From: Alan Bucknam (alan@notchcode.com)
Date: 02/23/03-11:27:50 PM Z
Reminds me of the story I heard in my 19th-century photo-history class
about how roving gangs of men would pounce on photographers who were
taking photographs of innocent ladies in Central park in the late
1800's, claiming the aforementioned shutter-bugs were violating the
ladies' privacy. Well-intentioned, but in today's ethical universe, a
bit over-reactive (insert photochemical safety-related pun here).
I believe the latest thought on the matter is that if you're walking
around in a public space, you shouldn't have a reasonable expectation
of privacy, and people may at any time be taking your picture. In your
house is another matter, at least until the Department of Homeland
Security changes that.....
Buildings (at least the outsides of them) are in the public domain, and
I beleive you can shoot away, to your heart's content). However there
may be some good legal reason that location managers for movie
productions get property releases for buildings featured prominently in
their films. Could be an "art versus commerce" distinction....
Public art is another matter, as the art in question is covered by (US
or International) copyright law....I think if you take a photograph of
a sculpture and then sell the photograph of aforementioned sculpture,
the law says you probably need permission from the copyright-holder
(which may or may not be the original artist, of course).
I realize none of this has been particularly clarifying, but hopefully
it moves the conversation in the right direction. That is to say, not
to the Right, but rather Forward.
cheers,
-Alan Bucknam
On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 05:47 PM, Dwayne Sandall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Although this isn't exactly an alt-issue, (the final prints will be!)
> I thought I'd at least toss the question out and see what opinions I
> get. Here is the scenario: I am considering a series of images that I
> will take on the streets, mostly at night. I have no intention of
> selling these images as stock or to an ad agency et al, which I know
> for sure that for any recognizable person I would need a model > release.
>
> What are the rules, ethical and legal, of having (or more likely, not
> having) model releases if the images will be at best displayed at a
> local coffee shop or maybe a generous friend will pay me a few dollars
> for one :-)
>
> I recall a discussion quite a while ago about street photography, and
> I don't know if this issue was discussed there or not? I don't have
> copies of those messages, but perhaps there are some points mentioned
> there that would be relevant?
>
> From a purely legal perspective, if this matters, I live in Canada,
> and most of the images will most likely be taken in Canada, although
> some might come from any, as of yet, unplanned trips to the US.
>
> And just to add some confusion to this, how do property rights work in
> the context? what about public art? (both sanctioned and not, such as
> graffiti?).
>
> Thanks again for any input, and sorry if this is too off topic,
>
> Dwayne
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST