scafidi@eosp1.UUCP (Tony Scafidi) (04/13/84)
[Have you cleaned you camera lately?]
I was discussing the consent form topic last night and my wife asked
if there was any time limit related to this subject. An example she
used was, You took a picture 10 years ago and now decided to enter it
in a contest and you didn't have a consent form signed by the people
in the photo. Can you legally enter it in the contest? Also what if
you take a picture of two people creating silhouette's, do you need
their consent? Do you need a consent form signed if you want to use
photos of sculptures, buildings or peoples homes? Where do you need to
draw the line.
I have one other question. The consent form that was posted to the net
has a line for the witness. Does this mean that two people (not
including the photographer) have to sign the form or can the photogra-
pher be the witness?
I never realized that making money with your camera could have so many
legal ramifications. Well all I know is that I have a still life of a
mushroom that I may one day enter into a contest. I hope I don't need
a consent form from it. After I took the picture, I mowed the lawn
and you can guess what happened to the mushroom.
Watching the net for a response.
Anthony J. Scafidi
net: ..!allegra!eosp1!scafidi
MaBell: (609)-734-9200 ext. 318brad@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Brad Spear) (04/17/84)
> You took a picture 10 years ago and now decided to enter it in a contest > and you didn't have a consent form signed by the people in the photo. Can > you legally enter it in the contest? Use of newsworthy photographs, used in that context, generally don't require releases. On the other hand, advertising and trade photographs do. It would seem reasonable to assume that, although one can legally enter the 10 year old photo, the contestant would leave himself open to a breach of privacy suit, since the photograph is not being used in the context of news. I believe that many (most?) contests require releases anyway, mainly to protect themselves from a possible lawsuit. For example, the L.A. Times newspaper ran a photo contest recently, and one of the entrance requirements was releases signed by all recognizable people in the photograph. However, if the people in the photograph had, in the interim, died, the photo could be used without a release, unless (as some courts have recognized) the people where public figures, in which case, the celebrity's "Right to Publicity" is a "property" right, and survives his death, permitting his estate to recover for damages. > Also what if you take a picture of two people creating silhouettes, do > you need their consent? Since two silhouettes are not (in general) recognizable, the actual people have no legal recourse to use of the silhouettes. NOTE: this is my opinion, it was not specifically mentioned in my source text. Any legal types have other opinions? > Do you need a consent form signed if you want to use photos of sculptures, > buildings or peoples homes? Almost any object can be photographed, with the notable exceptions of money, securities, postage stamps and flags, though there are holes in the laws preventing such photography, as in almost every law. Basically, you can photograph any public building (except those in which admission is charged) or public work without a consent form as long as no other law (specifically, trespass) is broken. The notable exceptions are identifiable buildings used in advertisement (some claims have been raised) and military installations. Also, many museums have their own regulations. Courtrooms are definitely out, without prior permission, though this has been changing. Note that these are all general rules, if in doubt, ask a curator, or some other official. I'm not sure about private homes, but I think they are considered as is a person, and require a release from the owner (and tenant?) of the building. > The consent form that was posted to the net has a line for the witness. > Does this mean that two people (not including the photographer) have to > sign the form or can the photographer be the witness? The example forms given in my source book also have witness lines, but they are not mentioned in the text. I would assume that it is nice to have, but not necessary. Note though, that a minor must have an adult guardian sign in addition. Regarding the consent form sent previously, it is complete for the photographer's use. It doesn't address the problem of subsequent sale and use of the photograph by a third party, in which the photograph is altered. This situation was brought up in Russel v. Marboro Books 183 NYS 2d, 9 (1959). In this case, a wide ranging release was signed by the model in question, to be used to promote a book club. However, the photograph was then sold to a manufacturer of bed sheets, who tended to publish sexy ads. The photograph was retouched, to change the name of a book in it to a banned, pornographic title, and underneath the photo was an invitation to readers to supply a risque caption. Then end result was that the model had an action for invasion of privacy, since the release did not cover the alteration of the photograph, even though she agreed (in the release) to forego inspection of the completed material when ready for publication. The given form would be adequate for most purposes. My source includes a "blockbuster" release, which is probably the same as the "formal" release mentioned by the submitter of the given form. These releases would take care of almost any contingency. > Well all I know is that I have a still life of a mushroom that I may one > day enter into a contest. I hope I don't need a consent form from it. After > I took the picture, I mowed the lawn and you can guess what happened to the > mushroom. Since the mushroom is now deceased, and it was not a public figure, you can probably do anything you want with the photo. :-) I am using a 1979 book called "Photography: What's the Law?", revised edition, by Robert M Cavallo and Stuart Kahan, as the source for my ramblings. Mr. Cavallo had been a practicing New York attorney for 20 years, and was the General Counsel to ASMP (American Society of Magazine Photographers), and Mr. Kahan was Executive Directory of the ASMP at the time the book was published. CAVEAT: These statements are taken from the above book, and are valid only in the United States. How do the laws vary in other countries? I'm sure it would be of interest, especially for those people who are fortunate enough to travel. The bottom line then, is for almost photograph that is to be used for any purpose other than your own private viewing, get a release if at all possible. The questions of invasion of privacy and libel are rather important for anyone who publishes photographs. I would like to see more discussion of these, including attitudes in contries other than the U.S., and any contact people have had with the laws in their state or country. Brad Spear sdcrdcf!brad