Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:25 PM 5/21/01 +0200, you wrote: >On 21-05-2001 07:02 Ron Schwarz wrote: > >> and the final straw was when one >> angry jerk -- a college professor as I recall -- threatened to sue me >> unless I took down a nice 16x20 I had on display (paid for out of my own >> pocket of course), because he found out that I was showing off a picture of >> him and his EX-wife! (I smiled, waved the contract under his nose, pointed >> out that I had rights to display my work any way I chose, and said "see you >> in court, jerk" and that was the last I saw of him.) > >This opens up an interesting question Ron. > >A photographer puts up images he made of a wedding (let's say the typical >bride and groom shot) in his shop window, regardless whether he paid for the >enlargement himself or not. > >Of course, the photographer owns the intellectual rights to his own work, >but that does *not* take away the necessity for him to obtain consent to use >or display the image from those represented on it. > >It is not allowed to publicly display images of identifiable persons unless >they have given their prior consent to it (which, from your posting, I >gather to be the case). Yup, I used preprinted wedding contract multipart forms that covered all the bases -- everything from my display rights to payment schedules (each step of the way there was enough of a payment made so that if the client went flakey I'd at least have my costs covered). >I have the impression that all to often photographers are abusing this >simple rule when I wander around and see wedding pictures hanging in their >shop window... If only people were more aware of their rights... :-)