legal questions and your thoughts

[Biker]

OK Now this came up on another forum Im on. IF I were to take a lot of cleavage shots bodice shots of all the women at faire, is it illegal for me to sell them w/o any permission? I think its not legal has I will say me, that Im using say Scarlett's image to make money from. So without a agreement, its illegal.

Any other's have thoughts on this? BTW Im not selling pix of Scarlette or any other lass.

[hurricane]

Although I'm not sure what jollies are to be gained from shooting breast pictures, selling them without the "models" permission is illegal, no matter what. All photos offered for sale involving identifiable people require a release. Since wench attire is so readily identifable to a particular person (i.e., unique) the shots would be identifiable, even if faces weren't shown.

While it would be doubtful someone could sue successfully because of the issue of public vs. private venue at a faire, it would be an undue risk.

Plus it's just kind of creepy.... like a woman asking if she can sell groin shots of men at a faire.

-- Hurricane

[Caraccioli]

It looks to me like it's sort of a grey area. I think you might have a lot of trouble with "invasion of privacy" if someone decided to press charges. Especially since you're making money off of someone's image without their consent. You also could get into a whole thorny "commercial use" area of photography.

This is a really interesting document on the subject by a professional photographer and writer on the subject:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

However, at the core of it in my mind, when you know something is wrong on a basic level, finding a legal way to do it doesn't really make it any more right. It ultimately demeans you and your subject and benefits neither.

[Fox]

Now, some years ago in the UK there was a guy taking pictures of re-enactors and selling them without permission. Most people took it as a compliment and were excited to see themselves for sale (Bonaventure and my boat just made it onto a greetings card btw!), but some were less happy - I think the major problem was that they weren't making any money.

So, the whole legailty problem arose and the end result was the decision that those people in the photographs had deliberately gone out of their way to be looked at by others, they had put a huge amount of money and effort into their costumes specifically to make themselves stand out from the crowd, as it were. The photographer had paid like everyone else to visit the events and had taken photographs over which he held the moral and legal copyright. What he did with them then was his business.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on US law, but I imagine that a similar thing must apply to you too. Think of the photos the celebrities would rather were never published - males celebs with ladies of doubtful virtue, female celebs with their boobs out on private sun loungers, teenage celebs looking like sh** with a bad drink and drugs hangover. You think they'd let the photographers sell those pictures to the papers if there was any way of stopping it?

Morally reprehensible though it may be to take photos of women's cleavage at events and sell them, I suspect that it would be very hard for the woman who had gone out of her way to put that cleavage on display to successfully prosecute the photographer.

Sharing them for free is an entirely different matter of course.

[hurricane]

If depends on the state here. For example, Washington State law is as follows:

Washington publicity rights statute (RCW 63.60.010-080).

Washington law declares that every natural person has property rights in the use of his or her name, voice, image or other specified indicia of his or her unique persona that can be infringed if used without permission to advertise tangible products or

services or for fund-raising or solicitation of donations.

So at the Washington Ren Faire, for example, you can't take photos of anyone that would be placed on sale without their express prior permission in writing.

Of course, it would downright dangerous at some events. If I caught someone taking photos of my lass' breasts, I do have a cutlass with me and I know how to use it. So if wants to lose a vital part of his own organs, I suggest he keeps his camera pointed elsewhere. That said, if Diosa caught them shooting them specifically she'd cross leg you in no time herself.

-- Hurricane

[Patrick Hand]

Not that I would ever look at "Adult" content on the internet.....

But I once saw a link to an Adult site that was advertising photos of cleavage shots from Faires........

I thought it was kinda silly (NO I didn't check out the site...) Why bother... I can see that sorta thing for myself at a Faire......

[Pirate Petee]

Well this comes up in my profession a lot. I’m a bit hazy on the specifics. Its something called public domain, were as you can take a picture of anyone in “public” and sell it, hence paparazzi, but if they are posing for it, they need to sign a model wavier release form or something.

[Caraccioli]

Well this comes up in my profession a lot. I’m a bit hazy on the specifics. Its something called public domain, were as you can take a picture of anyone in “public” and sell it, hence paparazzi, but if they are posing for it, they need to sign a model wavier release form or something.

There's a lot more to it than that.

From that website I reference above:

"One doesn't have to be a professional "model" to be eligible for a model release—anyone or anything that is the subject of a photograph is considered the "model" in this context. Similarly, you do not have to be a professional photographer to need or use one—anyone that use a photo of someone else under certain conditions may need a release to protect himself from being sued by the subject of the photo.

And herein lies the controversy. What are those conditions? When do they apply? What do you do when the rights of free speech conflict with someone's right to privacy? Because of these complexities, this is probably the most misunderstood topic in the world of photography, which makes it ripe for misinformation running rampant. Whether it's verbal hearsay, or rumors that spread in Internet chat rooms, the mistake people make is trying to simplify into a few words a topic that cannot be simplified. Most legal cases that you hear about are too specific for one to draw broad conclusions about generalized behaviors."

