Re: Photography and the Law

In message <ZecBBwAOr$IIFwIN@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Les Invalides 
<Les@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> posted
>>Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>>What is the situation regarding "model releases"? I understand that
they
>>>>are required for commercial photography, but aren't newspaper photos
>>>>considered as such? I'm sure Fred West (and other infamous
individuals)
>>>>didn't have to sign permission before the Sun could publish his "perp.
>>>>walk".
>>>
>>> AFAIAA the concept of model releases does not exist in the UK, BICBW.
>>
>>As far as I understand, you are not allowed to use a celebrity in
>>advertising material without their permission.  The model release gives
>>that permission.
>
>
>Where the photos are taken in an arranged session, obviously that is 
>true. The advertiser has made a contract with the celebrity - she 
>agrees to take part in the session and in return he undertakes only to 
>use photos that she approves.
>
>Where the photography is done without the celeb's permission in public 
>places there is no such contract. Although in that case the celebrity 
>may sue to prevent the photographs being used to imply that she is 
>endorsing the product.

AFAIK "News" reporting, in as much as a celebrity's movements are news, 
is not the same as "commercial use"

If you used a street scene with people in for an advert you would need 
model releases.  The same photo for a newspaper illustrating a  news 
item would not.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/