copyright issues

[jimmywires]

A local bar here is having a bike run (poker run)we call it. If I have permission from the bar to shot this run outside as they ride here and there in the public streets and in the bar its self. can I sell Cd's of this event?Or am I looking for trouble

[Converge]

Trouble with who? The bar? Also, who are you going to sell these CDs to? The people in the poker run?

[Sam10]

Originally Posted by jimmywires

A local bar here is having a bike run (poker run)we call it. If I have permission from the bar to shot this run outside as they ride here and there in the public streets and in the bar its self. can I sell Cd's of this event?Or am I looking for trouble

If the people are recognizable then I think you would need a model release. If it's a bunch of citizens, or HOG members probably no issues, but if there are patch holders there you might just get your camera put in body a orifice you would not really like.

If your not familiar with these terms ask the bar owners.

Sam

[chakalakasp]

Originally Posted by Sam10

If the people are recognizable then I think you would need a model release. If it's a bunch of citizens, or HOG members probably no issues, but if there are patch holders there you might just get your camera put in body a orifice you would not really like.

Actually, you probably wouldn't. While you should check with a lawyer if you need legal advice, as I understand it, you do not need a model release to sell prints (or CDs) of someone's photos. You would need e release if you were going to use those images in an advertisement, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

[jimmywires]

[quote]Trouble with who? The bar?[quote]why would I have trouble with the bar if i have permission. and yes the people in the poker run.

[jimmywires]

Sam the patch holders don't show up till late

[Converge]

man, your question is pretty vague and leaves out a lot of specifics. Again, WHO do you want to sell these CD's to?

I doubt these guys would want to give you money for pictures of them. And if you want to sell these CDs to like stock or something, you would OF COURSE need a model release and property release if you are shooting their bikes (if they are custom and identifyable)

[ssim]

Originally Posted by chakalakasp

[/color]
you do not need a model release to sell prints (or CDs) of someone's photos. You would need e release if you were going to use those images in an advertisement, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

As I understand the copyright laws you do need a release of any person recognizable if you are going to use the images for commerical use which the selling of prints or CD's falls under. If it is classified as editorial then you don't but you would have to prove that they were shot with that intention, like it was being portrayed as a news article or such.

[davidgr]

I wouldn't bother or waste any time on this at all!!!

Why? They just aren't that exciting!

It's not a birthday party. It's not a wedding. It's not a big corporate shin-dig.
It's a bunch of bikers!

I've been on plenty of poker runs. Although they may be associated with one group or another, that rarely has anything to do with the poeple that show up and particapate. All you'll end up with is a bunch of snapshots of various groups of people that nobody will care about except those in the images themselves, and if they wanted a snap of their friends, they'll probably take it themselves.

[chakalakasp]

Originally Posted by ssim

As I understand the copyright laws you do need a release of any person recognizable if you are going to use the images for commerical use which the selling of prints or CD's falls under. If it is classified as editorial then you don't but you would have to prove that they were shot with that intention, like it was being portrayed as a news article or such.

Again, I'm no lawyer. However, as I understand it, selling prints is not considered commercial in and of itself, at least under current laws in America.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawAr...=1139565912319

[sfaust]

Originally Posted by chakalakasp

Again, I'm no lawyer. However, as I understand it, selling prints is not considered commercial in and of itself, at least under current laws in America.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawAr...=1139565912319

This is a specific NY case, not federal. There are many other cases that have gone the other way. If you don't have the money to fight a 6 figure lawsuit, its best to err on the cautions side and not play the game. The following quote from the article says it well, and also remember this is NY only, no America as a whole;

"Even while recognizing art as exempted from the reach of New York's privacy laws, the problem of sorting out what may or may not legally be 'art' remains a difficult one," she wrote.

And when something is difficult ro prove in the legal system, that means expensive!

But it's not the media (prints, cd, magazine, slides) that determines use or commerce or trade, it is how it was sold and for what purpose. In this case they were arguing over whether or not it was commerce, or art. Not whether the printed media determines commercial use.

