# my face got published in an ad, what to do



## Calgary_life (Aug 23, 2006)

I have an interesting question:

I participated in a Run for the Cure, one of the official photographers at the event took a picture of me, as they did for the other few thousand people who participated. Now about 8 months later, i see myself featured for an ad of one of the hair products companies who wasn't even present at the event, advertising for this years run. This ad got published in one of the large magazines who has nothing to do with the event either.

So I never gave permission to take my picture in the first place, then I never gave permission to use it for an ad. Maybe i hated those products, for all they know.

So I am interested in receiving some compensation from the hair products company, but do i have a right?

Or does it work this way - since i participated, i probably waived all rights for everything, thus person who took the picture actually owns the copyright and thus got paid from the hair products company?

I do enjoy being beautiful, but still...
Any ideas?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 23, 2006)

It is a public event and the photographer would have the right to use the pictures for EDITORIAL use. IE something that counts as "news" or "reportage" to the general public.

For commercial use as advertisements he would need a model release from you saying that you do approve your likeness appearing under such and such circumstances...

I'm no lawyer, it's not legal advice.

I'd milk it for all it's worth. Contact an attourney and sue them.

You're looking minimum at 3-5 grand just for the payment if it's a big magazine. Plus you might claim emotional damages, distress or some other cr@p like that.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 23, 2006)

Welcome to the forum (flames suck  )

The Run was probably in a public place, which I think, means that anyone can take your photo.  There is usually some law that has something to do with "fair use" which means the photographer can use the image for new reporting or stuff like that.  However, I don't know if that applies to image sold for advertising purposes.

If you are clearly identifiable, I would thing that they would need a model release to use the image for advertising...but I'm not 100% sure of that.  You might have given away those rights by competing in the race though.

The best thing to do, would be to get some legal advice.  It may not be worth taking it to court, as it would probably cost more than you would receive with a favorable verdict.

*edit* Since this was taken during a 'Run for the Cure'...you might think about trying to get them to donate money to the cause, on your behalf.


----------



## Calgary_life (Aug 23, 2006)

Thank you so much, this gives me some direction to proceed and it is ELLE magazine which is pretty big, and Revlon is a big company too!

I will update you on the process once it moves anywhere, pretty interesting though


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Aug 23, 2006)

I am no lawyer here either... and what was said above is true... they can use your image for editorial use... BUT something that may be a loop hole is that since you signed up for the event you may have signed a disclaimer that the event photographer may use your photos for promotion of the event by upcoming sponsors of the event. I hope you end up with the result you wish...


----------



## D-50 (Aug 23, 2006)

I have a friend who when she was young was an aspiring child model. She posed for some baby product and did not get the job, however she found out they used her image on a later product and tried to take legal action.  It has been a year so far and nothing has come out of it except for legal fees.  I imagine she has a strong case but when your fighting a large company they have retained lawyers to deal with these type of cases.  Who know how long it will go on for.  Her case is a bit different because she poses for a company specifically for an ad.  I would look at the sign up form you must have signed for the race and see if it says anything about sponsors using your image for their products, it may be buried pretty deep.  You may have a case but like others have said it may cost you more than you will recieve.  Get the ad though and frame it, not many people get their faces in major ads so thats a pretty cool thing by itself


----------



## Oldfireguy (Aug 23, 2006)

If you filled out an application for the run you might double check and see if it says anything about photos being used for advertisments. 

If you pursue this, I for one am interested in the outcome.  Please post any follow-ups if you can.


----------



## craig (Aug 24, 2006)

Contact a lawyer. Also contact the Run for a Cure folks. They may help you find the photographer. I think that he is the only one that can be held responsible. Consider how identifiable you are in the picture. If you are a face in the crowd then your chances go down hill fast.


----------



## rmh159 (Aug 24, 2006)

Great suggestion...



			
				Big Mike said:
			
		

> ... Since this was taken during a 'Run for the Cure'...you might think about trying to get them to donate money to the cause, on your behalf.


----------



## Philip Weir (Aug 24, 2006)

I personally wouldn't contact a lawyer first as that will cost you money. Give them the benefit of the doubt and contact the magazine or the advertiser. Obviously whoever took the shot had no idea who you were and had no way of contacting you. Write a pleasant letter saying what a great shot the photographer took of you and would a person normally get paid for this sort of thing. You may find they are grateful for your contact and offer to pay you. I don't believe in litigation just for the sake of it. If they reply and tell you where to go, then I may take legal advice.


