john_h.1

<p><em>"my approach is more like John's - every time that I'm in a different situation, I prepare a new model release."</em><br /><br />I would advocate that approach upon making any that is likely to be marketed for commercials use but, I see nothing wrong with a batch release if it has sufficient details to demonstrate it applies to all the associated images. Legally at least. Whether stock agencies favor that is another issue.</p>

<p>Releases apply to only the images the release is executed for. If the release fails to adequately describe the imagery intended or there is a lack of other evidence available to show it is for specific imagery, then it is of little value if a claim is made against the party displaying the imagery. Is a party is held liable for unreleased display of someone's likeness and the imagery came from a stock house that represented, in good faith, that the image was among its properly released inventory, the the displaying party will in turn have a claim against the stock house for a breach of contract. Such occurrences are rare and the liability may only be for the contract price. If a photographer falsely represents a particular image is released (e.g. uses old releases that do not apply to new imagery) then we are getting in to fraudulent misrepresentations and problems with everyone down the line. While rare that this comes up, it is best avoided.</p> <p>Ellis' recommendation solves this issue assuming you can get the people to batch release all the images submitted that feature their own likeness. Otherwise, those not batch released need individual releases. Ian's scenario lacked enough detail to understand if they are new images with old inapplicable leases. I presume that's not the case.</p>

<p>Unless you are the one displaying the video, its not your problem even if it is a problem.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Now isn't that ironic!</p> </blockquote> <p>No. It is coincidental. (Notice there is a separate word for that).</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Hey, irony. Maybe that's a good subject for a spent photographer.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Both irony and coincidence are.</p>

<p>In any event, the actual point here seems to be a complaint about a phenomenon that is occurring in the modern photography market. I understand why it is undesired but this really seems an issue of the free market at work, not some restriction of the right to photograph or conduct photography as a enterprise.</p>

<blockquote> <p>As I understand the law, event organisers can submit plans for their event which may call for public roads to be closed to vehicular traffic and for barriers to be erected in the interests of public safety. I am virtually certain that it is not legal to arbitrarily fence off parts of the public highway simply so that you can charge money for people to enter these.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not sure how the second sentence reconciles with the first since the latter concerns arbitrary closures when the former has already established that it is not an arbitrary closure. I don't know if other vendors or parties are charged a fee for anything or if that is allowed but we really haven't explained,here, why it wouldn't be. We haven't seen anything as to photographer's rights per se even though the thread title indicates there are two of them being denied. Rather, it is an issue of whether ANYONE can be charged for access.</p>

<p>OK, for the sake of discussion, lets frame the questions in terms of it being a public event...<br /><br />What relevance does this have to photographer's rights? What right do photographers have to be granted special <a id="itxthook1" href="/business-photography-forum/00dSqw?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">access<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> privileges superior to others an event? Any event. What right do they have to be granted special access superior to others for free?</p>

<p>What relevance does this have to photographer's rights? What right do photographers have to be granted special access privileges superior to others at a private event? What right do they have to do so for free? What right is there even to be allowed to bring a camera to a private event?</p>

<p>If the U.S. government is out of the equation and it is a private work, how about Vietnam? For the sake of discussion...</p>

<p>I have to wonder if overexposure is a factor here and that's not a gear issue.</p>

<p>I agree, Jeff, that the scenarios are not analogous. There might be some room to include other creative artists within her sphere of influence as to the broader principle of protecting the interests of 'artists'. I don't know who could exert that kind of pressure from within the photo/video realms. What influence, if any, do you think Taylor Swift, as a music icon, can have in those areas within her sphere or in the industry in general?</p>

<p>http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/</p>

<blockquote> <p>"next time get all the paperwork clear and signed BEFORE the gig."</p> </blockquote> <p>Excellent advice. I'm am puzzled as to why this wasn't done as you explained about your knowledge that this guy was unreliable. <br /><br />I am also puzzled as to why you thought the writing being in pen was more important a concern than participating in the process of deciding what the content of the writing was going to be. The content being the part that actually matters. The interaction might not have gone well but you didn't even give it a chance according to your story. <br /><br /> As for what to do now there are two main choices about the shoot discussed. You can reach out and probably have to grovel with the guy hoping he will give you the images to use and no one will complain or you can seek extremely cumbersome and questionable legal remedies over a verbal agreement that will be hard to prove. Its a not a career wrecking situation so, I agree with the others. Use this as valuable experience to inspire you to be more organized in the future.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't know. Did darkrooms spoil your ability to appreciate great photographs?</p>

<p>Sending the bulk work to those cheap places that have cheap labor and auto everything is OK for,well, bulk work but don't fool around for the more important images. This place has done great work for affordable prices... <br /><br /> http://www.dijifi.com/<br /><br />http://www.yelp.com/biz/dijifi-brooklyn</p>

<p>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/15/legal-exposure-wyoming-law-could-mean-jail-for-sunset-picture-claims-critic/?intcmp=trending</p>

<blockquote> <p>"You're a widely read person, I guess that's what you do in your spare time to relax."</p> </blockquote> <p>There is also photography. Perilous as it may be these days.</p>

<p>Oops.<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073095/Mother-mistakenly-shames-dad-thought-taking-photos-kids-Facebook-post-shared-hundreds-actually-taking-selfie-Star-Wars-display-children.html<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Looking at just the first example, its not so clear. In that instance there is a necessity to prove the posting was done with intent to annoy or harass. Given there are other potential motives to post images of others undressed, it may be difficult to prove that in many instances.</p>

<p>http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/technology/copyright-boobs-revenge-porn/index.html</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I fail to see how destroying her camera and leaving her standing where she was was protecting her."</p> </blockquote> <p>Your logic is impeccable. The lady, as seen on her video, was told she needed to leave because she was "in the line of fire". She was also told she was "in the way of this investigation". Yet she was left there to continue doing so?</p>

<blockquote> <p>she is also guilty of failing to follow an officer's direction to move back, and arguing with him about it. All of this took three marshals away from the original problem which could have had disastrous consequences.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would want to know more about the "guilty" part. Ordered to move back justifiably or because the presence was merely undesired. Seeing that this was no arrest for anything. Also why it would be necessary for three or any Marshal responses. In any event. smashing the phone and walking off is obviously more that just "poorly handled".</p>

<p>Its probably inevitable that Talkeetna is in Skip's future.</p>

<blockquote> <p>taxpayers get to pickup the cost of the lawsuit and the payout.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>I don't see a big payout. No injuries or results rising to the level of ongoing distress or harm. Some sort of damages as to civil rights violations, maybe. An lawsuit (probably brought or supported by the ACLU) seeking to enjoin efforts to ban photography of police seems possible but usually there has to be a showing that the conduct is prone to repetition since the event is over. Being an rogue attack rather than a policy might make that difficult.</p>