Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10/11/2007, at 2:58 PM, Moose wrote:
> About all I know is that, in the US, it's legal to photograph anything
> and anyone in view from a public location. I believe it is also
> legal to
> display such photographs in non-commercial use. For commercial use,
> you
> need a release. I'm not clear on how that works.
Based in English common law and pretty much the same almost anywhere
in the English speaking world unless it has been specifically
excluded. However if you stand on a public street and point your
camera over a school fence, be assured that they will find some way
of charging you.
'Non-commercial use' is tricky - it does not cover art so you may
sell the image as an image. It is usually considered to be that which
supports another purpose, such as an advertisement. In the magazine
where I review and write, test shots are non-commercial - 'in the
public interest' and in the same realm as a newspaper photograph.
However, the front cover shot is considered an inducement to purchase
(the magazine) and so the editor purchase a stock shot for that. Any
pic used in an advertisement for anything at all is commercial and
requires a release - possibly a property release as well if there is
a recognisable product, logo or building in the shot. For instance,
pix of the Eiffel Tower in daylight are public domain but night shots
require a release - because the light show is privately owned.
> If I sold a shot to
> someone who used it in advertising, is that the same as selling a
> print
> on-line or in a gallery?
No. That's why the stock sites require a release - in case the buyer
uses it in that way.
It is incumbent upon you to make that clear at point of sale - that
no release is available and no commercial use is permitted. That way,
you're covered and the buyer/user is in the pooh.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|