Canadian Law - tricky live performance question

[nothsa]

I'm not the photographer in this instance, but a friend of mine came to me with this question and I'm not exactly sure where this falls in the legal realm.

She is involved with a large (volunteer) community theatre company, and they hired a professional photog to come in and take some photos on the dress rehearsal night without telling any of the actors that they were doing it. It has just come to light recently as the photog is wanting to sell the photos to the cast/crew. She has not signed anything saying that they could take photos or video of her.

Now the problem. She does not want any photos of her in the show to be distributed to ANYONE, especially cast and crew who can them post them on something like Facebook. If she had her way, she would be asking the photog to permanently delete all of the photos of her, and if they had told her before they were taking the photos then she probably would've asked them to shoot around her. She has already put in a request to the producers of the show to have all of the shots removed, and she is currently waiting on a response.

So what I'm wanting to know is where does she stand, legally. As far as I can tell, the photog it just shooting what they ask him to, so the problem lies with the theatre company and must be dealt with on their side, but I'm wanting to know what rights she has in this instance, and whether or not she can take this to court if it gets out of hand.

Any help/insight would be much appreciated, and I am willing to answer any questions that you may have.

[gravy graffix]

why the hell is she in theater if she dont want to be seen? does she dress in black for the show night?

[nothsa]

It's one thing to be performing a show in a theatre, and it's another to have that performance plastered all over social networking sites.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. I'm asking what her rights are from a legal standpoint. The reasons for her wanting to excise those rights are not relevant to this conversation.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Well if Canada's copyright laws are anything like the US she has none really. Other than the photos of her can't be used commercially. That doesn't mean he can't sell the to individuals just that he can't sell them to someone that will use them to promote a product or service. As far as anyone putting them up on a web site well that will be between them and the photographer as he owns the copyright and probably would not want them redistributed that way. Now if she signed anything with the theatre company they may have a clause in there concerning this if not she should check with them before contacting the photographer (who may just make her photos not available...but I doubt it)

[nothsa]

That seems a little strage as. I've never heard "commercial use" defined as "[being used to] promote a service or product". I usually hear various definitions that all include something like "for profit" or "for monetary reward", which appears to cover this. Anybody else care to weigh in on this?

I agree that having people putting them up on the web is a rights thing between the photographer and the person he sells to, but I'm looking at before that point, before he sells them to the client.

As I said she has not signed releases or anything else to do with photography. As I said, I see this as a problem on the side of the theatre company, not the photog. The photographer was hired to do a job, and provided the theatre company with what they asked for. What I'm saying is that they should have been asking for something different (i.e. shooting around her), and they should correct this by asking the photographer to remove those specific files before selling the other photos, and paying him for his extra time if that's what he's wanting. He also won't be losing any sales over this. People are going to buy his CD of photos whether these ones are on there or not. Contacting the photog directly is an absolute last resort at this point.

Am I way off base on this?

[sspellman]

Nothsa-

Dennis' definition of commercial use is correct in the US. In fact their is a recent case that individuals could not restrict the sale of fine art prints and books. From your description, the photographer did exactly as asked.

Your friend's concern does seem incredibly strange as a public performer. I would think it would be unlikely that any theatre troop would want any member that would refuse to be photographed or video taped.

-Scott

[nothsa]

In fact their is a recent case that individuals could not restrict the sale of fine art prints and books.

Wow, that's surprising. Thanks for the info.

From your description, the photographer did exactly as asked.

Yeah, I know. That's what I said :)

[cory1848]

Private venue - Doesnt that mean that the venue or who is in charge of running the venue can restrict photo access? I would think if she wins over the admin people running the show, those photos would be restricted commercially. As far as facebook, etc, goes...think she would be SOL on that...