photo usage

[skybytch 273]

Hypothetical - You find that a picture of you is being used on someone's advertising (print ad, business card, promotional flyer, etc.). You were never contacted for permission, thus permission was never given for the use of your recognizable image in said advertising.

This is not to dispute that the photographer "owns" the images s/he takes. Those images are the photographer's to use, sell, etc. What is in question is the use of an image in advertising without the "model's" express permission.

Right? Wrong?

Discuss.

[bodypilot1 0]

Are you worried about the tons of money they are making off of that little picture of YOU?

If the picture is being used in such a way that humiliates you I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Most would just be happy to see a picture of them that everyone else could see.

You could always just stay inside your house with the shades dowm, so no pictures are taken?



Be safe.
Ed

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[NickDG 23]

Anyone, especially in jumping, can buy a camera and call themselves a photographer. However, you'll never get far with a "real" pro without signing a model release.

In any event there's not much you can about it that would pencil out in the end. Look at Steve Clark, a photo of him doing a tandem over Perris, is plastered all over how many SKYRIDE web sites . . .

NickD BASE 194

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Are you worried about the tons of money they are making off of that little picture of YOU?

No. Please, photographers, sell those pictures you have of me to Sports Illustrated and other big money print media. I'll say thank you, enjoy the money, you earned it.

This is about permission. If you want to use a picture of yourself on your business card, you must have the permission of the photographer right? Those who "do this for a living" will likely want money for it, but at a minimum you must get the photographer's okay before proceeding.

Why should the photographer using a picture of you for their advertising be any different?

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Right? Wrong?

Discuss.

The law is pretty clear on the subject.

From: Dan Heller's Photography Business Series: Model Releases

"In the case of advertising, let's say you wanted to license the soccer game photo to a soccer ball company for a magazine advertisement depicting the photo you took of the kid scoring the winning goal. If you did not have a model release, all the parties involved could sue you, and the company that used your photo. The reason is because people are entitled to be compensated for using their "likeness" for purposes of promoting a product, idea, political or religious view (or to imply support for any of those things). The law regarding this subject can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/3344-3346.html."

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Michele 1]

From what I understand, most dropzones have already included in their initial waiver that you release any and all photos **not commissioned** (i.e. hired a video person to take shots of you) for them to use however they wish. That does not include special projects, where a waiver would need to be used to protect various people and their interests, but it does include any shots taken of you at, around, hanging about, walking through, skydiving, landing, and/or various other things which occur on the private property at the dz.

If it is not already on the waiver, permission is still given by using the private property of the DZ in the course of their business and your participating in it, although it can be a bit more complicated. If that was the case, I'd cover myself by contacting the subject and getting a model release just because it would be a better bet for later on.

But if someone is standing there taking shots on the landing area, and the DZ is both aware and o.k.s it, then the paragraph in the original waiver holds.

That's my understanding of it, at least.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[shropshire 0]

<> - I guess that it would depend upon what they are advertising... If I didn't believe in the product/service or found it in anyway offensive.. I'd wouldn't be best pleased.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

most dropzones have already included in their initial waiver that you release any and all photos **

That is correct.
Also keep in mind that if a dz pays for hire someone to cover an event those images also become property of the DZ.

[ccowden 0]

Even if you did sue, which you could, you would have to PROVE that you were in some way damaged by the use of your picture. Then it would be up to a judge to decide if you were entitled to compensation.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Also keep in mind that if a dz pays for hire someone to cover an event those images also become property of the DZ.

Are images produced by independent contractors considered to be produced under "work for hire"?

Regardless, if the image in question is being used for promoting the photographer's business (not the dz) then permission from the people in the photo is required... is it not?

Waivers release the use of the photos in advertising by the dz, not by the photographer.

[ccowden 0]

Yep- it IS required. BUT, you still would have to sue if you wanted some kind of damages, and even then, you would still have to prove you suffered damages. It is unlikely the judge would award you anything unless you really could prove you were injured by the use of your photo. The best you could hope for realisticly is the judge saying they could no longer use your photo. If it is worth your time and legal fees to get that.

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

Are images produced by independent contractors considered to be produced under "work for hire"?

Most all photogrpahers and videographers are "independant contractors".

Quote

Regardless, if the image in question is being used for promoting the photographer's business (not the dz) then permission from the people in the photo is required... is it not?

I would belive that is a correct statement.

Quote

Waivers release the use of the photos in advertising by the dz, not by the photographer.

That is correct unless it also specifies by the drop zone or its agents.
Shoot me a PM.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Even if you did sue, which you could, you would have to PROVE that you were in some way damaged by the use of your picture.

I'm not an authority on US law, but that is exactly the opposite of what the text posted above by RhondaLea says. That text says that you get $750 or the actual damages suffered which ever is greater.

If that is correct there is a legislative minimum payout built into the system of $750 even where the plaintiff can show no actual loss.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

even then, you would still have to prove you suffered damages.

Not so. Or I don't think at least as 'technically' as this part of your statement may imply. You do not need to be 'damaged' in order to show right to due compensation. Then again on the other hand, deprivement of that DUE COMPENSATION can be found, in of itself, to be 'damages'. The 'sticky' part is quantifying in ANY case, the value of either those damages, or those (deprived) "due (compensation) rights", and then determining if whether or not, that is worth pursuing, to you.

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[skybytch 273]

Quote

and then determining if whether or not, that is worth pursuing, to you.

What if it's not about money?

If a photographer wishes to be considered a professional - and taking money for taking pictures tells me that they wish to be considered a professional - they should act professionally. Using a picture with recognizable faces on the photographer's own advertising materials without permission of those faces isn't acting professionally, imho. It also comes across as a lack of respect for the people being photographed.

Just my opinion as always, and no, this thread is not in response to my mug appearing on anybody's advertising.

[flyangel2 2]

Hey now, you said I had your permission when I took that one picture of us in the shower

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

What if it's not about money?

To get the photographer to cease and desist, you have to sue.

Even if you want an apology, nothing more, and the person isn't willing, you still have to sue.

Either that, or you need to send Guido to his house to give him a talking to. More seriously, if this person is a jumper, peer pressure is a great tool.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Michele 1]

Quote

Using a picture with recognizable faces on the photographer's own advertising materials without permission of those faces isn't acting professionally, imho.

So, was this a work for hire? Or was it a previously waivered situation (as the DZ waiver I spoke of earlier)? Or something else?

There is also the consideration that some shots are used to demonstrate skill, but are not for sale, and therefor it is not producing income but rather the potential for such income. I have a shot that is outstanding, but it was not waivered, nor taken in a previously waivered place. I can't sell that shot, but I perhaps can use it to demonstrate a technical skill. Is it questionable? Perhaps...but then again, perhaps not.

Sorry you're looking for concrete answers to a very ambiguous situation...it's a little tough to answer them in a more concrete manner without understanding more of the situation.

And BTW, there are many different opinions as to what to do; seek legal counsel if it is an issue, and if you want clear, legally sound reasoning. I'm just going off what I've learned as a by-product of reading and listening to other people who know far more than I.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[BigM 2]

Lisa- just curious, is this a hypothetical question, or is this in response to an actual situation?

Blue 111-
Jeff

"When I die, I want to go like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car."