brad@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Brad Spear) (04/03/84)
In a recent article, Tony Scafidi asked about Photo Consent Forms. There is really no "standard" form. Basically, for any photograph that you wish to make public (contest, sale, etc.), you need the written signature of every recognizable person in that photograph, indicating that they will allow their likeness to be made public. Without that written consent, they can sue you for invasion of privacy. Any other information on the form is meant to identify you and the particular photograph. Note, if more than one photograph is to be made public, the consent form must cover all of them, or you must have individual forms for each. There is no blanket protection if, say, you get Joe Blow's consent for photo A, but you publish photo B. In that case, Joe could take you to court. Note that only recognizable people need to sign, so if you have a picture of someone's back, you probably don't need their signature (unless it is immediately recognizable, say Frankenstein, with the bolts). If you want a real form, look in the back of a photographic handbook. I know for a fact (I have them), that "The Photographer's Handbook" and "The Manual of [Indoor/Outdoor] Photography" have examples of forms in them. There may be several tomes with those names, but they probably have forms too. There are quite a few laws surrounding what photographers can and can't do, and they changed recently (1980?) to be somewhat better for the photographer. I have a book describing the new laws, but I don't have it with me now. If you want the publisher, send me mail. As an aside, I think consent forms can also specify how a photo may be made public, for example, it may be entered in a contest, but not sold. However, I'm not sure on this last point. Brad Spear sdcrdcf!brad
wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (04/10/84)
(This has been expanded from net.rec.photo to net.video & net.legal in the light of the amplified topic the original inquiry inspired...) How is the photo consent form issue treated in the case of television? I am specifically interested in the NON-news use of "candid" video images, such have been used on late-night comedy shows from Steve Allen to the present, where the camera is set up on the street to show passers-by and the host makes funny comments, often rude remarks, about the people whose images are being broadcast nationwide. Since this is sometimes done live, there is absolutely no consent granted by the people whose pictures are being used in this fashion. If this usage is fully legal (and I assume the networks' lawyers would have checked this out years ago, else it would not have continued so long), why would there be any legal restriction for the use of a still photograph of an unconsenting subject? If there is such a disparity, the legal justification for allowing this frivolous use of televised images should be an appropriate precedent to destroy any legal requirements for photo consent forms for still photographers, given a suitable test court case. I also direct any lawyers' attention to a related inquiry (on net.rec.photo) regarding photo consent forms and photos taken during overseas travel. It would be rewarding to see legal comments on this subject posted to any of the appropriate groups. Will Martin
wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (04/10/84)
Ooops, forgot to include a point I wanted to emphasize: This television use of peoples' images is definitely for GAIN; thus it is directly equivalent to the situation covered by photo consent forms regarding photos you will sell, enter in contests, etc. The gain involved is, of course, that the images are being used for program material on a commercial station or network, eventually for the purpose of selling advertising time. Will