Passports: HOME | EUROPE | AMERICAS, AUSTRALIA and OCEANIA | ASIA | AFRICA | OTHER DOCUMENTS
National Anthems:[ www.national-anthems.net ] ++
Travel:[ Europe ] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ more ]
[ Australia legal ] [ U.K. legal ] [ U.S. visa ] [ Immigration ] [ Marriage based U.S visa ]



Re: Photography and the Law Posted on: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:58:23 +0100


"Mike Ross" wrote in message
news:a3f624dfsni45iq3o71g7sruo54mu56h29@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:09:40 +0100, Les Invalides wrote:
>
>>MC posted
>>>You can photograph anyone in a public place as long as their photo is not
>>>used for commercial purposes. If you wish to use that persons image for
>>>commercial purposes (i.e. to promote or advertise) then a model release
>>>form
>>>is required.
>>
>>Not true.
>
> Correct. It may well be a bloody good idea, and many customers won't
> purchase
> images without one, but it's not compulsory.
>

Yes, indeed. Should really have implied "a good idea" instead of
"required". I advised under the assumption that the purchaser would insist
on it and therefore gave the impression that it is a requirement when it is
not, as you quite rightly made clear.

MC

1494400. Re: Photography and the Law
1494406. Re: Photography and the Law
1494409. Re: Photography and the Law
1494419. Re: Photography and the Law
1494430. Re: Photography and the Law
1494434. Re: Photography and the Law
1494436. Re: Photography and the Law
1494437. Re: Photography and the Law
1494441. Re: Photography and the Law
1494454. Re: Photography and the Law
1494460. Re: Photography and the Law
1494467. Re: Photography and the Law
1494469. Re: Photography and the Law
1494501. Re: Photography and the Law
1494523. Re: Photography and the Law