----------



## markc (Aug 24, 2006)

fredcwdoc said:
			
		

> If you filled out an application for the run you might double check and see if it says anything about photos being used for advertisments.
> 
> If you pursue this, I for one am interested in the outcome.  Please post any follow-ups if you can.


I think that's the first step. You may have already signed a release. That's why it pays to really read and understand everything you sign.

If whatever you signed for the run didn't give them transferable rights to your image, then I would contact the organizer and the magazine. Unfortunately, if you don't hire a lawyer, you might get the run around.


----------



## Hyperion (Aug 24, 2006)

I found this on a different website and thought I would re-post it here as it seems relavent.

On the subject of a public place&#8230; In Canada, the Criminal Code defines a public place as &#8220;any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied.&#8221; So that would include areas which are defined as public property, such as parks, streets, stadiums, etc, and commercial venues such as bars, restaurants, malls, and so forth.
(Side note: In fact, in laws pertaining to prostitution, the definition of a public place is extended to include a privately owned motor vehicle situated in a public place!)
If the general rule applies, then a photographer is within his or her rights to take a photo just about anywhere. It&#8217;s worth noting, however, that in Canada, in order to (commerically, at least) publish a photograph of a person where that person is clearly the true subject of the photograph, you must obtain that person&#8217;s consent. However, if that person is part of a crowd or, beyond the ability of the photographer, ends up in a shot taken in a public place, consent is not required. 

So, as I read that, even though you may be the subject of the photo the photographer may argue that it was beyond his ability to get your consent at the time. 

I would still persue it though. It would be interesting to know what the outcome is.


----------



## markc (Aug 24, 2006)

If you signed something like this:



> In consideration of your acceptance this entry, I, the undersigned, for myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, waive and release any and all rights and claims for damages I may have against the YMCA Yarmouth and the YMCA Triathlon committee and arising out of my participation in the YMCA Triathlon. I assume all risks associated with participating in the event and verify that I am physically fit and sufficiently trained for the completion of this event. Further, I grant full permission to any and all of the aforementioned persons to use my name, likeness and voice, as well any photographs, video tapes or any other record if this event which I may appear for legitimate purpose



It leaves them a lot options. "Legitimate purpose" covers a lot of things, and I think adverstising is one of them.

Here's a part a found for a Canadian Run for the Cure:



> &#8226; I hereby give full permission for any of the RELEASEES to collect, use and disclose my name, photograph, electronic image and/or video image to recognize my participation in and promote the Run in any broadcast, telecast and/or written account of the event.


https://www.cibcrunforthecure.com/html/en/pdf/reg-GUELPH.pdf

Did the ad promote the run? That seems to be stretching it if your release was like that, as it sounds more geared towards news. This is where a lawyer is needed.


----------



## Calgary_life (Sep 1, 2006)

Hello guys!

So that's where we are now on this: (I thought a few of you were interested in the outcome)

So since as MARKC put it there was a waiver on the application! However, my mother who ran with me and is on the picture did not sign any waiver becuase it was too late to register, so we just started running!

So now CIBC, who is the Run's major sponsor, is trying to solve the whole thing. Since my mother is a realtor, we've requested all foreclosures from the bank to go to her. So they are still deciding. 

As for myself, I am hoping to get something out of it as well. Now we are in 3 national fashion magazines and apparencty a couple of newspapers too, and this is besides posters in every CIBC branch across Canada. 

Here is the status update


----------



## Torus34 (Sep 2, 2006)

Rock on!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 2, 2006)

It's a rather sad commentary on life all the way around.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 2, 2006)

Calgary_life said:
			
		

> So since as MARKC put it there was a waiver on the application! However, my mother who ran with me and is on the picture did not sign any waiver becuase it was too late to register, so we just started running!



So in other words, your Mom didn't follow the rules, which was to register if she wanted to participate.  There was probably an insurance waiver there too; if she had twisted her ankle would you sue?  Consider that the sponsers of this event (Run for Cure) probably contribute more to the cause than the run itself generates.  When they are sued for this sort of thing, or hasseled in general, it makes them think twice about participating next time.  You need to understand that any money your action requires to solve, or in monetary damages you recieve, probably eventually come out of the funds for "the Cure" rather than any particular advertisers' pockets.  You may be within your rights, but it's something to think about.


