You could get someone in a lot of trouble with your logic there, Bob.
The law is not about logic, it is about how things are written into law,
and how the courts have ruled on it in the past. And you are wrong about
that photo on the front of a mass market book too. You damn well better
have a release, but you will because your publisher is not going to
accept the liability involved if you do not.
You need an attorney to dot the I's and cross the T's, but what we are
talking about here is so broad that anyone who has done even a little
reading about the matter should know better than what some of you guys
are saying.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Bob W wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question is whether the act of walking down a public
highway, wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a person(s) on
it comes under this same editorial useage, or whether it is
classed as 'commercial' (as in commercial gain).
This would be an interesting test case!
there is an interesting article here about the ethics of using the same
photograph in different contexts:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html
It discusses the rights & wrongs of the way Martin Parr allowed some of his
photos to be used for adverts which had pejorative captions. In at least one
case the photos were used without permission of the clearly identifiable
subjects.
My own view is that there is no difference between publishing a photo on a
one-off t-shirt, and publishing it on the front of a mass-circulation book.
By and large it is quite acceptable to publish it on the front of a book
without permission, and I think this is the correct approach from the legal
point of view. There are, of course, many situations when it would be legal,
but unethical, but these depend largely on the particular context and
situation.
Bob
