[muawiyah]

We only have the photographer's side of the story. Now if it was me, and I wasn't a stewardess, and some puke photographed me without first offering me a release to sign and an offer of remuneration, I'd assume them to be a professional photographer trying to steal my face to sell for money and not pay me.

There'd be nothing polite about that. First, a tip to the airline regarding the individual's suspicious behavior ~ "and I saw a book there ~ 'Osama Bin Laden ~ LIVES". Oh, yes.

So, the lesson is ALWAYS OFFER MONEY FIRST.

Turns out this ol'gal IS, in fact, a professional photographer. She didn't pull out a release to sign, nor offer money to her targets. I don't think she'll get far if this goes to court ~ and as far as the airline goes, I doubt they'll side with a professional photographer under any circumstances.

[photoguy]

Unless the photographer uses the photo in a commercial context, no release is needed.

Again unless the photo is used fro commerce, she was well within her rights to photograph in a public place.

She will have no problems with this part in a court of law.

[thefactor]

What an odd post. She took a pic with a cell phone in order to get this woman’s name who was being very rude. You can take pics in public places, ya know.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

We only have the photographer's side of the story. Now if it was me, and I wasn't a stewardess, and some puke photographed me without first offering me a release to sign and an offer of remuneration, I'd assume them to be a professional photographer trying to steal my face to sell for money and not pay me.

FYI photograph was of a "name tag" not face. Releases are only required when a photo shows a recognizable face. At least that was the rule when I worked industrial relations and shot lots of "PR" photos for company publications.

Regards,
GtG

[HiTech RedNeck]

In the US at least, the law concerning royalties to a photographic subject only applies when the photo is sold or put to commercial use AND the subject can be identified from the photo. Public figures like governors, presidents, etc. are also exempt subjects, commercial use or not. Personal use is always royalty free. Plus, this gal sounds like she didn’t even photograph the face, but the tag. If she had done it surreptitiously (no flash, no ostentatious holding of the phone) the gate agent would not have even known.

A cell phone image of a name tag that wasn’t readable in the cell phone’s own photo reviewer application doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be rendered readable by external software.

[GladesGuru]

Once a customer want to file a complaint, the photo of an on duty employee is permissible.

I suspect the airline will settle.

Worst is that the airline probably can say nothing to her because she is black (assuming that from the ghetto-ized name).

[Psalm 144]

The photo was for evidence, not profit.

[FreedomPoster]

OK, that’s ridiculous on at least couple levels. You might want to re-read the story. Or actually read it, period.