----------



## markc (Sep 2, 2006)

Thanks for the update. I have to agree with Matt. I know it sucks for your and your mom to be surprised by this, but that's what reading the wavier is about. I actually feel sorry for the person at CIBC who has to deal with being supplied with picture that the Cure didn't have a release for. It's not the bank's fault. And with the chaos of the run, I think it's going to be hard for the organizers to keep track of the people who have actually signed up.


----------



## zombiekilla (Sep 2, 2006)

Calgary_life said:
			
		

> Hello guys!
> 
> So that's where we are now on this: (I thought a few of you were interested in the outcome)
> 
> ...


 I would just be stoked to be in an add and wouldnt care to be paid for it. Im not trying to judge but it seems like your trying to get blood from a turnip. Get over it, buy a mag, and keep it to show the grand kids.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 2, 2006)

I'm a dirty, liberal, leftist, commie, pinko, so I'm all for sticking it to the corporations.  But in this case I think the charity is who will get stuck.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 2, 2006)

up against the wall you lefty swine....lol


----------



## nealjpage (Sep 3, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> I'm a dirty, liberal, leftist, commie, pinko, so I'm all for sticking it to the corporations.



Then what are you doing in Kansas?


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 3, 2006)

nealjpage said:
			
		

> Then what are you doing in Kansas?



Fighting the fight!  Actually, I'm in Lawrence, KS, which is a liberal stronghold in the bible belt.  We believe in evolution, women should be allowed to vote, freedom of speech, all people are created equal even if their skin is darker, etc...  All those zany ideas.


----------



## castrol (Sep 3, 2006)

How about a shot of the ad for us?


----------



## Alex06 (Sep 3, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> It's a rather sad commentary on life all the way around.


 
Agreed.  I hope you don't sue.


----------



## Peanuts (Sep 3, 2006)

Honestly, due to the nature of your mother's job, I would simply let it pan out and give them the heads up that next time they will just have to be sure they have proper permission from the participants.  

Due to the real estate boom in the area right now, perhaps having her face splashed around in magazine ads will actually bring her business. If people notice that she is the same person selling 'so and so's house down the street and see her on MLS, they might consider also working with a person who also extends a helping hand to the community.


----------



## Steve Wynn (Sep 4, 2006)

Try a simple method, contact the hair product advertiser, advise them of the situation and encourage them to contact thier attorney. In the US the photo could be used for editorial usage but any recognizable person must have signed away their rights for any commercial purpose.

Steve


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 4, 2006)

Personally I miss the days when the subject of an image had to prove that he/she were adversely effected by the use of the image. If the shot of a girl standing on a pier was taken by a photographer and it showed up in a tuna advertisment, so what she was on the pier anyway. She was in no way inconvenienced or damaged by the use of her image.

Now when it came to body swapping, or putting an image of a church lady in playboy, there was a definite need for action. But an after the fact lawsuit, to make a buck from a guy who actually did the work, was pretty much tossed. 

Fortunately I don't work in a world where you have to carry a five page release form around to made sure you don't get sued. If someone recognizes their face in a retro shot I made, odds are they aren't going to want the cobbled together camera I shot it with, and that's all I own.

As for the lawyer thing, hire the best one you can find, Mortage your house if you have to, you need to have some skin in the game to be a player.

P's arch conservative: I like the man/woman who give jobs to people like me.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Sep 4, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Consider that the sponsers of this event (Run for Cure) probably contribute more to the cause than the run itself generates.


Is this how it actually works or how it should work in a lala land? :er:


The run for the cure may not be affected at all. The photog may have been hired to shoot there... or he may have been a freelancer.

It was his fault for not getting a release and then selling it to the bank.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 4, 2006)

I disagree,

He most likely was hired to shoot a few picks and deliver them and probably did just that.  The major sponsor probably made them available to the large donars.  My guess is the picture they are talking about is an action shot with several people in it.  Just the kind of thing you see on posters saying. "Look what a good community service we did."   

A tv station once hired me to shoot a piano presentation.  The station had arrange to have it donated to an elementary school.  The tv station wanted a shot of the teacher and the kids around the piano holding the cerificate from the music store.  I made the shot, billed the tv station and they distributed it to the music store and a couple of other people.  The shot wound up in the music store's newspaper adv.  

