Legally sell celebrities photos on your web site

[BDDigitalImages]

Any lawyers out there that know if you can legally sell photos of rock bands or any other celebrities on your web site? Any one know the rules on this or where on line that it can be found?

[dave13]

I'm curious too.

[mnealtx]

I would think that you'd have to have a release from the band/celeb...unless it was taken in a public place.

*disclaimer* I am not a copyright lawyer

[swampler]

In the USA, selling prints is considered non-commercial and you do not need a release. You would need a release to sell or advertise a product with those same photos.

Note: I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once.

[Axton]

Originally Posted by swampler

In the USA, selling prints is considered non-commercial and you do not need a release. You would need a release to sell or advertise a product with those same photos.

Note: I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once.

I'm no lawyer either (however, I do have a pretty snazzy briefcase...) but are you sure? Seems to me you are making money off of the artist's image without compensating the artist & without their permission - doesn't seem right... Anyone else know any more??

[narlus]

i've heard that this qualified under the murky rubric of 'fine art', which isn't considered commerical.

i'm a scientist, but not a lawyer.

[sfaust]

It depends on how the image is used. If you sell an image to a museum or gallery for display, that could fall under fine art. But if you sell a print to a person, who then uses it as part of a display for advertising, thats clearly commercial use. They are both prints, but used entirely differently, even though they are both prints.

If you are selling the prints to individuals for use as posters, framed wall decor, etc, that is probably going to be considered a commercial venture. If you have a website thats sole purpose is to sell prints of celebrities for profit, thats also commercial.

If you want a definitive answer, I would check with an Intellectual Property attorney since anything you get here will be hearsay and probably not 100% factual anyway.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by Axton

but are you sure? Seems to me you are making money off of the artist's image without compensating the artist & without their permission - doesn't seem right...

Well, if you have to have permission to sell someones image as a print, then how do all the event photographers take photos at little league, middle school, high school, etc ball games and sell them? I can almost guarantee you that they didn't get permission from every athlete there to sell the images. I don't see how this would be any different.

College and pro sports are different because you can't get access without a credential, and the credential can limit how you use your photos.

[stathunter]

If it was not legal to take photos of "celebrities" in public places and sell them--- well then there would be no "poparazzi" . (which is legal)

[sfaust]

Editorial doesn't generally require a release regardless of celebrity status, and the paparazzi generally sell to tabloids, magazines, and editorial outlets. But, take a picture of a celebrity, make posters, and sell them outside the next concert and watch what happens if they catch wind of it.

Little league, high school sports, and similar events, are also different since you are selling the images to the people in the images anyway. You are selling an action portrait, and your agreement is with the person in the image.

To really understand whats what, you need to understand at lest the basics of usage rights, rights of privacy, copyright, and trademark, and unfortunately even the Patriot Act now. They are all intertwined in various ways and make it somewhat complicated.

[BDDigitalImages]

Originally Posted by swampler

Note: I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once.

Now this is funny, because I was staying at a Holinay Inn Express when I did the photo shoots

[salexande867]

I think maybe the difference is with the subject and not the photog. For example, a celebrity uses their image as a commodity, so if you are selling their image you are taking their commodity. People at events are typically not using their image as a commodity, so you can sell their image with no problem. It cannot be because you are selling only to them because most event photographers I have seen sell photos to whoever wants to purchase them (whether they were at the event or not).

[sfaust]

Originally Posted by salexande867

People at events are typically not using their image as a commodity, so you can sell their image with no problem. It cannot be because you are selling only to them because most event photographers I have seen sell photos to whoever wants to purchase them (whether they were at the event or not).

If a few people pass you on the highway doing 85, does that mean the speed limit can't be 55mph because people are doing it?

The laws say you can't take an image of a third party and use it commercially without permission. Selling your image to another party outside of the exceptions (fair use, editorial, fine art, parody, etc), is typically considered commercial use. Selling an image of the person to that person, the family, etc, kind of falls outside of commercial use. But selling that image of a subject to a third party doesn't. Selling it many third parties pretty much falls into commercial use (with some exceptions). I wouldn't want to have to defend myself in court with the only argument that I've seen others do it, so therefore it must be ok.

But there is also a practical side. Most people aren't going to find out, and if they do, probably won't care or even know they can do something about it. But if you snap a great image of some kid at a game, and start selling to quite a few people and the parents catch on, they might make a pretty big stink about it, and if brought to court could prevail.

In reality, the risk is very low on a local scale, but that still doesn't make it legal.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by sfaust

Selling your image to another party outside of the exceptions (fair use, editorial, fine art, parody, etc), is typically considered commercial use.

Why can't "fine art" be sold to a 3rd party? It doesn't have to go to a museum to be considered art, which is why it's legal. Commercial, legally, is referring to selling a product, not a print. At least everything I've ever read points to this. I don't have any specific references, but that's my understanding.

[sfaust]

Fine art can be sold to a third party, and it says that right in the my statement you quoted.

Selling your image to another party OUTSIDE Of THE EXCEPTIONS (fiar use, editorial, FINE ART, parody, etc), is typically considered commercial use.