― anonista (Jordan), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― NA (Nick A.), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)
The photographer owns the copyright in the image. Your girlfriend has the right to approve of the commercial use of her likeness, if it's at all recognizable. Each one needs permission from the other to use the photo for commercial reasons.
― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)
each must get some kind of licence/waiver from the other
mileage varies on how this negotiated (also it's probbly difft in difft countries)
believe me it is a NIGHTMARE when you are a magazine publishing photos of artworks owned by third parties and supplied by agencies
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)
The interior design firm I work for has its work photographed all the time, but if we want these photos published in a magazine, we have to go through the photorgrapher, even though these are pictures of OUR interiors and WE commissioned the photographer to take these pictures for us.
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)
Many a time have the name and likeness laws come back to haunt a photographer or photo agency that grabbed the copyright in a photo, but forgot to get permission from the (human) subject, as mark s seems to have experienced.
― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― NA (Nick A.), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)
― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)
There is a newsworthiness exception for public figures photographed in public places, like the sidewalk. Public figures aren't supposed to expect privacy when they are out in public areas. "Commercial" use means endorsements, advertisements, things like that, not reportage. But even then, celebrities can get restraining orders if it crosses over into stalkerazzi-ism, i.s, where the photog is actually getting into the physical space/face of the subject or trespassing on the private property of another.
― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)
― anonista (Jordan), Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)
eg she is pricing herself out of the market: if she is comfortable w.this then there's not much you can do
(photographers who behave like complete abusive dicks or try and charge absurd fees simply stop getting work from us: photographers who are friendly and professional and willing to negotiate sensibly are never a problem, the more the merrier)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)
You could probably get by with your own version of the image done with whatever camera happens to be around. I doubt many of the entries are going to be semi-pro or professional.
I assume, too, that if your story gets chosen for print publication, they'll send someone on the staff to do a photograph.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)
― phil-two (phil-two), Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)
Why not just cover their eyes with black bars?
Also, consider Lesbian Or German Lady.
― Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 11 September 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)