The paparazzi thing has at least something to do with public figures and attachment of the photos to a news story from what I read.

If you're really interested in this, I highly recommend clicking that link above. The whole thing is very grey and pretty complex. I suspect you could even wind up with one ruling in one court and a different one in another, all depending on how they interpreted things.

[Rogue Mermaid]

Let's not forget the mess that the "Girls Gone Wild" people get themselves into on a regular basis. That guy has been sued repeatedly by people who agree to be in his films and then say that they were too drunk to make a binding legal desision at the time. (That's not to say the Girls Gone Wild people have any morals anyway )

Biker, you've got to be especially careful about selling pictures of girls who look in their 20's but turn out to really be under 18. Post one of those accidentally and you're looking at a world of trouble.

[Rumba Rue]

Laws are a bit different in every state here in the USA.

In Calif. I believe you must have consent, or face a lawsuit.

[Pirate Petee]

Well this comes up in my profession a lot. I’m a bit hazy on the specifics. Its something called public domain, were as you can take a picture of anyone in “public” and sell it, hence paparazzi, but if they are posing for it, they need to sign a model wavier release form or something.

There's a lot more to it than that.

From that website I reference above:

"One doesn't have to be a professional "model" to be eligible for a model release—anyone or anything that is the subject of a photograph is considered the "model" in this context. Similarly, you do not have to be a professional photographer to need or use one—anyone that use a photo of someone else under certain conditions may need a release to protect himself from being sued by the subject of the photo.

And herein lies the controversy. What are those conditions? When do they apply? What do you do when the rights of free speech conflict with someone's right to privacy? Because of these complexities, this is probably the most misunderstood topic in the world of photography, which makes it ripe for misinformation running rampant. Whether it's verbal hearsay, or rumors that spread in Internet chat rooms, the mistake people make is trying to simplify into a few words a topic that cannot be simplified. Most legal cases that you hear about are too specific for one to draw broad conclusions about generalized behaviors."

The paparazzi thing has at least something to do with public figures and attachment of the photos to a news story from what I read.

If you're really interested in this, I highly recommend clicking that link above. The whole thing is very grey and pretty complex. I suspect you could even wind up with one ruling in one court and a different one in another, all depending on how they interpreted things.

Oh, I know there is more to it than that. I'm an art director for an Ad/ Marketing agency. I generally don't deal with the legal logistics much, I only know what I know from classes that I have taken and from being in the industry. "Public Domain" is considered, random things and people in a public place. A model is anyone, paid or not, professional or not that knowingly posses for a picture. Now I know there are some differences from placing a person in an ad to actually selling the picture of that person. I know there are some public privacy decency laws, so you can’t go around taking pictures of girls skirts or anything like that.

[Scarlet McBayne]

Biker me dear...tis glad I be that yer not planning on sellin any pix of me cleavage or otherparts. Me question be....how did ye get any pix o me? or were ye plannin te take some pix at Escondido and jest wanted to cover yer arse ifin ye wanted to sell them? hhuummmmmmm

not to worry dear, I jest couldnt help but tease ye a bit when I read me name in this topic

[hurricane]

QUOTE

Oh, I know there is more to it than that. I'm an art director for an Ad/ Marketing agency. I generally don't deal with the legal logistics much, I only know what I know from classes that I have taken and from being in the industry. "Public Domain" is considered, random things and people in a public place. A model is anyone, paid or not, professional or not that knowingly posses for a picture. Now I know there are some differences from placing a person in an ad to actually selling the picture of that person. I know there are some public privacy decency laws, so you can’t go around taking pictures of girls skirts or anything like that.

REPLY

Again, it depends on the state. In Washington, where I originaly hail from and prior to the new privacy law I quoted earlier, you had to get permission of any identifiable in a video or photo. I ran an agency there and we worked with all the biggies - Microsoft, Nintendo and such - and the law was crystal clear. If you can identify them you need to get the release. No exceptions.

It doesn't have so much as decency but having the rights over your own image. And that's a fairly old law in most courts, outside of the public person rule and few people meet the criteria of that, certainly not breasts.

And Diosa just reiterated - take photos of her boobs without handing over a wad of dough and she'll kick your nuts to the next dimension...

I'm sure a lot of the more decent lasses would agree.

-- Hurricane

[Merrydeath]

there was a site that had cleavage shots of women from faires on it too..but they weren't selling them. They were selling space to advertisers and got around the whole money issue. And yes the pics and outfits were identifiable. Several wenches were told about the pics by friends who id'd them.

I think the worst of it was that he had collections of Big, Small and HUGE! or something else that was derogatory..

if something like this was posted with men's codpices or pants fronts, only marked Big, Average, and Gherkin, the man would have been hung and quartered.