Re: Copyright
by Honeywebster(at)aol.com
|
Date: |
Sat, 26 May 2001 12:57:32 EDT |
To: |
hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
Not being an attorney, I can't expose a legal position. But having been a
photographer, published in magazines and photographing often famous people, I
can tell you what I think is acceptable.
Mr. X has a point, if I am understanding the story correctly. Photographs
should be the copyright of the photographer. But the "owner" of subject in
them must give their permission for the use of the image.
So, if I were to photograph a painting or a person and use it for commercial
reasons (like a Web site), I need to have the permission to do so by the
subject or owner of the subject.
If you are photographing something for news and putting it in a newspaper,
magazine or on TV, you don't need permission, assuming the photography was
done at a public event or the person knew you were there photographing. The
gray area comes up when people are surreptitiously photographing, for
instance, a "star" walking around on the star's property and the photographer
had to climb a tree to see over the wall to take it.
But the photojournalistic photos that are allowed for news are not allowed if
you publish it in a book, which is then a commercial venture. So, if the
photographer who is photographing Mr. X's exhibit is being used for bona fide
news, it is OK. If, for any other reason, it is not without Mr. X's
permission (which may require payment).
Janet
Web Site Designer
Electronic Portfolio:
http://www.zagdesign.com
HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA