PDA

View Full Version : Question of rights for the freelancer????


naturalimages
20th of September 2006 (Wed), 10:55
Can someone answer this question? I took photos of a celebrity at a public event, can I now sell these photos to various publications local mags or other publications. Thank you, Sally:lol:

ssim
20th of September 2006 (Wed), 11:32
You don't indicate where you live which I think does make a difference, there are different laws in different countries.

As I understand it, a photo taken of a celebrity for the purpose of journalistic opportunities, ie. newspaper, magazine, do not require the presence of a release form. If you are to turn around and sell prints you would require a release.

Try and upload the image to a stock agency and they will probably set you straight on the release issue. They seem to have a good grasp on what the current rules are. Generally anyone that is recognizable in the image requires a signed release form.

That is my take on things and does not necessarily mean it is right. I think I was wrong once before but then realized that was a mistake.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

peterdoomen
20th of September 2006 (Wed), 12:00
Try and upload the image to a stock agency and they will probably set you straight on the release issue. They seem to have a good grasp on what the current rules are. Generally anyone that is recognizable in the image requires a signed release form.



Indeed, although at my stock program (see footer), there is an escape for that: upload them as editorial pictures. These must be "newsworthy" and they can't be used for commercial purposes (which limits their value).

P.

RTMiller
20th of September 2006 (Wed), 12:09
I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding (and I hope it's correct because I do it)...

If you take a picture of a celebrity or any person at a public event, you can sell that picture to a newspaper or magazine if it is used for 'editorial' purposes. No release is required. The newspaper can print the photo in conjunction with a story that they are running about the event. That's the 'editorial purposes' part. The newspaper could not use that photo in any type of advertisement without a release. And you cannot print posters of the photo and sell them without a release.

IndyJeff
21st of September 2006 (Thu), 22:26
RTMiller is correct in his answer to your query. If it IS EDITORIAL USAGE, no release is needed.

hooookup
25th of September 2006 (Mon), 22:20
If it's a solid shot of an A list celeb contact Bauer-Griffin
http://www.bauer-griffin.com

stinkydiver60
27th of September 2006 (Wed), 07:35
How is it that our local newspapres can sell there photographs after the run of the news article. A local newspaper has a link to a site were they post and sell all of their photos taken for an article, they even sell the photos they did not print in the article. How is this legal?

transcend
27th of September 2006 (Wed), 09:49
For the sake of clarification, when some is working freelance, it means they are working for a company but they aren't considered a full-time employee for tax and business purposes. Depending on the terms of the contract for the job, you may or may not have rights to the image (i.e. work for hire would belong to whoever hired you to take the pictures).

If you were paid to take pictures of an event (let's say the Governor speaking at a press conference) and you snapped some shots of people in the crowd, one of whom was a celebrity, the images may belong to whoever hired you in the first place (it's a bit of a gray area) rather than you, even though they didn't hire you take celebrity photos.

Were you being paid to take pictures at this event?

Well freelance has some pretty broad definitions. The one you posted is one, but it can also mean independant/uncommitted. I believe the second one is a bit mroe commonplace (especially since the proliferation of good digital gear when no one has to depend on pools).

Ie: I shoot freelance covering the MTB world cup. I hit up every event around the world, but I work for no one. No contracts. When i get back I feed them to the different publications for editorial and trade companies for commercial purposes and see who bites.

In this type of case, no one owns the rights except the photographer.