I think that pretty much falls in the same category as this.  Nobody wanted to sue anyone for having them or their kid's pic in the newspaper adv.  I'm not sure exactly what grounds they would use to sue anyway.  What are the damages here it was an event that they participated in freely.  It was not a saleried gig they weren't paid for.

They were in the public not really having any expectation of privacy.  I don't see the grounds.

But then I was no lawyer just a paid by the job photographer.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 4, 2006)

I don't know how the lawyers in Lala land work, but the lawyers in reality always go after the biggest pay off, and that won't be from a rinky dink photographer when there is serious big business, advertising money available for plundering.

Only a goof from Lala land would take on a photo job where they would be personally responsible for getting individual releases from thousands of participants.  If they were a professional (paid for services or not) they'll have a contract that states the organizers are responsible for obtaining releases.  More than likely they donated their services (in return for a bit of publicity, and a tax write off), and won't be making any money.  If they weren't a pro, and don't have a contract, then I have a hard time believing they made much money, if any.  

In cases like this against photographers, where the plaintiff isn't slandered, the monetary damages awarded will usually be a percentage of the profit the photographer made.  I do a few charity gigs each year, and my profit on them has to date been $0.  Feel free to take any percentage of $0 you want.  I'm giving it away!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 4, 2006)

I think for the tv station I charged 65 bucks. So they get ten. Hardly worth hiring the lawyer. Not many will take a case like this on consignment.

This is really an area somebody with legal experience should write an article here on. I would love to see the basis for a lawsuit in such a case. I know everybody wants to settle to avoid the cost of defending it, but what would you even claim as damages.

I was hot and sweaty and this picture shows me in an unfavorable light.  It holds me up to ridecule.  I dont know.


----------



## JamesD (Sep 4, 2006)

I've told this story before somewhere on here; it's one I picked up while researching this sort of thing.

There was a photographer on some Caribbean island, and he was shooting photographs for a travel company brochure.  He saw a pretty scene, snapped a shot of it, and neverminded the fact that there was a family in the scene.

Months go by, the brochure gets around, and lo and behold! the family in that image happen across a copy.  They recognize themselves, and since they never signed a release, they think that they're going to get rich and contact their lawyer.

Lawyers contact lawers, who contact additional lawyers, and eventually, the photographer gets a note in the mail saying that he's being sued for $X.  He talks to his lawyer for a few minutes, then mails off an offer for settlement.

The family gets the offter, which is for 50% of the entire amount of the amount the photographer was paid for the image.  Surely their ship has come in!  They happily accept, certain they're going to get a tidy sum, maybe pay for their next vacation--or pay off the credit card bills from THAT trip.

Upon receiving the signed settlement, the photographer wrote and mailed them a check for $50.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 4, 2006)

I still dont see the damages they are sueing for.  I'm sorry but to me they were not hurt by having their picture made on the beach.  Maybe it's just me but I don't get this whole frivolous lawsuit thing.

I had a friend who went to a lawyer with a case of a slipping in a parking lot of a local restaurant.  He wasn't injured he just slipped on a wet sidewalk.  He happened to have someone see it so he assumed he was going to get rich.

The lawyer said, "I can write a letter for you for a hundred dollars.  If they won't settle we will have to go to court.  That will be a hundred an hour while we are there figure five hours."

"So how much can i get."

"It isn't the money it's the principle," the lawyer said.

He didn't sue after all.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Sep 6, 2006)

I'm of the opinion that this falls into the frivolous law suit category.  I'm sure there are some ambulance chasing type lawyers that would salivate at this type of thing, but I'm not sure it's the best thing to do.  From what I've read here, you ran in a race for a charitable cause.  You also signed away any rights to your privacy by taking part in this race.  Now, out of the thousands of people who ran in the race, your face was picked to be published.  I would frame the ad, and be done with it.  As others have said, no humans, animals, etc. were harmed in the making of this, so why make it a federal case?  I personally think there is something wrong in trying to turn a nice day at a charitable event into a personal windfall.  I also wouldn't feel obligated to give your mother any compensation as she shouldn't even have been in the race to begin with.  

In the words of Earl Hickey, "Karma can be a cruel mistress Randy, do good things, good things happen....do bad things and bad things happen".

