mom wants a picture I took

someone0 wrote in post #17132725
Are you saying selling photos don't count as commercial use? How exactly do you read that it doesn't apply to selling photo?

Selling a photo is not considered commercial use. Commercial use refers to using a person's likeness to endorse a product or service.

Weird, when I read the letters of the law, it doesn't make that kind of distingtion. It did say in the product or for the purpose of advertising.

Just wait a little while. I'm sure another "lawyer" will make a post to clarify everything.

someone0 wrote in post #17134075
Weird, when I read the letters of the law, it doesn't make that kind of distingtion. It did say in the product or for the purpose of advertising.

Dave3222 wrote in post #17134212
Just wait a little while. I'm sure another "lawyer" will make a post to clarify everything.

First, this is a discussion, so clarity is not as important as the dialogue. If we really needed clarity, the only place to get that would be a California lawyer specializing in this law or a judge who has authority to actually interpret the law.

Next, the statutory law in question discusses advertisement so heavily it almost certainly refers to a use which has some traditional "commercial" use. However, the text of the law does imply that this could be the use of a likeness in a product. One might interpret that a photograph up for sale could be such a product. The law does not seem to be used in this way. The "three step test" described by the DMLP implies that this law has only been applied to advertising, thus case law might have restricted its use to such.

Finally, the law in question only applies if injury to the plaintiff has occurred. See -
"shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof." I cannot imagine that this person (or any similar situation) could claim that they were injured by this use of the photo. The photo either only has value to the person in the photo (or a relative), and thus was not injured by the sale of the photo, or the photo is "art" and is governed by a different set of rules.

The law is important to all of us, and while those specifically trained in law may be the best ones to give definitive answers when it matters, all of us should make an effort to understand the law as it applies to our life. It is essential that I understand the law as it pertains to my main job, even though I am not a lawyer. In the same vein, it is important that I understand the law that governs my other actions, such as my photography.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17134444
The law is important to all of us, and while those specifically trained in law may be the best ones to give definitive answers when it matters, all of us should make an effort to understand the law as it applies to our life. It is essential that I understand the law as it pertains to my main job, even though I am not a lawyer. In the same vein, it is important that I understand the law that governs my other actions, such as my photography.

QFT

Supersteve911 wrote in post #17130658
Update:
I received an email from the Renaissance Faire Office which stated I cannot sell any photo I take on their grounds without approval from them first. So I messaged the gal on FB and asked for her email address so I could send he the photo. It would have been nice to make a little money for my efforts but well not worth getting in trouble over it.

Sounds like the lady turned you in to the office. Just on general principle I would not give her anything.