I not sure that this interpretation is 100 orrect. It has always been
my understanding that this interpretation applies to photographs of
groups where no individual is the primary subject of the photograph. In
otherwords a street scene with a number of individuals walking down the
street, where no one person is clearly the primary subject would fall
under this interpretation. I do recall something about limited use of a
photograph of an idividual for 'newsworthy' purposes. There is however
in most of thos kinds of cases a time limitation as after a certain
period the photo would not be considered newsworthy. Keep in mind that
all of this discusssion applies to photographs taken in public. Malls,
stores, any event that charges admission (sporting events, concerts,
ect) are on private property and are not part of this whole discussion.
Not to discourage anyone, but I would say we are on kind of shakey
ground here. Keep in mind also, that if you offend someone with your
photography you could face serious conseqeunces legal protection or not.
Just because you are in the right legally, does not mean you will not be
put in a position where you would need to defend yourself from a
lawsuit, which can be very expensive and traumatic even if you prevail.
I, for one, would never post a photo on the web of a clearly
indentifiable individual that I do not have permision from. I would be
particualiry cautious if the photo depicted the person in an unflatteing
way. On the other hand I don't think I would be afraid to post a photo
containing a group of people that were not easily identified.
Note that I am not a lawyer, have neve played one on TV, and may well
not have any idea what I am talking about here. Use this information as
you will at your own risk! :)
Jim Couch
Tacoma, WA USA
< 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 >
|