Philadelphia Scare Tactics

[Grapeshot]

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Grapeshot,

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm

� 652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.

Comments:
a.The interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others. Although the protection of his personal feelings against mental distress is an important factor leading to a recognition of the rule, the right created by it is in the nature of a property right, for the exercise of which an exclusive license may be given to a third person, which will entitle the licensee to maintain an action to protect it.
b.How invaded.The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.

Apply this to a media photography taking pictures in a public environment.

How does this play?

Yata hey

 

[david.ross]

imported post

Grapeshot,

Media photography, as in the news? Newsworthy material typically is "fair use", but there are certain restrictions pertaining to children(under 18). i.e. Name of a child. If it's newsworthy like a grounds fair, even asking a kid on if the fair is fun, it's "OK."

Media is simply reporting the news, but there are restrictions. The media can't just take someone's videos/photos without permission and use them. Also, to buy photos/video from a freelance agent when about a specific person crosses the privacy line as well.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/07/fitzgerald.html

Here are some Fair Use examples/cases.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Grapeshot,

Media photography, as in the news? Newsworthy material typically is "fair use", but there are certain restrictions pertaining to children(under 18). i.e. Name of a child. If it's newsworthy like a grounds fair, even asking a kid on if the fair is fun, it's "OK."

Media is simply reporting the news, but there are restrictions. The media can't just take someone's videos/photos without permission and use them. Also, to buy photos/video from a freelance agent when about a specific person crosses the privacy line as well.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/07/fitzgerald.html

Here are some Fair Use examples/cases.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Maybe it is they way I am reading your cites, but I see nothing to preclude someone from taking pictures in public and making a buck.

The first cite seems to relate to using someone else's photographic material and the second to literary works. What am I missing?

Yata hey

 

[david.ross]

imported post

Grapeshot,

the fitzgerald link describes in the lower center of the paragraph explaining the case wasn't about the news. The infringement came from a freelancer taking photos about a specific person and selling them for commercial gain. The freelance agent did not seek permission from the subject.

The difference in taking photos and posting them online, there is no commercial gain. Of course this is not black and white, there are gray areas like posting photos with intent to harass the subject.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Grapeshot,

the fitzgerald link describes in the lower center of the paragraph explaining the case wasn't about the news. The infringement came from a freelancer taking photos about a specific person and selling them for commercial gain. The freelance agent did not seek permission from the subject.

The difference in taking photos and posting them online, there is no commercial gain. Of course this is not black and white, there are gray areas like posting photos with intent to harass the subject.

Grapeshot needs more indoctrination - he is not pleased.

Privacy is good - restriction on making money on what is available for all to see - bad.

Guess that is why there is a difference between myself and lawyers - I don't get paid for my opinions.

Yata hey

 

[david.ross]

imported post

You could always read NPPA, perhaps join if you're interested in photography. The NPPA is like saying NRA, except for photographer press.

 

[LadyGreenEyes]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

LadyGreenEyes wrote:

insane.kangaroo wrote:

okboomer wrote:

This is what they posted on their facebook page. All of the photo’s of our group have already been reported (misrepresentation of character, posting pics of minors without parental consent).

As someone who has an interest in photography, I should make a correction. There is no crime for photographing people who are in public, regardless of age. If there was a reasonable expectation of privacy like a completely opaque fence surrounding a school yard, then climbing the fence to take photos would be unlawful.

That is accurate! The only way there could be a fault is if the photos were used for profit, I believe, in which case one would have to seek permission. A FB page isn't for profit, so no crime there.

Cite please.

Yata hey

http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/photo-law-your-right-to-take-pictures-in-public/

One link; you can do a websearch yourself for more info.