>It's the use of the image which determines whether or not it is
>necessary to obtain a release. Images shot purely for journalistic
>expression or for capturing reality for the sake of just recording
>(freezing) a scene in real life are always protected uses under the
>First Amendment in the United States. And like any speech or
expression
>the author is entitled to be paid a fee for making that expression.
The
>rights to that photograph can be copyrighted by the photographer.
>
You're absolutley correct Phillip. I would like to add that it is the
end user of the image that has the legal responsibility to obtian all
releases for their intended use. In other words, if you shoot a person
for journalistic purposes, and therefore do not obtain a release, if
someone turns around and uses that image for a commercial use without a
release, they are liable, not the photographer. I think I got that
right anyway. I know that sometimes we shoot without knowing how the
image will be used in the future, so unless we know for sure that it is
going to be used commercially, there isn't a need for a release. On the
other hand, I suppose to really cover your ass it would be wise to get
releases for every shot, but that is often not practical.
But, the way out of this "get a release for every person, building and
pet" is the work-for-hire contract. Under this contract, the copyright
belongs to the employer, and therefore all of the legal
responsibilities also are the burden of the employer. As I read the
law, it would be very hard for an employee to be sued under this kind
of contract. So there appears to be protection in the "deal with the
devil." But, I'm not a pro, so I don't know how important secondary
sales are to photogs for newspapers and magazines.
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|