Yep, you're right again with all your examples Richard. Just a pity none of them were examples of a commercial use.
Presuming you're not simply trolling here. Let's start with a simple example of a commercial use.
I take a photo of someone, have it printed as a calendar, jigsaw, poster, etc. and start selling it. Do you honestly believe the subject of the photo has no legal claim?
No. If taken in a
public place, no, they don't. Fact. No
automatic legal claim, and they'd face a tough circumstantial battle to claim anything. That's the starting point, and it puts the photographer on quite solid ground. It is only if you are stupid in the way the image is used that there might be a remote chance of comeback.
I'm not trolling mate, so this will be my last post on this thread
I'm just trying to put a little common sense on the table, a bit of photo freedom, and say that while there might be a lot of huff and puff about some pictures being published with dire consequencies, the LAW is actually on the side of freedom to publish. If you are dumb, deceitful, or extremely unfortunate, you might get caught out. But if you are sensible, honest and act decently, your chances of breaking the law are actually very slim. The OP appears to be adhering to these basics, hence my advice.
By the way, the example I used of my picture being published in a newspaper is one of commercial use, and so are the examples of pictures being published on here, even though the extent of commercialism is much less and not primary. That in itself makes no difference to the principle - it is still publication without permission - though of course the 'money' angle can play a big part on what action is taken, rightly or wrongly.
As to your example about "a photo of someone, have it printed as a calendar, jigsaw, poster, etc" the basic answer to a picture of anybody taken in a
public place is no, they have no automatic rights, and they are fair game. But I will say this; it sounds like a pretty dull calendar to me, so you'd have to spice it up somehow. That is your legal achilles heel.
If I take a picture of Jordan falling out of a club drunk and turn it into a jigsaw, she might not like it but she has no
automatic legal rights. She would have to fight a circumstantial action which, if you'd followed my guidlines, would not apply so you'd be okay. Even so, Jordan being Jordan, she'd find herself fighting an uphill battle.
I am close to the family of someone who has recently become world famous on a major scale. All sorts of pictures of them have popped out of nowhere and appeared all over the place on hundreds of products, all cashing in on their new fame. Their business manager is not best pleased, not because he objects to people making a few quid, but because he has no control over what is happening to these images. That is why celebrities are surrounded by massive security, because photographers cannot be legally prevented from shooting, and exploiting commercially, what they see from a public place.
I'm done. Over and out on this one
Richard.
)
