[Leica] Re: Family of Man II - Releases?

[Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>]

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Steve Rowell 
><steverowell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Maybe some of the veterans could discuss what will
>> require a release if this project reaches publication.
>> For instance, I have a photograph (taken in Cancun,
>> Mexico) of children playing in one of those dancing
>> water fountains that appears to come right up out of
>> the sidewalk (ala DisneyWorld). So this is a photo of
>> identifiable children in a public place, akin to kids
>> playing in an open fire hydrant on a public street. I
>> don't have releases from the parents of the children,
>> so what's the verdict. Please add plenty of examples
>> to clear up the story on releases. Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> Steve Rowell

Releases are required for people or property if the photographs are used to
promote a product or somehow be instrumental in the commercial promotion of
something.

Releases are not required for editorial use providing the use is not
derogatory in nature. Photographs in a book of photographs is editorial use
and not commercial use. As long as the recognizable kid is not picking
his/her nose and eating the buggers, ie; derogatory.

If a release is required for a recognizable person, then a release is also
required for any privately or commercially owned recognizable property in
the photograph. Take a photograph of someone standing in the Cancun water
fountain, holding a can of motor oil, and use it in an ad for the motor
oil, you need a release from the person and a release from the city of Cancun.

No books of photographs could be printed if they had to follow the same rules.

My wife and I have published four photography based books and are working
on the fifth. We have numerous photographs of recognizable people,
privately owned, and commercial property in the photographs. These are
"regional" books, "for the love of Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove,"
"for the love of San Francisco," etc... Lots of Leica photographs of
people, places and things, public and private.

The cover of one of our books is of the "Lone Cypress" tree, the
"trademark" of Pebble Beach. They (Pebble Beach) got hostile and threatened
to sue us. We turned the correspondence over to the ASMP, who then answered
all of their threats. They even got some big powerful legal company in
Washington DC to crank up the pressure. After Gentile won against the Rock
and Roll Hall of Fame for his poster of the R&RHOF (gorgeous photograph),
with the ASMP's help, Pebble Beach has backed off since our use of the Lone
Cypress, even though it is on the cover, is purely editorial.

Inside we have a spread of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. They (their PR folks)
also got hostile until their own legal staff called them off and slapped
their hands.

The bottom line is that a book of photographs isn't selling or endorsing a
product or service. Therefore photographs of people, places, and things do
not need a release. For sensitive photographs, such as someone giving birth
from the doctors point of view, or folks engaged in unsavory acts, it would
be extremely wise to obtain a release.

Robert Rose, usually on this list, is, I believe, a copyright/trademark
lawyer and could shed more light on the subject. What I have said above is
my own personal experience as a publisher, and the culmination of volumes
of reference material (all on the web) that I have read.

Jim