Banned!!! Maybe, Maybe not.

c71clark wrote in post #5786552
I am gld I wasn't the only one to see something hinky. I am far from a wise and salty 'Tog, but my understanding was that any time you SELL a picture of a person (and even certain places, and regardless of how it is presented) to a individual or corporation (except newspapers and magazines), you will likely need a model release. Selling a pprint is Commercial use. You make money= commercial.

This line of thought came up due to thebishopp asking if not having the parents sign releases might allow for a lawsuit.

So all the poparazzi get model releases everytime they sell a $10k photo? They make money, commercial for them, but its editorial use.

I agree, the act of taking money doesn't make it commercial. I have magazines buying my images all the time, and they are definitely editorial. Selling a print works the same way. It's what you do with the prints or images that make the distinction.

But for fun, try the paparazzi idea with a non-celebrity and watch what happens! Public figures loose a lot of their rights when it comes to the press. Fortunate or unfortunate, its just different.

sfaust wrote in post #5787128
I agree, the act of taking money doesn't make it commercial. I have magazines buying my images all the time, and they are definitely editorial. Selling a print works the same way. It's what you do with the prints or images that make the distinction.

But for fun, try the paparazzi idea with a non-celebrity and watch what happens! Public figures loose a lot of their rights when it comes to the press. Fortunate or unfortunate, its just different.

Ok, yes you are correct on the usage and how it's used. In my quickness to get it done didn't make as much sense as I would have liked but typing fast as possible and not really re-reading as only doing this in between jobs with a deadline of today and had 9 teams plus an all-star game to organize,caption, rename, crop, upload, etc. with a total of around 7,000 images. Down to 3 teams needing to be done by tonight before shooting another game.

Anyways, I'm pretty much agreeing with you - I was trying to say how it was used but from where you quoted me it doesn't come across that way.

If I read your statement, it suggests that if a print is newsworthy, it was on private property, I had the owners permission to shoot it, then it's not commercial use. So if those three things are true, I can then use that print to make posters and give it away with every case of beer I sell, since I meet all of your conditions in that statement. But this isn't the case.

I wasn't saying that, in fact didn't I say once you make a product (poster) or are using it to sell something it's commerical (the answer is yes I did). You using a print to sell a case of beer = commercial. A print hanging on the wall = not commercial UNLESS you are using those prints to sell a product. Then of course it's a debate if the prints on the wall are bringing in costomers and you'd have a point, but them alone up there is not commercial usage.

We're on about 3 different topics (editorial vs. commercial, public vs. private, permissions and exclusivity) all in one and getting them all mixed up.

Allow me to quote myself...

c71clark wrote in post #5786552
I am glad I wasn't the only one to see something hinky. I am far from a wise and salty 'Tog, but my understanding was that any time you SELL a picture of a person (and even certain places, and regardless of how it is presented) to a individual or corporation (except newspapers and magazines), you will likely need a model release. Selling a pprint is Commercial use. You make money= commercial.

The pros have behaved in a way that protects their income.

No surprise, they're good at it.

;}

c71clark wrote in post #5792546
Allow me to quote myself...

it's still wrong though...reading that quote you say selling a print = commercial. That's not the case every single time as you suggest.

c71clark wrote in post #5792546
Allow me to quote myself...

c71clark wrote in post #5786552
I am gld I wasn't the only one to see something hinky. I am far from a wise and salty 'Tog, but my understanding was that any time you SELL a picture of a person (and even certain places, and regardless of how it is presented) to a individual or corporation (except newspapers and magazines), you will likely need a model release. Selling a pprint is Commercial use. You make money= commercial.

This line of thought came up due to thebishopp asking if not having the parents sign releases might allow for a lawsuit.

Its still to broad to use that as a way to define use. Selling a print to a gallery or collector also isn't a commercial use, yet you make money from it. It's another exception to add to the list, and at some point the exception list gets long enough it makes for a pretty convoluted statement.

Its just easier to use what the industry and courts use to define usage, which is the use of the image, and not any media. Why try to change that, as it will only confuse others who read this then try to define use based on what media was used, and under what exceptions does it not apply.