Usage rights when a picture is of YOU

[digitaldetours]

You could always contact the photog and ask them for a high res copy

 

[stsinner]

The only reason I asked is because the picture I posted of myself putting an air mask on with the SMOKESHOWINGPHOTOGRAPHY.COM watermark on it was taken by a popular fire photographer in our area and put on his website.

I did get his consent via email to use the picture here.

 

[skieur]

This is interesting, the photographer can sell it as art, but that's not considered commercial use? Is commercial use then for advertising/marketing only? To me, it seems almost the same if the photographer is making money off a picture featuring you..

You are correct in that commercial use is consdered for advertising. The photographer can sell it for editorial purposes as well as art which is pretty broad in interpretation. Editorial use is basically a use in the appropriate context i.e. a firefighting shot related to an article on firefighting. Street photos used in Popular Photography to go with an article on an individual street photographer.

Commercial use does NOT mean any use where money changed hands.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

This also changes from place to place. In Australia it doesn't even need to be used for marketing. Commercial here is defined as endorsing a product. A street photo of a guy who is quite clearly drinking a Coke bottle displayed in a competition run by Coke for instance is out of the question even if not directly used for marketing.

 

[JerryPH]

The photographer owns the copyright - unless they signed it over to the person using the image. They probably licensed it for use by the user instead. You, as the person in the image, do not have any copyright to the image at all.

I think that about says it all. The only aspect that is not touched on is if they were on public or private properly at the time of the shooting. If they were on your land shooting you and you did not sign over a release, you have some footing.

Besides that... it's theirs to do with as they wish.

 

[Mgw189]

Sorry, not to be off topic, but that is a strange picture tharmsen!

a bunch of firefighters posing for a pic when there is a fire blazing in the background. I'm sure there's no lives in danger, and that there was nothing they could do at that particular moment, but it still strikes me as odd.

It was more than likely taken at a "controlled burn" a fire set by the department for training reasons. Many departments will take the opportunity to take this photo op once they have gone through multiple training evolutions and the house is not fit to be used to train in anymore.

 

[onetouchgtech]

This also changes from place to place. In Australia it doesn't even need to be used for marketing. Commercial here is defined as endorsing a product. A street photo of a guy who is quite clearly drinking a Coke bottle displayed in a competition run by Coke for instance is out of the question even if not directly used for marketing.

Hmm, well that can make it pretty complicated for a person trying to sell their artwork of complete strangers, since so many products and clothing are branded these days. It'd be nice to see America follow that suit.

 

[skieur]

I think that about says it all. The only aspect that is not touched on is if they were on public or private properly at the time of the shooting. If they were on your land shooting you and you did not sign over a release, you have some footing.

Besides that... it's theirs to do with as they wish.

Private or public property is TOTALLY irrelevant.

skieur