Posted by KRICO on December 27, 2000 at 09:58:39:
In Reply to: Re: Jeez this is silly posted by mongerman on December 27, 2000 at 09:27:40:
|
I wonder if the chicas are not entitled to some kind of "international" image rights...like a model? I know that when I use models for commercial purposes, I'm required, by law, to have a signed model's release. This release is my proof that the model knew what was going on when I was taking the pictures, i.e. she knows that I'm going to use the nude photos of her for public consumption. Usually this is summed up in a statement that leaves the model essentially with no input on the use of her image...i.e., I could take a head shot of Claudia Schiffer and digitally manipulate an anonymous cock into her mouth...much to her chagrin, no doubt. Also they have to receive "consideration"...i.e., something of value, to indicate that they had entered into a contract. This consideration is typically stipulated in the contract, even if it is only a token amount, like a buck. I used to work for a television station that would frequently use copyrighted material (image and audio)for their 30 second "spots", i.e., they might rip off a photo of Cindy Crawford ( why didn't they just go dig up a CC Vanessa and pay her a few bucks?)and use it as a "background" for a local hair salon commercial, and then run a music "bed" behind it of, say, some Quincy Jones piece...great lookin' and soundin' spot...but residuals and royalties were not paid. When I brought this up in a general staff meeting everyone agreed that I was right. I was fired shortly thereafter, but given a generous severance package... When I worked as a press photographer ( in an earlier incarnation...), the rule of thumb was that if a person was a "public person", i.e., Pete Wilson, or Wild Bill Clinton...one could say anything and publish any kind of photo with virtual impunity, because they were "public people" as opposed to "private people". Remember, media outlets, like newspapers, radio and TV stations all have big "libel" insurance policies, in case they are sued for things like invasion of privacy, false representation, slander, etc... And they are sued every year, in increasing number, for such supposed transgressions... But I say, let them enjoy a "vida privada" if they so desire (and most do...) |
|
|