0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Just had a look around in my area of interest (sport) and found soooo many images with clear logos and clear faces without model releases being sold as royalty free images. Any thoughts?JC
Ever submit an image to the BBC, CNN, Fox News, or your local news station? Ever notice you are granting them a non-exclusive royalty free right to use that image - for free (so you can be an "eyewitness reporter" or a "citizen journalist")?Same thing.
OK...where on earth does it tell a buyer that this image is royalty free, BUT can only be used editorially? Just saying NO in the model released area won't do it.( quite frankly... royalty free + editorial exclusive doesn't make sense to me. )
...Again I say nicely that the buying public ( professional or not ) is ignorant of the laws and if you don't restrict them or hit them over the head with a hammer, you can't expect them to do the right thing. I've been running photo agencies for over 20 years and in that time... every year it gets worse...
Other than Alamy, where else can we find your images that are sold to new agencies around the world? My comments about news agencies had to do with YOU submitting images to them and not them going out and legally obtaining your images. Their 'royalty free' is just that, they will not be paying you should they syndicate your work. Try it for yourself if you'd like and let us know how you go.
... here in the U.S., as long as you don't violate a "reasonable right to privacy" an image can be sold. It's usage is what determines lawsuits in civil court. The laws aren't much different throughout Europe.
Quote from: JC-SL on August 13, 2007, 18:17...Again I say nicely that the buying public ( professional or not ) is ignorant of the laws and if you don't restrict them or hit them over the head with a hammer, you can't expect them to do the right thing. I've been running photo agencies for over 20 years and in that time... every year it gets worse...I'm sorry but I've got to disagree here. 1) An image DOES NOT need to be model released to be used for commercial purposes.
YingYang - you are correct but a first year law student would also argue the following:1) A reasonable right to privacy is not invaded if an image is taken from a public place2) A person that seeks public attention (such as an aspiring athlete participating in a public event to further their career in the case of JC-SL) is going to have a tough time arguing a "private person's right to privacy"3) A newsworthy image that was once used in an editorial fashion can be subsequently used to promote or advertise the news agency that used the image in the first place. (as an example, I can use unreleased editorial newsworthy images on my website to promote my photography business just as Newsweek or Time Magazine can use their newsworthy editorial images to promote their subscription sales).
You're with IstockPhoto? ask them.... as they are part of McGetty and have a ton of legals on board. Again...good luck.
Sorry my friend...
They are promoting themselves (and showing pictures of license plates) using unreleased images for commercial purposes. The people in those images (from the fans in the stands to the general public viewing the cars) are not released. Competitors usually sign a release but other than that, those images are being used commercially to promote the track.Point is, if the people in the images don't have a problem with it, then there is no lawsuit and there is no legal case to discuss.I don't know why my iStock link doesn't work.
II argue that a model release is not required to sell an image of a person's likeness "commercially" or to use that image in a "commercial" manner.The last time I checked, "commercial" does not limit use to the connection of products or merchandise. A person can still sell an unreleased image without promoting or endorsing a commercial product and not fall under the appropriation rules. If that same image does not injure the economic interest of the person due to "commercial" exploitation, then it isn't likely there has been a violation to the right to publicity either.