Craig Gillette Offline Image Upload: Off
|
p.1 #11 · Photos at a church gathering | |
There are two problems here. One is a copyright problem. The image has been copied, transferred and displayed (used in the advertising) w/o permission of the copyright owner. The copyright owner has exclusive rights to do or authorize those things. While there are those who willl assert that this is entirely the fault of the transgressor and the owner has no need/requirement to inform a person of restrictions, this is the kind of thing which results. An ignorant or "innocent," party receiving the images and being unfamiliar with copyright law procedes, intentionally or not, to violate the owners "rights" and you have to back into some kind of resolution.
The other position, fairly common, is that many people aren't familiar with the copyright laws and should be told clearly in transmittal documents (or contracts or even verbally) what rights the copyright owner has licensed, has retained and what the recipient can do with the images, etc.
In this situation, there was no formal/written discussion of uses and there was transfer and undesired use. That's an issue that the OP has to resolve with the church and/or the individuals who passed the images on and with the advertising party.
The use of the images in advertising presents the possibility that the individual's in the images have had their rights of publicity infringed. While it may be codified in with privacy and misappropriation or separately covered under "publicity," or even a matter of "common law," in a given location (or not in some countries), the individual has certain rights to control the use of their image and persona in commercial applications - which is typically that of endorsing or promoting an product or services and not the simple sale of the picture.
This is the individual's right and can not be assumed to be waived nor can another person waive that right. Coaches can't waive that right for players, clerics can't waive that right for members of the congregation, B&Gs can't waive that right for other members of the wedding party or guests. A "release," (signed by the individual or a legally authoprized representative) in a contract, a separate document, or in participation/registration documents can be used to document that the individual has given permission for their image to be used in ways that they have the right to control.
This is a separate matter from the idea that there are places where the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy and that they can't expect not to have their picture taken. Because this is the individual's right, it's possibly a parallel problem to the copyright issue but the photographer has no standing to dispute that aspect of the use. It's one of the reasons having copyright ownership doesn't give absolute rights to control all potential uses of an image. their may be opthers with rights involved.
Edited on May 08, 2008 at 04:25 PM
|