Right to publish

[craig_gillette]

<p>Wiki isn't necessarily an authorative source of information. Or perhaps the quote is incomplete or out of context. In the US, editorial uses are very broad, artisitc uses are very broad.<br>

If a use is "newsworthy," "of legitimate public interest and concern," then it's protected expression. Here's an article that discusses a recent rather notorious case. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529114,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529114,00.html</a></p>

<p>Note that it doesn't turn on the presence or absence of a release. If push came to shove, it might be difficult to argue a particular print is newsworthy, so perhaps it could be "art." Much of the "art" issue is discussed in the Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia case. Again, wiki and some of the other discussions of that case states things like: "that a photographer could display, publish, and sell (at least in limited editions) <a title="Street photography" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography">street photography</a> without the consent of the subjects of those photographs." Which if nothing else would seem to conflict with the previous wiki reference. However, the case turned on the statute of limitations and not on the issues of art, permissions, etc. But good discussions or the court decisions do point to the applicable New York laws.</p>

<p>Here's a snippet of the California civl code dealing with the right of publicity: "(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent," So, would the use of the photograph on posters be "on or in products, merchandise or goods?" California's laws do seem to go farther in protecting the indiviidual than some other states but then, celebrity business is important in California.</p>

<p>For the most part, a valid release eliminates the potential borderline issues and clearly could allow for commercial type uses, hence a lot of "users" want them to avoid the difficulties not having one might raise.</p>

[loran_hygema3]

<p>I have read most of the thread but still have a question. Someone earlier eluded to IF he owns the original negative what rights would there be?</p>

[loran_hygema3]

<p>I have read most of the thread but still have a question. Someone earlier eluded to IF he owns the original negative what rights would there be?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in <a title="Civil liability" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liability" target="_blank">civil liability</a> for whoever publishes the photograph."</em><br>

See: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure it can result in a civil liability but it's not a criminal offence.</p>