MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty: why does this photo not need a release?  (Read 13894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CD123

« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2012, 10:09 »
0
People have rights to walk safely underneath a building. They had the right before you throw a stone from the building (even if there is no clear standard or international law about it). If you hit someone, there will be cause for damages. People have a right to privacy. If you take a picture of them and sell it they have the right to sue you. That is a legal principle (LAW) applied in most western (and even other countries).
Ummm whilst I do not admit to being an expert...
Yes (quite an understatement), because you are clearly not. Rather take some nice pictures and just comply to each site's interpretation of what they require to protect themselves against legal claims (as you very wisely pointed out).

I really have no idea what you are going on about, when have I or anybody else ever said that people don't have rights, whether it be walking under a building or having a photo taken of them. Is English your native language?

As expected, here comes the mentality giveaway..... ;)  Rather keep now to your native sign language and taking pictures. 


CD123

« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2012, 10:12 »
0
@ShadySue. If I where you I will just leave the thread to die a natural death. With the type of feedback you are getting this is just going round and round (one ignoramus).

RT


« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2012, 10:32 »
0
As expected, here comes the mentality giveaway..... ;)  Rather keep now to your native sign language and taking pictures.

............

@ShadySue. If I where you I will just leave the thread to die a natural death. With the type of feedback you are getting this is just going round and round (one ignoramus).

Twice in this thread you've made a comment that agrees with what I've been saying all along, but in a bizarre way you also say I'm wrong and try and try to alter what I said. Which is why I asked if you were a native English speaker, by your latest reply I guess you're not.

Now you've started name calling which is how a small child behaves when they can't accept a fact. Bit pathetic really, I'd rather you just said you don't understand things and leave it at that.

Edited to add: I've just checked out some of your previous posts, it seem you have a track record for not knowing anything about releases, you even think NASA should obtain property releases from every country it photographs from orbit!! Really wished I'd checked you out before replying to you. ::)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 10:49 by RT »

CD123

« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2012, 11:12 »
0
As expected, here comes the mentality giveaway..... ;)  Rather keep now to your native sign language and taking pictures.

............

@ShadySue. If I where you I will just leave the thread to die a natural death. With the type of feedback you are getting this is just going round and round (one ignoramus).

Twice in this thread you've made a comment that agrees with what I've been saying all along, but in a bizarre way you also say I'm wrong and try and try to alter what I said. Which is why I asked if you were a native English speaker, by your latest reply I guess you're not.

Now you've started name calling which is how a small child behaves when they can't accept a fact. Bit pathetic really, I'd rather you just said you don't understand things and leave it at that.

Edited to add: I've just checked out some of your previous posts, it seem you have a track record for not knowing anything about releases, you even think NASA should obtain property releases from every country it photographs from orbit!! Really wished I'd checked you out before replying to you. ::)
As mentioned before, stick to your native sign language, as you clearly do not even grasp the concept of humor, as indicated with your last comment. Not interested in you little word games any more, so I am out of here, and seeing that my English is according to you so bad, получить жизнь!  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2012, 12:09 »
0
I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement.
In fact, the release protects you also from the third party requirement. There's a photo on iStock (at least it was, I can't even remember which it is now) with a woman who looks just like me from the back: hair, shape and way she is sitting. Both my husband and sister were sure it was me. I'm equally sure that the contributor didn't sneak a photo of me and put a different jacket onto me and paste me into a place I've never been. However, in the event of some sort of claim, the release would help show that it wasn't 'me' in the photo.
Though I have to say, I've always wondered what would happen if a claim came to court and the model who had signed the release couldn't be found (moved on, new address/phone/email).

That's not the 'third party' requirement I was referring to, I was referring to 'third party identity' like we have in the UK.

But I'm confused by your scenario, if it isn't you and you know it isn't you why would you be taking the photographer or agency to court? And if a 'claim came to court and the model who signed the release couldn't be found' who's making the claim?

Do you not deal in hypotheticals?
I was showing that it might be possible for someone to make a reasonable claim that a model in an image was them. I didn't mean I personally was intending to take out a claim against that photographer. That was just an example of how two people who know me very well definitely think it was me in the photo (there is a legal thing whereby it's whether someone else would agree that someone in an image was 'you').
So if "I" hypothetically made a claim, if the tog could produce the model, they would be in the clear. If they could no longer find the model, it would be more muddied.

RT


« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2012, 12:40 »
0
Do you not deal in hypotheticals?

I'd rather not for fear of someone resurrecting their 'brick from building' irrelevant scenario!

(there is a legal thing whereby it's whether someone else would agree that someone in an image was 'you').

Yes that the 'third party identity' I referred to earlier when I said about people being confused over 'if they can recognise themselves in a photo', and the very reason we, in this country, use it. It gets more complicated but I'm not going to start that discussion off.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
6944 Views
Last post December 16, 2008, 19:30
by grp_photo
11 Replies
7553 Views
Last post October 19, 2012, 10:51
by OLJensa
2 Replies
3707 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 05:54
by StockCube
36 Replies
37060 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 18:09
by ShadySue
13 Replies
10834 Views
Last post September 21, 2013, 05:41
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors