Question about copyright and rights

[unpopular]

At that point, Leek, should the terrorists or their families be entitled to compensation? I've seen Osama Bin Laden's photo printed a few times in profitable newspapers without his consent.

They should probably sue the FBI, also for releasing those photos without his consent.

 

[amolitor]

Oh crap, we're talking about Br*d P*tt here. Now we all owe him money. DAMN IT.

 

[unpopular]

I only said "Brad", the rest is inferred. By by Texas Justice, that should count too I guess.

 

[MLeeK]

At that point, Leek, should the terrorists or their families be entitled to compensation? I've seen Osama Bin Laden's photo printed a few times in profitable newspapers without his consent.

They should probably sue the FBI, also for releasing those photos without his consent.

Very true!

 

[MLeeK]

Oh crap, we're talking about Br*d P*tt here. Now we all owe him money. DAMN IT.

I REALLY don't want to know why you would owe Brad money. It's just not a good mental picture.

 

[KmH]

Usage of a photo is separate from copyright.

That photo of Brad taken while he was out in public that is licensed to accompany a story about what Brad was doing out in public, is called an editorial use. Think about how newspapers use photos of people without getting them to sign releases.

Now if that same photo of Brad is used in an advertisement of some type, that would be a commercial use and unless Brad had given his permission (released) for his likeness to be used that way, Brad could sue the ad agency for using his likeness without his consent.

I mentioned before that model/property release law is state law. States that have a large entertainment industry, like California and New York, have strong 'Right of Publicity' laws that give well known people a bit more control over use of their likeness than us regular folks.

Often the issue becomes - What constitutes being 'well known'? No doubt, Brad Pitt is well known.

 

[IByte]

Usage of a photo is separate from copyright.

That photo of Brad taken while he was out in public that is licensed to accompany a story about what Brad was doing out in public, is called an editorial use. Think about how newspapers use photos of people without getting them to sign releases.

Now if that same photo of Brad is used in an advertisement of some type, that would be a commercial use and unless Brad had given his permission (released) for his likeness to be used that way, Brad could sue the ad agency for using his likeness without his consent.

I mentioned before that model/property release law is state law. States that have a large entertainment industry, like California and New York, have strong 'Right of Publicity' laws that give well known people a bit more control over use of their likeness than us regular folks.

Often the issue becomes - What constitutes being 'well known'? No doubt, Brad Pitt is well known.

Funny you should mention Brad Pitt suing. Sometime ago on TMZ,there was a gay website that used his photo(maybe some other celebrity), he sued and site was taken down. I doubt he authorized his photo for that website.

 

[Designer]

Yo, Benny! Your celebrity example does not hold water based on the assumption that you are taking a picture of him in public, and he is not working for you or any film company. If he was "acting" when you took the picture, then he would have some rights to the use thereof. Simply walking on the street gives nobody any particular "rights" to their image. We see this all the time in the tabloids. The photographers are paid by the publisher, and the celebrity gets nothing.

If your reasoning held any validity, then all components of a work of art would be entitled to some portion of the procedes. It would be as if an architect had to pay a royalty to the plotter company for the commercial use of his design. Or pencils, paintbrushes, markers, paper, bricks, lumber, concrete, glass, paint, and all the rest.

Relax, Benny, and just accept it.

 

[pixmedic]

for your listening pleasure...and almost relevant!

 

[unpopular]

for your viewing pleasure ... and irrelevant entirely

 

[Buckster]

And not to mention the pressure brought to bear on a llifestyle when the Paparazzi force you to change the way you live to stop them from profiting on your image.

It's just slap full of wrong things and mistreatment of people for profit.

It just seems interesting that phtogs are SO INTENSE about protecting THEIR possessions, but think nothing of Stealing them to get them hehehehehe.

This is the post that has made me decide to go to your profile so that I can add you to my Ignore List. I can't take ignorance/trolling of this magnitude. Have a nice life, or whatever.