Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Wouldn't this interpretation > of the law dispense with model releases altogether, as any > photograph could easily be made part of a "collection" ? At least here in America, the First Amendment (to the Constitution) protects advertising as well. If they want to use a particular picture because it has become an icon of what National Geographic does best, and it's also one of Mr. McCurry's own signature photos, it's appropriate. It's not using that particular picture to sell something like a car or life insurance, it's informing people of what the content of the exhibit/book is. Exhibit and books are protected content. I'm not lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but I do know a bit about how the law affects my photography from reading Photo District News and other publications. The law may change, but not that much. Why do people think that some particular use of a photo is exploitive, just because someone is making some money on it? Steve McCurry will never be rich because of this photo, not like Nick Vedros will be rich from some of his more famous photos. McCurry is a journalist. And that automatically disqualifies him from the ranks of the highest paid. :-) The reason for using this picture is that it's an amazing picture that puts a face on refugees that's not common. It grabs you. As long as they don't sell coffee, or trucks, or eyeglasses with it, it doesn't seem to be exploitive to me. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Ted Kennedy