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