Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 26 Sep 2007 (Wednesday) 17:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do the Clintons have a case?

 
alMout
Member
63 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Georgetown, TX
     
Sep 26, 2007 17:41 |  #1

http://www.foxnews.com​/story/0,2933,298173,0​0.html (external link)

Basically, Chelsea Clinton was dining in a resturant. The owner snapped a photo of him and her together and now has the photo on display. The Clintons are demanding the photo be taken down or legal action will result.
I am thinking she was in a public place and volunteered for the photo so they have no case.


Alex

40D, Rebel XT 350D, Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, Tamron 70-300, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2, 70-200 f/4L, 28-135 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
blackshadow
Mr T. from the A team
Avatar
5,732 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, VIC Australia
     
Sep 26, 2007 17:57 |  #2

I'd be very surprised if they have a case although I guess they could make some tenuous argument that by hanging the photo in the restaurant it is being used for "commercial purposes". Common sense should prevail but we are talking about the Clintons here...


Black Shadow Photography (external link)
Facebook (external link) Flickr (external link) Twitter (external link)
Gear List Myspace (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HoRnYTuRbO
Senior Member
Avatar
985 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2005
Location: 617
     
Sep 26, 2007 18:24 |  #3

if they don't take it down men in black suits will come and take it down for them =P


-Vinny

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Clean
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,002 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Olympia, Washington
     
Sep 26, 2007 18:31 |  #4

Well, plus the owner took the pic...Zero grounds on this one.


Mike
some shots @ Zenfolio (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rhys
Dis-Membered
Avatar
5,351 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Columbia SC
     
Sep 26, 2007 18:48 |  #5

I could care less who is in a photo on some cafe's wall.

Interestingly I saw a photo of John Major and one of Maggie T on the wall of a studio I visited today. I have no doubt the photographer concerned did not take the photos. On the other hand, he wasn't claiming that he did although it could be inferred.


Rhys

The empire conquers yet more galaxies:
www.sageworld.co.uk (external link)
www.sageworld.org (external link)
www.sagephotoworld.com (external link)
Blog: http://360.yahoo.com/t​hunderintheheavens (external link)

Free cheese comes only in mousetraps

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IndyJeff
Goldmember
Avatar
1,892 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
     
Sep 26, 2007 19:15 as a reply to  @ rhys's post |  #6

I wouldn't be surprised to see an IRS audit done on this guy in the near future. If Hillary is elected and he still has that photo hanging an IRS audit is a gaurantee.

Then again he may just meet an untimely demise in some sort of 'accident'.


On shooting sports...If you see it happen then you didn't get it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stathunter
"I am no one really"
Avatar
5,651 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Aug 2006
Location: California & Michigan
     
Sep 26, 2007 20:23 |  #7

IndyJeff wrote in post #4014478 (external link)
I wouldn't be surprised to see an IRS audit done on this guy in the near future. If Hillary is elected and he still has that photo hanging an IRS audit is a gaurantee.

Then again he may just meet an untimely demise in some sort of 'accident'.

:lol:


Scott
"Do or do not, there is no try"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Morgandy
Member
177 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 26, 2007 20:46 |  #8

alMout wrote in post #4013882 (external link)
I am thinking she was in a public place and volunteered for the photo so they have no case.

Photographers mostly seem to think that because a photo was taken in a *public* place, that the photo is legal. That's not the determining factor in this case. The more important detail is that the photo was taken in a *private* place: someone's restaurant.

People at this forum are also always claiming that photos taken in a sports venue or at a school event on school grounds also qualify as "public" -- but again, someone somewhere is in charge of the facility and that fact more directly affects the legal framing of whether or not a photo is OK.

I am not a lawyer. I just tend to look at issues in a different way because I went to university to study print journalism. One entire semester was spent on journalism law.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Clean
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,002 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Olympia, Washington
     
Sep 26, 2007 21:03 |  #9

Morgandy wrote in post #4015032 (external link)
Photographers mostly seem to think that because a photo was taken in a *public* place, that the photo is legal. That's not the determining factor in this case. The more important detail is that the photo was taken in a *private* place: someone's restaurant.

People at this forum are also always claiming that photos taken in a sports venue or at a school event on school grounds also qualify as "public" -- but again, someone somewhere is in charge of the facility and that fact more directly affects the legal framing of whether or not a photo is OK.

I am not a lawyer. I just tend to look at issues in a different way because I went to university to study print journalism. One entire semester was spent on journalism law.

Ok, let's call it a private place.
The owner of said private place took the picture.
Next?


Mike
some shots @ Zenfolio (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bieber
Goldmember
Avatar
1,992 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Bradenton, FL
     
Sep 26, 2007 21:47 |  #10

Morgandy wrote in post #4015032 (external link)
Photographers mostly seem to think that because a photo was taken in a *public* place, that the photo is legal. That's not the determining factor in this case. The more important detail is that the photo was taken in a *private* place: someone's restaurant.

People at this forum are also always claiming that photos taken in a sports venue or at a school event on school grounds also qualify as "public" -- but again, someone somewhere is in charge of the facility and that fact more directly affects the legal framing of whether or not a photo is OK.

I am not a lawyer. I just tend to look at issues in a different way because I went to university to study print journalism. One entire semester was spent on journalism law.

It was not a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Only truly private places get that distinction, not just any piece of land that happens to be privately owned.


EOS 20D w/ BG-E2 grip
Nifty fifty, EF 28mm f/2.8, EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Speedlights SB-25/SB-26/580EX, Pocket Wizards and such
My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Sep 26, 2007 21:49 |  #11

She's famous.

Use of her image commercially requires a release.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ R
Goldmember
4,319 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2006
Location: 06478, CT
     
Sep 26, 2007 22:16 |  #12

They can make life very difficult for the owner, and they're not even the mob!
As others have said, Men in dark suits, The IRS, and the list goes on....


Mike R
www.mikerubinphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
symes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,372 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
     
Sep 26, 2007 22:50 |  #13

hortonsl62 wrote in post #4015447 (external link)
She's famous.

Use of her image commercially requires a release.

And how is this a commercial use? That is far fetched...he is not offering it for sale or making profits off the image itself...now someone I'm sure could twist this to mean that because he has an image on the wall he is benefitting commercially with increased profits in his restaurant...if it were me I would take it down, and put up a sign that said, "I use to have a photo of Bill Clinton's Daughter here but He forced me to Take it Down..."

Cheers,

Matt


Symes
Symplicity Photography (external link) Symplicity Glamour (external link)
5D Mark II; 1D Mark II; 17-40L; 24-70 2.8L; 70-200 IS 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary_Evans
Senior Member
Avatar
859 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Norfolk, England
     
Sep 26, 2007 23:44 as a reply to  @ symes's post |  #14

This wouldnt happen in a country with less lawyers.

You see photos like this in UK restraunts all the time. She has posed for the photo - and how many famous people are willing to this? OK, its in the window and the owner says "The picture helps for business” but would you honestly think - wow, Chelsea Clinton eats there so I must too.


Gary
www.myeventphoto.co.uk (external link)
www.garyevansphotograp​hy.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mario.
Senior Member
Avatar
624 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Lone Tree, Colorado
     
Sep 27, 2007 01:18 |  #15

hortonsl62 wrote in post #4015447 (external link)
She's famous.

Use of her image commercially requires a release.

What determines fame?


Mario M. | Black Macbook 2.4/ 4GB | 40D | 350D| 17-40 f/4L | 70-200 f/4L | 580EX | 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,234 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do the Clintons have a case?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Nita66
827 guests, 191 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.