures they take, period, I can never quite figure out why, exactly a model release is necessary. The very vague impression I'm getting---and it may be completely and totally wrong because I'm very new to this whole thing and I have no legal training to speak of---is that a photographer owns whatever pictures he or she takes, but cannot sell, display or distribute them without permission from the people in the picture. So, I could walk up to someone on the street and take their picture, and that's legal, provided I'm not trespassing on their private property. If someone steals that picture from me and sells or distributes it---whether that person is the individual IN the picture who mistakenly thinks "it's MY picture because I'm in it, therefore I can do what I want with it" or some random person who found the picture and decided to sell it---then I can press charges because it is, again, my picture. However, if I try to sell the picture, put it in an art gallery, etc, without the permission of the individual in the picture, then they can press charges against me because it is their "likeness" I'm selling and I never had them sign a release. Smarter people than me... is this in ANY way correct? Sometimes, trying to learn about the industry from MM is like trying to learn evolution from a fundie elementary school teacher... Sep 05 08 07:08 pm Link Nastasha Vanessa wrote: The photographer owns the image because he or she is the creator of the image, but just because someone owns something doesn't mean they can do what ever they want with it. They need to abide by other laws of the land. For example, people have certain rights to privacy. A release, basically indicates you agree that the photographer is not breaking your rights of privacy or other rights when he or she makes images of you public. The release isn't about the photographers ownership of the image. What can make it even more confusing is these laws can vary greatly from place to place and there are exceptions. That's why many photographers just get a release as a matter of course even if it may not be needed for their intended use. Sep 05 08 09:34 pm Link Sarah Prankha wrote: Why not give the guy a chance? Just for the sake of argument, you sit down with him, and go through his shots of you, then pick out one that you like, surely he has at least one good one. From there, have him print ten. Sep 05 08 09:58 pm Link John Edward wrote: Perhaps I'll look into it. I guess his broaching the subject just made me curious about the notion of "likeness" and whether he could do it or not. Sep 05 08 10:37 pm Link In Minnesota, the photog can use their images for self promotion, editorial and private sales without a release. Technically, a photog can sell images that are subsequently used for commercial purposes (i.e., in an advertisement) without a release. If the images are used for commercial purposes and have no release, the user of the image gets in trouble--not the photog (unless s/he signs a contract with the buyer indicating a release is on file). Not all states have the same rules. The fact that the images are being made on private property complicates the whole thing--unless he has permission to photograph there. Sep 05 08 10:40 pm Link |
