Please help, I think I have created a disaster. [Archive]

sasa007

29th of September 2005 (Thu), 01:38

There is a couple of issues here
First even BUILDINGS(houses) in USA can be under a trademark or some sorth of copyright...I know for exapmle you can not use city of Toronto to publish a book about it without a city permit.Also there was a case in Montreal that woman recognised herself on a public exibit she sued and SHE won.
so yes if possible print a hundreds of release forms for people to sign.
These are all Canadian laws but here is a sample

the confidential nature of the information and precluding disclosure.

Typical Confidentiality clauses that have been used in development agreements include some of the following:

The developer agrees that:

Where the developer has access to confidential information during the course of the development agreement, the developer will not use any such confidential information for its own benefit or use, disseminate or publish this confidential information without the prior consent of (Institution).

All records or other material, including any copies thereof, pertaining to confidential information as defined in this agreement, and all other records or materials developed by the developer during the course of the agreement will remain the property of (Institution) and upon termination of the agreement, will be returned to (Institution).

The developer’s confidentiality obligations will survive the termination of this agreement.

Privacy Issues

In Canadian law, protection of privacy is still unclear despite recent case law on the issue. Nevertheless, certain common law privacy rights do exist and several provinces have passed privacy legislation.

In Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co. the defendant published a book about Glenn Gould, a now deceased well-known Canadian pianist based on interviews and photographs dating to 1954 during a session with a Canadian writer. Glenn Gould consented to the interviews and photographs at the time. The estate of Glenn Gould sued claiming that Gould’s "personality had been misappropriated". The court dismissed the action and the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The lower court determined that where a celebrity is the subject of interviews rendered public, the literary work in question is actually an attempt to provide insight about a well-known figure in society. The public interest in free expression must, therefore, be balanced with the interest protected by the tort of misappropriation. Since the literary work in question provided insight into Gould’s life as a public figure, there was no misappropriation of personality found. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the consent signed by Glenn Gould and determined that since there were no restrictions on the consent, no misappropriation of personality could be found.

On the other hand, in Aubry v Editions Vice-Versa Inc a case originating from the jurisdiction of Quebec, a seemingly conflicting result has been obtained. A photographer took a photo of a woman sitting on the steps of a building in Montreal and subsequently published it in a photography magazine. The photographer did not receive any remuneration for having taken the photograph. When the woman, Aubry, was told about the photo, she sued the publisher claiming a loss of privacy. At both trial and appeal, the plaintiff won her case since there was no public interest justification to warrant the publication of her photograph. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the lower court’s decision, claiming that the right to one’s image is an element in the right to privacy.

The above decisions do not clarify when it is necessary to obtain a person’s consent to use either its image or voice when publishing material for public consumption. In any event, where information is being placed on the Internet, it is being published globally and you may be subject to the privacy laws of other jurisdictions.

If someone’s image or voice is included in a Web site or virtual exhibition, it may violate certain moral rights or neighbouring rights associated with copyright. There could be provisions in collective agreements for "re-use" rights pertaining to the use of an actor or musicians’ voice or image. If the voice or image belongs to a member of an actors’ or musicians’ union, such as ACTRA or the American Federation of Musicians, you may have to clear the use of "voice-overs" or images with the union as well.

Therefore it is recommended as good practice to have the developer obtain all necessary clearances in writing from the person and their affiliated organizations where a person’s image or voice is used in a virtual exhibition or Web site. Similar to copyright clearances, the cultural heritage institution may want to include a clause to the effect that it may obtain the original signed permissions from the developer.

more here
http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Protecting_Interests/protecting_against_liabilities.html