[pure-silver] Re: Release question
- From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:03:31 -0700
At 03:12 PM 6/6/2006 -0400, Mark Blackwell wrote:
Some of these Id like to sell as individual works of art. Yes I
could sell them for editorial purposes, but finding property owners
for property releases would be next to impossible. In many cases
there wasn't any street signs or much of anything else and certainly
nothing with address on it to try to write an hope it was forwarded
somewhere to an owner. Definately no one lives there.
You do not need a release for art or editorial use of your photographs.
If there is nothing definitely recognizable, they can be used
commercially as well, w/o a release. If you cannot specifically
recognize anyone or anything, how could you get a release.
If you are standing on public property when photographing, and there
are recognizable buildings in the background, you can still sell the
photographs commercially as in the US, if you can be viewed from a
public place (buildings can be) then there is no expectations of
privacy. People, crowd gatherings, etc, in a public place, can be
photographed and used commercially, as long as the recognizable
people are not doing anything disgusting, degrading, etc, like
picking their nose, scratching their ass, etc. You have no
expectations of privacy while in a public place.
Chuck Gentile photographed the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from a
public place (gorgeous photograph) and sells large posters of the
photograph. The R&RHOF sued him and lost. The uniqueness of the
R&RHOF building is their trademark. But that doesn't matter. Chuck is
not in the R&RHOF business, so his commercially selling a of the
R&RHOF in no way infringes on the R&RHOF's business.
If you put your tripod exactly where Chuck did, took a very similar
photograph, and started selling it as a poster, or large print, Chuck
could indeed sue you for copyright infringement.
I had a run-in with the Pebble Beach company. They tried to sue me
over my photograph of their trademarked "Lone Cypress" tree, which I
use on the cover of a book that I publish, and inside another book
that I publish. They gave up after the Chuck Gentile decision. Thanks
Chuck... :-)
What it comes down to is that books, posters, fine art prints, and
the like, are editorial usage, not commercial usage. If a product
were being advertized in the same frame, that's a different problem,
which usually involves license fees and releases.
Jim Brick, ASMP
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
