On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Don't even think of doing it unless you want to risk the lady in
the picture owning your house and car.
Ok, bob and colin ... and anyone else who cares to respond. In your
considered opinions, this would put the photographer, publisher and
seller of the tshirt at risk.
Yes. Serious risk.
How does printing a photograph of a woman and her child, taken in a
public setting at a flea market, and printed on a t-shirt, with no
other text or advertising associated, differ from taking that same
photograph, printed and framed, and hung on a gallery wall for sale?
It doesn't really. I wouldn't think of putting an unreleased photo
in a gallery show, either. Generally, though, fine arts use has been
considered exempt, but hasn't really been tested in court recently.
It isn't a copyright issue, though, but something called "right of
publicity". A friend of mine's daughter sued a man who used her
likeness without permission and got a large enough settlement that
she no longer had to worry about her college expenses.
or sold to the local newspaper for use on page 11 of the magazine
section in a feature article entitled "People Walking Through A Fair"?
There is a specific exemption for news use, but even that is not
absolute. A man was photographed in Central Park jogging. The NY
Times used the photo in a story about drug dealers. The man sued.
The man won.
I know the latter two cases are done all the time with no releases.
Lots of things are done without releases, but it only takes one
lawsuit to ruin your day!
Bob
