Jaroslaw <borisz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> www.gizinski.com
I rather liked your New Yorker photos, but they brought to mind a
question I have had for awhile now... photo releases.
I (think I) know that a release is needed before the photo can be sold,
and that a release is not needed if shooting for your own personal use
at home, sharing with a few friends.
It is that vast area in the middle that I am not clear about.
1) I am pretty sure I don't need a release from President Bush to sell a
photo of him at the local fundraiser. Paparazzi (spelling?) have shown
that you don't need one for Britney Spears. I do for the kid down the
block though. Where is the line drawn between the two? What level of
fame or public "right to know" or whatever determines it?
2) What about when posting to Flickr, or a personal web site like the
one listed here (supplied by the OP)? The pictures are not being sold,
so there is no direct commercial gain. However, they are clearly
putting the pictures out there for millions to see, so it is not "for
personal use." Where is the line? Simply if money changes hands, or
something else?
Jaroslaw -- this is not meant as any kind of attack on you. Simply your
(rather good) photos of New Yorkers brought the thought to mind and I
thought makes a good example of where the questions come from.
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
|