Selling prints can indeed be considered a commercial use, and thus you would need a release. Selling a print of an individual to themselves is not considered commercial. Selling the same print to thousands of people from a concession stand would most likely be considered commercial, being sold for profit, even though you are still selling 'prints'.

Don't use the 'print' as a way to determine if a use is commercial or not. It could land you in the middle of an expensive lawsuit, right or wrong, as it did with diCorcia.

[bieber]

Anyone have a link to that "Photographer's Rights" pamphlet that was put out a couple months back? Anything you can legally see, you can legally photograph, unless it's expressly prohibited on private property. Anything you can legally photograph, you can legally sell photographs of, provided that the photographs don't constitute a breach of privacy where there's a reasonable expectation (say, if you were to reach into someone's home with a telephoto lens) or appear in an advertisement in such a way that a person appears to be endorsing a product when they are not. For instance, take this advertisement. Canon was free to use that image without getting model releases from each and every photographer, despite the fact that their faces are very clearly identifiable. They're merely implying that because of the masses of photographers using Canon gear, Canon is a better product. If they were to explicitly state that any one of those photographers were endorsing Canon, without written consent to do so, then they'd be open for a lawsuit.

In summary, yes, you can sell the CDs. As long as you took the photographs with equipment you own, and you weren't subject to any restrictive agreements in writing, you hold copyright on any images you take and can sell them as you please at will.

[sfaust]

Originally Posted by bieber

Anyone have a link to that "Photographer's Rights" pamphlet that was put out a couple months back? Anything you can legally see, you can legally photograph, unless it's expressly prohibited on private property. Anything you can legally photograph, you can legally sell photographs of, provided that the photographs don't constitute a breach of privacy where there's a reasonable expectation (say, if you were to reach into someone's home with a telephoto lens) or appear in an advertisement in such a way that a person appears to be endorsing a product when they are not. For instance, take this advertisement. Canon was free to use that image without getting model releases from each and every photographer, despite the fact that their faces are very clearly identifiable. They're merely implying that because of the masses of photographers using Canon gear, Canon is a better product. If they were to explicitly state that any one of those photographers were endorsing Canon, without written consent to do so, then they'd be open for a lawsuit.

In summary, yes, you can sell the CDs. As long as you took the photographs with equipment you own, and you weren't subject to any restrictive agreements in writing, you hold copyright on any images you take and can sell them as you please at will.

This flys in the face of information provided by more than a few intellectual lawyers to the professional community. Such as selling images of the Chrysler Building for example, which can be seen in public, taken from public property, in a legal manner, with equipment I own, not subject to any written agreements, I hold copyright to, with no privacy issues, yet I would be open to a lawsuit which I would most likely loose based on the information provided by IP lawyers to groups of professionals in various business seminars. And there are other instances that will get someone in hot water following this advice. Its not completely accurate.

[bieber]

That's because the design of the Chrysler building itself is copyrighted, as it's a noticeable building. The same principle obviously can't apply for photographs of people, as no one designed them; at least not anyone who's going to take you to court for copyright infringement. If you really think you're liable for lawsuits simply for publishing photographs of people in public, how do you explain tabloids that continue to sell, for a handsome profit, unflattering photographs of celebrities?

Edit-here's that paper I mentioned
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rig...tographers.pdf

[sfaust]

The Chrysler building isn't copyrighted, you can't copyright a building. But it is trademarked, a whole different thing. But it also fits exactly the conditions that you spelled out would be fine and legal to shoot, but it isn't.

Tabloids are editorial, editorial falls under fair use. Tabloids typically also concentrate on celebrities and public figures. Public figures and celebrities don't save the same rights of privacy/publicity as everyone else. So releases are not required in many instances, but on the same token with regard to advertising it leans in the opposite manner, such as using their name to promote a product, or associate with, in which case they have complete control.

The law is full of nuances. Ie, in NY you can get away using images of the dead without release under some circumstances. In CA you can't. Jurisdiction also plays a big part in this since there are signification differences. You can't make a blanket statement and expect it to stick in all jurisdictions, under all scenarios, and apply to people and property evenly. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers

HOW you use the images has a tremendous impact on whats allowed and whats not.

This is a pretty good basic primer on releases written by Dan Heller.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#1