Buy a magazine, frame the ad, put a period at the end of this chapter of your life, and move on.  Quit clogging up the legal system with this type of nonsense.


----------



## Rob (Sep 7, 2006)

Personally, I'd phone up the company involved, ask for a framed tearsheet and tell all your friends what a super-famous model you now are. 

From how I see the situation, you don't deserve any money, and trying to extort some out of a charity/business/organisation/whomever on some technicality is just greed isn't it?

Rob


----------



## cecilc (Sep 7, 2006)

I've taken the time to investigate this "usage" issue with various sites on-line about photography and "rights" of everyone involved. I excerpted and copied here some of the information that I've read:

"Finally, we come to the issue of exploiting our photograph of another person for commercial purposes. This differs from the other three categories in that it does not require the complaining party to prove that the pictures caused embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, or other emotional injury.  The subject needs to prove only that the pictures were used for commercial purposes--that is, used with an expectation of bringing profit directly or indirectly. Personal use of photographs does not apply. Also excepted are photographs of public figures which are deemed to be newsworthy or informative, even if profit is derived from them. Lastly, the subject of the photograph must be identifiable. In other words, the subject must be able to prove that the likeness is, indeed, hers. If the person in the picture is unrecognizable because no face is showing, or if the photograph has captured only a generic part of the body--such as someone's back--the case becomes a "your-word-against-mine" situation.

In any case, when you use a photograph of person without a written release form, you take the chance of being embroiled in a lawsuit involving one of the above rights to privacy issues. What constitutes "use"? It's generally accepted that if the photographs are not displayed or published, but kept for the photographer&#8217;s own enjoyment or as instrumental in perfecting her craft, then a release form is not needed. However, the sale of such images as art, or as stock (because it constitutes a commercial use), necessitates obtaining a written release. If there is even a remote chance that you may be able to sell an image, get a release."

"A release is needed for the commercial use of a person's name or image. A "commercial use" occurs when selling or endorsing a product or service. For example, if your website offers haircutting products and you feature pictures of people using the products, you would need a release from the people in the photos. A release is not required if the person cannot be recognized in the photo, for example, if the photo only includes the person's hands. Several decades ago, the failure to obtain the release would have led to an invasion of privacy lawsuit. However, the "right of publicity" has now become the claim de jour for those whose name or image is used for commercial purposes."


"If the photograph is that of a person, you must also obtain permission of the person depicted in the photograph to use his or her likeness.  The courts of the United States and some other jurisdictions have recognized a &#8220;right of publicity,&#8221; a right that derives from the &#8220;right of privacy.&#8221;  These rights apply to all living persons and, under certain circumstances, those dead. 

        There are several sub-issues that have to be dealt with in terms of the right of privacy: 

        First: a person&#8217;s likeness and name may not be used for commercial purposes without the person&#8217;s consent.  What then is a &#8220;commercial purpose?&#8221;  This means a use that implies sponsorship, endorsement or where the photograph is used to sell a product or service.  If you intend to use a photograph for such purposes, you absolutely must have a valid, written license from the subject to do so and you should be prepared to pay for the same. 

       Even if your use is not for &#8220;commercial purposes,&#8221; you still must have releases in writing from each of those whose images are distinguishable in the photograph.  Most professional photographers carry model releases with them that the model, professional and otherwise, signs granting these personal rights to the photographer.  But a word of warning: often the model releases may have limits on the rights granted the photographer and therefore, if the photographer grants you more rights than the photographer has, he and you may be liable to the subject.  Therefore, it is always advisable to get the model to sign a separate release as well, even though the photographer may represent that he or she has such permission.  If he or she is wrong, all you&#8217;ve got is a lawsuit."

It seems clear to me that, given the information above, the photographer was wrong in distributing (whether he sold the photo to the company or not) that photo to the hair products company ... AND the hair products company was wrong to use the image in a commercial (because that's what the ad is) with someone clearly identifiable pictured without making sure the photographer had a signed release from the people in the shot. Sure, a WAIVER was signed for the RACE or EVENT, and permission granted to use her likeness in photos or videos and the like in order to "promote the Run" .... but not to promote and advertise hair care products.

In my OWN mind, that's a clear violation .... and as photographers, we all should recognize that it's a clear violation so that we don't commit the same mistake ....

Just my 2 cents ....

AND I'd very much like to find out how this issue is resolved by Calgary_life .... I hope they keep us up-to-date ...


