On Saturday, November 10, 2007 17:47, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> But one question. Why is it that the person's image appearing in an
> illutration for an article in the magazine rather than an advertisement
> is not considered commercial use promoting the magazine rather than
> another product?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
My understanding is that it comes under the general idea of it being news or
education, both of which I can charge for. It is an attempt to balance the
need of society for news and education and a persons right to control how
their image is used. As an example if I take a picture of a recognizable
person smashing a window on a car I can use it in an article about violence
or I could use it in a text book about street photography, but I couldn't
sell it to an insurance company to promote glass insurance. This may not be
true, but it is how it was explained to me.
-Doug
snip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|