Copyright - Are There Limits?

[vintagesnaps]

I don't know for sure about copyright limit, but this thread may have reached its limit! lol Now I have a mental image of an ape going bzzzz..... and thinking about breakfast at IHOP, so maybe this topic has been covered adequately now.

 

[robbins.photo]

......
..... You already have enough egg on your face to get a local I-Hop through an entire breakfast service. .....

OMG!

Not sure if you got this from somewhere else, but I love it.

Lol..nope, that's a robbins original I'm afraid.

 

[ClickAddict]

The thing is when dealing with Copyright, unless the answer starts off "Depending on which state/country you live in...." you know the rest is 95% likely to be wrong. (Or at least not right in all cases) And that 5% I reserve for those who answer..."I don't know... check with a lawyer". Because Laws are different from one country to another and even within the specific law there are minute differences which trigger various exceptions, some of which are black and white and others which may require a judge to determine.

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't know for sure about copyright limit, but this thread may have reached its limit! lol Now I have a mental image of an ape going bzzzz..... and thinking about breakfast at IHOP, so maybe this topic has been covered adequately now.

Lol.. I suspect you might be right.

Bzzzz...

Lol

 

[KmH]

Here in the US, copyright law is federal law so there is just one version of it.
Since it's online anyone can read it.
I often quote or refer others to sections of it in copyright threads.

The US is a signatory to the Berne Convention (since 1886), which defines how copyright works across country borders.
It looks like there are now 172 signatory countries.

Here in the USA, model/property law is state law, so there are 50 somewhat different versions of model/property release law here in the US.

Lawyers typically specialize in a particular area of law - divorce, contracts, taxes, copyright, etc.
So a tax/contract/divorce lawyer is probably not very familiar with copyright law.

 

[smoke665]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't generalized wording releases (those that don't specify a specific use or instance) somewhat like general waivers of liability where the courts have ruled you can't give a waiver when you don't know the risks? In the example I used, the photo, taken many years ago was used in a billboard ad promoting same sex marriage. 20 years ago that type of use would most likely have been considered defamatory, but in today's society not so much. Likewise certain use 20 years ago depicting acceptable racial situations, could now be considered defamatory.

 

[robbins.photo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't generalized wording releases (those that don't specify a specific use or instance) somewhat like general waivers of liability where the courts have ruled you can't give a waiver when you don't know the risks? In the example I used, the photo, taken many years ago was used in a billboard ad promoting same sex marriage. 20 years ago that type of use would most likely have been considered defamatory, but in today's society not so much. Likewise certain use 20 years ago depicting acceptable racial situations, could now be considered defamatory.

You're not wrong, It's pretty much entirely at the whim of the judge really. Even things that seem pretty cut and dried aren't once you get in front of the bench.

 

[KmH]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't generalized wording releases (those that don't specify a specific use or instance) somewhat like general waivers of liability where the courts have ruled you can't give a waiver when you don't know the risks? In the example I used, the photo, taken many years ago was used in a billboard ad promoting same sex marriage. 20 years ago that type of use would most likely have been considered defamatory, but in today's society not so much. Likewise certain use 20 years ago depicting acceptable racial situations, could now be considered defamatory.

I'm not sure you understand that it's the publisher of an image with recognizable people in it that needs a model/property release.
The photographer only needs a release if the photographer is the publisher, but depending on how the photograph was made the photographer may not need a release for self-publishing and self-promotion of the photographer.
It's pretty rare to need a property release.

If the photographer sells an image with people in it to a publisher, the photographer is not liable for how the publisher uses the image.
Note however, that if the photographer does have on file a valid release that covers the publisher usage - the photo has more value.

When making people photographs out in public on location, model release law is such photographers can self-publish those photos to advertise or promote their business without the explicit permission of the people in the photos. When photos of people are made in private photographer do need permission from the people in the photos.

None the less my contract had a release clause that said the client allowed any commercial use of their likeness, in exchange for a discount on the cost of my services, regardless if the photos were made in private, or not.
Clients had the option of opting out of that clause. Of course if the opted out they lost the discount and had to pay full price.

 

[smoke665]

I'm not sure you understand that it's the publisher of an image with recognizable people in it that needs a model/property release.

My original post had to do with the limit of rights specific to a copyright, not a release. I understand the release process, and the limitations inherent when generalized language is used, as well as the language requirements to make the release transferable.

 

[smoke665]

When making people photographs out in public on location, model release law is such photographers can self-publish those photos to advertise or promote their business without the explicit permission of the people in the photos.

Not necessarily true. In most states some "right of privacy" laws still exists in public places. In these cases the use of the photograph, or whether the subject is recognizable is irrelevant. You can't take a photo of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example you couldn't take a photo of someone in a "public restroom". Or, if your photo taken with a telephoto lens, showed someone in their backyard sunbathing in the nude, regardless of the fact that you were in a public place at the time you took the photo. Other things such as disclosure of private facts is off limits. IE e a street photograph that shows a couple coming out of a fertility clinic or someone entering/leaving a psychiatrist's office or a substance abuse clinic. Also, "right of privacy" violations aren't limited to general distribution or commercial use, even a minimal sharing could be sufficient for the claim

 

[thereyougo!]

Would this apply to other photos such as landscapes, buildings etc?

No. Landscapes and buildings don't have rights like people do.

Not necessarily so. Last year a law in the EU was being considered on photographs needing to get releases for buildings in public places if of commercial use. This is something that is already the case in France and elsewhere. Want to sell a picture of the Eiffel tower lit at night? Officially you need clearance for it.

 

[Piccell]

Copyright law has enough nuances, exceptions loopholes and other gotchas that there is an entire branch of the legal profession that does nothing but research and try copyright law cases. Unless you are a lawyer you cannot comprehend the entire scope of it, and if you are a lawyer, you would most likely just say, ask an copyright attorney for a consultation on the matter at hand.