----------



## markc (Sep 7, 2006)

cecilc said:
			
		

> Sure, a WAIVER was signed for the RACE or EVENT, and permission granted to use her likeness in photos or videos and the like in order to "promote the Run" .... but not to promote and advertise hair care products.


Without reading the actual wavier signed, we have no way of knowing this. The one's I posted were examples and CL hasn't posted the actual release.


----------



## astrostu (Sep 7, 2006)

I have to agree with what most people said already, that, although it's kinda shotty for them to use the image to promote a sponsor rather than the event with your photograph, but I think if you do pursue legal action, it's the charity that will suffer.  I like Bob's advice:  Just grab a copy of it and tell all your friends how famous you are!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 7, 2006)

Given the nature of all this I would like to see this advertisement as well.  

The one I was invovled with the advertisement just said, "See how community minded we are."  

If i were the haircare product, and that was what the adv said, I would let them bring the suit.  I was just promoting the charity...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 7, 2006)

It seems that even without the waiver or release it isnt a slam dunk... I thought I too would do a little research... This is the very first article on the very first google entry.

IN 1999 Philip-Lorca diCorcia set up his camera on a tripod in Times Square, attached strobe lights to scaffolding across the street and, in the time-honored tradition of street photography, took a random series of pictures of strangers passing under his lights....

When Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew and retired diamond merchant from Union City, N.J., saw his picture last year in the exhibition catalog, he called his lawyer. And then he sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace for exhibiting and publishing the portrait without permission and profiting from it financially. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

The suit was dismissed last month by a New York State Supreme Court judge who said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights.​


----------



## markc (Sep 7, 2006)

That's different than using the image in an advertisement. That's why I think it's a little silly to try and give advice without having a legal background; little details can make big differences.


----------



## MommyOf4Boys (Sep 8, 2006)

Do people like Brittany Spears sign a universal photo release for tabloid magazines or something, then?  Because I do not think that she signed anything when that photographer took the photo of her plastered in all of the tabloids, etc with her holding her baby while driving.   :lmao:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 8, 2006)

I hope you didnt think i was giving legal advice. The complete article stated very clearly that since the photograph was for sale, was why the man sued. 


It was not a purely artistic venture it was a commercial venture and if I read the previous statements, also not legal advice, it was based not on advertising, but on any commercial venture. I stated quite early in this discussion that he should hire a lawyer.

I think almost everyone has said. "I'm not a lawyer you need to see one. I said it as well."

There are fifty states and thousand decissions. And from experience I can tell you that you never know what a jury will do. But I will tell you this, if I sat on a jury with just these facts, and If I was forced by some judge to render a verdict, I might give him a dime. But then I'm prejusticed... I am a photographer not a lawyer.

Since it isn't exactly the same thing I did a little more reading.  If the advertisement is no more than look what a good thing We did, then it is not considered an endorsement by the person depicted in it.  According to the information I got from a google article it is then not actually considered a true advertisement as it does not directly promote the product.  It is consider more in the editorial line.  Same is true of the bank poster.

BUT AGAIN I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER HIRE A LAWYER...


----------



## markc (Sep 8, 2006)

MommyOf4Boys said:
			
		

> Do people like Brittany Spears sign a universal photo release for tabloid magazines or something, then?  Because I do not think that she signed anything when that photographer took the photo of her plastered in all of the tabloids, etc with her holding her baby while driving.   :lmao:


That falls under the category of "news". They push the line, though. That's why they sometimes lose lawsuits.

--

I should have separated those sentences out, mysterscribe. I didn't mean for it to sound so directly harsh towards you. But I did want to point out that selling a piece of work in a gallery is different than selling an image to a company to use as an advertisement to promote themselves. And as you pointed out, even "advertisement" is not a simply defined term.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 8, 2006)

thanks for the clerification, but the first set of legal research kept saying commercial use.  The gentleman who sued in new york went at them on those very grounds, commerical use.  Since it was always intended to be a money making event, it would seem on the surface he would have the most reason to get a release. 

My point was it isnt a slam dunk just because you see your face in a newspaper advertisement.  You are still going to have to show some purpose for filing your suit.  They may settle for the neusense value or they may not, if they dont my guess is the up front money is on you.  I dont think many lawyers are going to want to sue a charity over so trivial a matter.  At least not on a contingency.

