Recognizable faces on the netgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo: Creativity, Etc. : One Thread |
Recently I had an enquiry about possible problems with exhibiting recognizable faces on the net...say as in street photography. I know the question of model releases have come up before but I can't find that particular thread. I was wondering if anyone knows of the current laws and practices for posting unauthorized photos of people on the net. It would be for exhibition purposes (ie fine art) and not for advertising or for sale. There will be no monetary gains at all. I know that this used to be okay but the way things are going I'm not sure you can do anything these days.
-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 02, 1999
Sorry Andy, Read it and weephttp://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/980410/1633724.html
-- not so snap happy (foo@bar.com), May 06, 1999.
I had heard about this case but did not know that a ruling from the Supreme Court had been made. It's very sad and I think that others will follow in due time. It's something that we all have to be aware of. I also think it's quite alarming that 'public' figures - such as noted artists - do not seem to be considered humans and are not afforded the same rights to privacy.
-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 06, 1999.
The article cited gives the judgement based on Quebec law, and gives a number of exclusion clauses.The situation for the web is far more complicated, of course. I publish photos of people on the web. I am in the UK, the web server may be in the USA, people may view from India. What laws apply?
To be totally safe, I should only publish photos that are not of people, and do not include any object, property or building that is owned by anyone.
-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 06, 1999.
Oh, man. This is out of control.Could you imagine what would have happened if such rulings took place when Cartier-Bresson was active? He probably would never have gone away from painting. Degas was an avid photographer, and his paintings were heavily influenced by his photographs. Garry Winogrand would never have been a photographer, nor would Elliot Erwitt, Robert Frank, Joseph Koudelka, Bill Klien, etc., etc., etc.
All those wonderful, humorous, ironic, perceptive images would never have been made out of fear of prosecution, and my bookshelf would be virtually empty.
I think we are rapidly reaching a point where street photographers must organize to defend the legal validity of what we do.
~mason
-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), May 06, 1999.
It is hard to imagine photography without those masters that you mentioned. Street photography has made the biggest impact on the public, out of all the various styles, and it's influence has been far reaching. It will take a tremendous effort to turn around the current trend and many martyrs will be needed. I fear for it's future.
-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 06, 1999.
I wonder if the U.S. supreme court would rule differently? I know of a case from 10 years ago where a black man was photographed in NYC and the pic was used on the cover of Time or Newsweek to illustrate a story about blacks moving up in the world of business. The man sued, stating that the story was slanted, the photo was used for a purpose he did not approve of, and without his knowledge or permission. The magazine and the photographer had to pay damages. I'm not a great people photographer, but I do often take candid street shots when I travel in Mexico. I like to think I am not exploiting or degrading my subjects, but maybe I'd see it differently were I on the other end of the lens.
-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@earthlink.net), May 07, 1999.
The ruling on this case stated that the mans image was used omn the cover of the mag as an illustration for the artical and therefore it was implyed that " he " was an example of the content of the article which was a negative view of the "new " middle class blacks . That is what generated the suite, that and the fact that the man never knew he had been photographed since the photographer was using a telephoto lens at the time the image was made.
-- jim megargee (mvjim@interport.net), May 08, 1999.
This is a good point. In both cases there was money earned by the photographer and journal, directly and indirectly, as a result of those photographs. I know that this would normally require a model release but up until this time photojournalism has been relatively safe. What I worry about is that merely exhibiting photographs of people, regardless of context, will become an invasion of privacy.
-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 08, 1999.
Andy, The point is not that any $'s exchanged hands for the photograph, but that the photo was used as an illustration to a specific article within the magazine. If fact it could be said that the photograph did not fall under the guidelines of what is called Photojournalism, but Photo Illustration. Therein is the problem. Myself ,I tend to feel that the magazine was at fault in using this photo in this way. If anyone of us walked by a news stand and found our face on the cover of a magazine as an example of the type of person that the article represented (in this case a negative example) we would also have persued the magazine. This has less to do with street photography (as is usually discused in this forum), than with the intention behind of use of the images. One thing the Canadian court ruling did not state was "how" was the image used and whtin what context. That I would be interested to hear.
-- jim megargee (jim@mvlabs.com), May 09, 1999.
Your point is well taken Jim. I guess what I was referring to was the differences between display for profit and display for art sake. There used to be a stronger distinction between the two and in this case it might not have resulted in a direct payment to the photographer. I also would object to seeing my face on a magazine and I don't even like having my photo taken by friends. There is a strong moral issue with street photography and heated discussions have arisen from this question. Fortunately I mainly photograph objects but will not hesitate to photograph people. However I have already made the decision that they would not be published or sold for profit. I will show them in a gallery setting, as long as they are in good taste (ie no accident victims etc.) but they will not be for sale. I hope that this sort of display is not affected by the current climate but anything is possible.
-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 09, 1999.
I hope that now there is no more boldface
-- no more boldface (no_more@boldface.com), July 17, 1999.
No. Now there is no more boldface. Use slash-fontsize tags does not end boldface. You have to use slash-b to do it.
-- Really No More Boldface (reallynomore@yahoo.com), July 17, 1999.