Posted on 08/28/2005 12:48:46 PM PDT by Coleus
Correct, he didn't. According to the link at #1, the man "was photographed from a hidden camera in a Times Square subway".
IANAL, but I think you have a case. I really would consult a lawyer if the situation is as you say it is.
I'm not terribly comfortable with that part. The standard should be the same, regardless of the purpose for which the picture is taken. Being a journalist shouldn't mean that you get exemptions from laws that apply to mere mortals.
"Those that intend on commercial proft from those pictures do."
Are you saying there's a legal distinction between the fine arts photographer making a profit in an art gallery....and those who make a profit by producing something like Time-Life Year in Pictures?
Like I said, the book was published over 40 years ago, and both the author and the subjects in the photos are deceased. I first saw the book in the 1970's, when it might have been possible to pursue a case.
I just looked up this book on Amazon. The photographer's name is Dimitrios Harissiardis. The book is long out of print.
One of the online reviews says: from the tough and wonderful young Sabras to the ultra-Orthodox Jews of Jerusalem and Safed , Uris takes us on a journey through Israel's glorious past , hopeful present and divine future.
It's nice that this lovely pro-Israel book can still be found, it is just a shame that Leon Uris made up nasty captions to go with the photos of my cousins in Jerusalem taken by Dimitrious Harissiardis without their permission.
That's a scary statement. Can I snap shots in my neighbors' bedrooms and sell it in an art gallery?
This is worth reading.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
Some guy took my picture at the Belmont stakes two years ago, maybe some day he'll get rich with it and I can sue him for a cut of the $$. But I'll probably hit lotto first, and won't need the money!
You said: It's hard to argue an expectation of privacy for someone out on the street.
I agree, however, this isn't an issue of privacy, it is an issue of the exclusive right to one's own image, and who may profit from it.
The subject of the photo, not having given a release, should be able to control the use of his likeness.
I think I read that somewhere and that you are right. Now what prevents the news from selling them to other stations for profit? Case in point. We had a dramatic ferris wheel incident and the film on video was sold (presumably, maybe some other kind of deal) to national several shows. They were quasi news shows, Inside Edition, Good Morning America. The person involved is ok.
The book publisher may still be in business. Deep pockets and all that. You might want to check if there is a statute of limitations and how it would apply in such a case.
It is slightly, and I even checked two histograms of it, and there is one slight line that goes up a very short way on the extreme right side. But the overall metering was pretty good considering the dark clothes. If he'd centere metered better on the face, the clothes would have lost detail and the histogram would have bunched up more on the left than it already is. There is latitude on the left side, and only the levels histogram in PS shows the slight overexposure. The regular histogram in PS is about as good as they get. It's also been reproduced.
Sorry for the camera talk. My daughter and I were putting the new S2 IS through its paces today. I was about ready to give up on it, but together we solved several problems with exposure and settings.
"If he'd centere metered better on the face, the clothes would have lost detail and the histogram would have bunched up more on the left than it already is."
I was thinking of setting up for high contrast - detail of face vs clothes and background.
It was still news. If it was sold as some sort of "performance art", that would be commercial.
Maybe the camera can't handle that dynamic range. I know you can boost it by setting contrast in camera which might have helped, so you could be right about that. Or if he shot RAW which can recover blown highlights in cases like this where clearly most of the detail is still there. He may have used a telephoto lens and had to grab it too fast to change any camera settings. He may have used a film slr. Who knows?
If I knew how to shoot RAW with my dslr, and convert them which I don't yet, I think I could have corrected it all in PS.
And if all else failed and it mattered enough, I could have selected out the face and changed the contrast and left the rest alone and blended the layers together . . .
Poor man never knew we'd critiquing his picture, adding insult to injury.
True enough. I do not have the expertise to know where the line is drawn. Maybe I'll ask you the next time I run into a situation and think I might need a release. My granddaughter and I each got 2 photos each accepted in a calendar contest and won $100 each. I wasn't sure about taking pictures of private property for one of mine that was chosen. As long as they are taken from public access, it should be ok. I sure hope so.
The image of the Argentine-born guerrilla gazing sternly into the distance, long-hair tucked into a beret with a single star, has been an enduring 20th century pop icon.
But as well as being one of the world's most reproduced, the image has become one of its most merchandised. And Guevara's family is launching an effort to stop it. They plan to file lawsuits abroad against companies that they believe are exploiting the image and say lawyers in a number of countries have offered assistance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.