He sued on religious grounds and he still lost. 

And as far as the gallery thing goes, if its for sale, to me it would seem to be the same thing.  The photographer is selling it to the public not some corporation.  Now the gallery might not have the same liable as a corporation would have.  Hell I dont know Im a photographer not a lawyer.  

My rule of thumb is:first: I never made enough money for anyone to sue me.  Second: I don't own anything anybody would want, third: if you complain while I'm shooting it, I wont use it.  No single image, esp if I'm not being paid to produce it, is worth this amount of hassle anyway.

In my case no matter how hard I tried to defend on the grounds of art, someone would just show my 'body of work' and I would get twenty years in the slammer.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 8, 2006)

I saw a national news show tonight with a retired judge discussing this issue.  It was in reference to the movie about the assasination of bush. According to this retired judge.  Bush nor anyone else can stop his image for being used in a commercial venture but may well be entitled to a percentage of the profits.  This is so murky I doubt anyone in the whole world could predict the outcome of any given case.  

It might just be one of those is it worth it type things.  Which might be why it is done in the first place.  Counting on it being to much trouble for john q to bother.

I think one thing for sure if all the hype keeps going people are going to start refusing to sign releases unless they are paid.  It had gotten to be that kind of world.


----------



## JohnMF (Sep 13, 2006)

47 posts into this thread and i can't beleive you've all missed the most important question!...

Who does your hair Calgary_Life???


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 13, 2006)

see what happens when you ask a bunch of photographers anything... we wander all around and miss the really important stuff.


----------



## Renair (Sep 13, 2006)

Just a quick one, even if a waiver was signed, what did it specify.  Usually you can sign one for single publication use only, but if its for an advertising campaign and a magazine.  I would ask if they wont give you money, to air brush you out of the picture, you could claim as a result your being harassed or something......


----------



## Steve Wynn (Sep 13, 2006)

The famous and politicians are "news" and as long as the photo is not used to advertise a commercial product, they're fair game.  But that doesn't mean you can lift a news photo off of the wire services, etc. Reprint them and sell them. 

You can find out more about model releases, copyrights etc on www.ourppa.com and a lot of other sites.

Steve


----------



## Calgary_life (Sep 16, 2006)

Well well well...
Some people are angry, some drifted off too far into philosophy of it... sorry to those who got angry... i didn't mean to offend anyone.

And just so everyone is clear - I am not after the money as such! I am fortunate enough to provide sufficiently for myself. And my grandmother is a cancer survivor! So I am not some hartless individual who is after sueing everyone for everything. 

The point is - some letter asking us if this was ok would have been all i needed, some respect. For those who say, buy the mag and frame it for grandkids...I did buy - all 4! And I used to model in Europe before and i actually have my pic on the cover of the mag from 8 years ago, and that one is a very beautiful professional modeling pic, so...

To answer about the hair products - I have a hairdresser, but i don't use Revlon, and also my point was that - i do have some companies on my 'list' that i would NEVER buy products from or use their service, because of horrible experiences with them, and if this company was one of them - i would be so mad.

Just so those of you who are worried for THE RUN to loose money - I am not going to court. It is too much time and energy - I rather concentrate more on my business then waste time there. I also agree that world has turned into some very strange place - well my philosophy is 'for the century that I am meant to live on this planet in this body, don't try to change what's wrong around you - pick the best and use it!' AND as I am aware most professional service providers have Business Insurance anyhow! at least here in Canada. so - it is not the money from the donations!
I am a mortgage broker and this case would be like I for example get any of your guys picture and start advertising - "hey he or she is my client see how happy they are, do business with me", yet you have't even met me or used my service, maybe I am the worst for all you know - well this is what revlon did. I am not their client, , they weren't sponsors of this event last year! why are they put out a national ad saying I am?! In case of Britney Spears and Bush and whoever got mentioned here....well I am yet too see any AD for Ms. Spears ADVERTISING anything, while they haven't asked her permission. All the pic we see are of her life, street/even shots not promoting any product! 

So - we'll see where it goes...

Bye for now - and enjoy life, don't be so searious!!!
N  :heart:


----------



## Calgary_life (Sep 16, 2006)

:taped sh: oops sorry for so many typos.....uhh my bad :blushing:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 16, 2006)

Ah I see it's the principle of the thing...


----------

