Never intended to sell a photo - Until it became infamous.

[mini696]

I had this thought cross my mind while reading the post on Street photography and the ethics of displaying the photos.

I understand if a photo is legally taken, it (in most circumstances) will not require things like a Model release. That is until you want to sell it.

So if I take a photo of someone, and for some reason that photo becomes famous (or infamous), I now want to sell it. What becomes of the requirement for model releases etc?

How do the Paps get away with taking photos and selling them off without release forms?

[maccaroneski]

Here's a good summary from the Arts Law Centre: http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[ricktas]

Its about the intent. If you sell the photo to Coca-Cola for them to use in advertising, then you need a model release from the person in the photo.

If the person in the photo becomes famous and you sell the photo for 'journalistic' purposes then you can, but the photo cannot be used by Coca-Cola, without the models permission, cause the 'suggestion' is that the person in the photo, likes coca-cola, endorses coca-cola and is encouraging others to drink coca-cola..which they may not at all.

So, the paparazzi can sell the photo, cause it is being used for journalism (lets forget the quality of the journalism, it still classed as journalism), cause the photo is not being used to market/advertise a product or service, ie. get 'commercial gain' from the (mis)representation of the person in the photo

[mini696]

I feel like a Coke now.

I guess the paparazzi have gotten away with "it" so long the courts couldn't hold up defamation charges either.

[ricktas]

I feel like a Coke now.

I guess the paparazzi have gotten away with "it" so long the courts couldn't hold up defamation charges either.

Most defamation claims are not against the paparazzi. They just take photos. Most claims relate to the 'made up' journalism that is presented as fact in the trashy mags, and is accompanied by a stock photo from a paparazzi that probably has nothing to do with the story, but is in keeping with what they trashmag wants to potray. So the celebrities sue the magazines, not the photographers..generally.

You know. Britney coming out of a shop eating an ice-cream, photo taken 2 years ago. Trashmag wants to do a story on Britney putting on weight etc, so they grab the photo from stock library, cause it fits what made-up junk they want to write about.

The other side is that 'celebrities' often tell the paparazzi where they are going to be. After all, any publicity is good publicity. Fame, it's an interesting game, played by all sides.