COPYRIGHT-L Archives

Archiver > COPYRIGHT > 2002-08 > 1028670823


From: "Myra V Gormley" <>
Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Genealogy vs the Paparazzi
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:53:43 -0700
References: <3D501075.B42FC3C7@helenet.com> <3D504101.4A09BD0E@global2000.net>


Ooops. The comment was "persons prominently featured in their pictures" --
not PROMINENT persons -- or public people. Big difference. Also, there
are differences in some areas in what rules apply to the working press vs.
Average Guy taking pictures to include in his/her family history.

Another point that was raised and missed is that publishing on the Web is
no different (legally) that publishing in a book or magazine or running 50
copies off at your local QuickPrint store. Publishing is publishing.

=========================================
Myra Vanderpool Gormley, Certified Genealogist

Certification Info: http://www.bcgcertification.org/certification/
====================================================





----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Lamere" <>
To: <>
Sent: August 06, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Genealogy vs the Paparazzi


> Larry,
>
> "Photographers need to get signed releases from any person who is
prominently featured in their pictures. It's called a model release. Any
photo published prominently featuring a person without a release is a legal
"no-no.""
>
> I have heard it said repeatedly on one particular Fox News commentary
program that public figures don't have any say in whether they are
photographed or not. If the person was wrong so many times, the producers
would certainly correct the commentator. What you are saying is that
paparazzi cannot legally publisher their photos of prominent people. Yet,
certain weekly "newspapers" print photographs of movie stars or famous
people in compromising situations even though they could not get permission
to do so. It would not seem that that was illegal to do. What they say
about a person occasionally gets them in trouble, but I don't think they
have much problem publishing the photos.
>
> Somehow, if it's news, I don't think you have to get permission to take
the photo or print it. Imagine needing the permission of a criminal being
led into a court in chains to put that film footage on TV. We would never
see anything like that if that were the case.
>
> I'll be interested in your reply.
>
> Cliff
>
>
> "" wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just checking in with my 2 bits worth on the subject, "Privately owned
> > homes and buildings," posted by Dale. I avoided hitting the "reply to"
> > button and changed the subject to shorten the length of my reply.
> >
> > Dale's original question was, "This may or may not be a copyright
issue,
> > but, what if any are the restrictions on taking pictures of privately
> > owned homes and buildings and possibly publishing them either in print
> > or to the web?"
> >
> > Like Mike, I've been a photographer for many, many years. Photographers
> > need to get signed releases from any person who is prominently featured
> > in their pictures. It's called a model release. Any photo published
> > prominently featuring a person without a release is a legal "no-no."
> >
> > It is fundamental to copyright law that the photographer owns the
rights
> > to his/her pictures. They are original creative works. We own
copyrights
> > to photos, and we own property rights to real estate. I suppose it is
> > possible to copyright the DESIGN of a property. I'd guess architects do
> > that all the time. However, when we buy a building, we buy TITLE to the
> > building, not its copyrighted design.
> >
> > So, in general, I agree with Mike. I can conceive of some far fetched
> > instances which might be exceptions. For example, several buildings
here
> > in Helena have exterior wall paintings. These were commissioned by the
> > building owners and were painted by a local artist. They depict
> > historical events, etc. Publishing photos of those exterior walls, it
> > seems to me, would require permission from the artist and perhaps the
> > building owner.
> >
> > I have been to many places and events where I could not take my camera.
> > I usually left it behind because I knew in advance it would not be
> > allowed. Music concerts, but those involve pictures of performers. Many
> > museums do not allow cameras. Even wedding chapels who also provide
> > photographic services. But its not a legal exclusion of photos. Its
> > simply a condition of using the service.
> >
> > That's my non attorney take on this issue.
> >
> > Larry
> > --
> > Larry DeFrance, Helena Montana USA
>
>

This thread: