"Ken Hart" wrote:
>"If you used a street scene with people in for an advert you would need
>model releases."
>If those people are recognizable, and can prove that the use of the photo is
>an embarrassment. For example, if the advertisement were for condoms, and
>the headline said that 1 out of ever ten of the people in this picture (a
>_public_ street scene) has a .ually transmittable disease, then the
>recognizable people in that picture could sue and maybe win damages.
>In the USA legal system it usually comes down to money. Years ago, I was in
>a situation and consulted with a lawyer. His comment was "Prove how you were
>injured and how much money that injury cost you" I couldn't prove a
>worthwhile monetary injury, so the case went nowhere.
(This applies in the US, and I do not how how comparable
it would be to law in the UK.)
Be careful how the term "recognizable" is used too. It
does *not* mean that from the picture alone one can
determine who it is. It means that if you know what to
look for you can determine that it is indeed a given
person. There's a huge difference. For example,
blurring the face would generally make it so that a
witness in a court room would not be able to look at the
photo and then point to the plantiff and say it is the
same person. Not good enough!
For example, if you hire a model to demo jewelery, and
all that is in the picture is the model's hand with a
ring on it... you absolutely need to have a model
release to use that image to advertize the jewelery for
sale. If there is *any* feature on the model's hand
that can be pointed to and shown to exist in the image,
you lose. Likewise if the model can so much as prove
you were taking pictures of said hand at the same time
as the date-time stamp on the photo, you lose.
Of course, as noted, what you lose is whatever monetary
injury you've caused. For the kid next door that is
probably insignificant... unless said kid plays in a
rock band that hits the top ten next year!
--
Floyd L. Davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com |