Продажа авторских прав

[Цаца]

Фотограф полностью владеет всеми правами на фотографию. Может с ней делать все что ему захочется.

Например?

[nvvosk]

если вы не подписывали то конечно же не может. Т.е. прова на ваше изображения принадлежат вам, пока вы ему не "дадите разрешение" на его продажу.

Это вопрос философский. Фотограф полностью владеет всеми правами на фотографию. Может с ней делать все что ему захочется.

А зачем же нас тогда перед каждым мероприятием заставляют подписать бумажку - согласны мы или нет, чтобы наше дитё фотографировали там? Если поставлю галочку в "не позволяю", то что будет фотографу, если мой ребенок появится где-то в газете и я это увижу?

[Цаца]

А зачем же нас тогда перед каждым мероприятием заставляют подписать бумажку - согласны мы или нет, чтобы наше дитё фотографировали там? Если поставлю галочку в "не позволяю", то что будет фотографу, если мой ребенок появится где-то в газете и я это увижу?

Будут неприятности газете в первом числе, ну и фотографу тоже.

[idle0]

Фотограф полностью владеет всеми правами на фотографию. Может с ней делать все что ему захочется.

Например?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16476

Orthodox Jew's lawsuit over Times Square photo dismissed

By The Associated Press
02.14.06

NEW YORK — A judge has dismissed an Orthodox Jew's lawsuit, finding that a photograph taken of him on a street and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars is art — not commerce — and therefore is protected by the First Amendment, even though his religion forbids such images.

Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that the photo of Emo Nussenzweig — a head shot showing him sporting a scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat — is art even though the photographer took it surreptitiously near Times Square in 2001 and then sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia's photographic show "Heads" was at the Pace Gallery in Manhattan's Chelsea area in September and October 2001, featuring shots of 17 people photographed without their knowledge in New York, Tokyo, Calcutta and Mexico City. The displayed photo of the 80-year-old Nussenzweig was about 3 feet by 4 feet.

New York's right-to-privacy laws prohibit the use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes without the person's permission. But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply.

New York has been fairly liberal in its protection of what constitutes art, the judge wrote. She said New York courts have "recognized that art can be sold, at least in limited editions, and still retain its artistic character."

"First Amendment protection of art is not limited to only starving artists," the judge wrote in a decision made public yesterday. "A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used for trade purposes."

Nussenzweig's lawyer, Jay Goldberg, said he was writing his appeal of the judge's decision and expected to win a reversal.

Goldberg said his client's religion forbids, and he has a deep conviction against, reproducing his image by photography or other means because of the belief in the Second Commandment's prohibition against graven images.

"It puts him in a disgraceful light within his community," Goldberg said. "It violates the tenets of the particular religious sect to which he belongs. He shouldn't be put in a position where people might think he sold out for a few bucks."

Goldberg said Nussenzweig's son saw the photograph in a catalog of diCorcia's work in a bookstore in early 2005. Nussenzweig sued in February 2005, alleging his privacy was invaded and his image was used for commerce.

Lawrence Barth, diCorcia's lawyer, said that what was at stake in the case was the right to make art in public places. Without such a right, Barth said, there would be no photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of World War II.

Another diCorcia lawyer, Kenneth Schacter, said it did not matter that Nussenzweig objected to the photo on religious grounds. "Our First Amendment rights," he said, "trump his religious beliefs."

[Цаца]

NEW YORK — A judge has dismissed an Orthodox Jew's lawsuit, finding that a photograph taken of him on a street and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars is art — not commerce — and therefore is protected by the First Amendment, even though his religion forbids such images.

И ты готов нанимать лоеров и биться за это право?

[cybopob]

а для чего же тогда Model release? IMHO, w/o model release продавать нельзя, ни один сток не примет у вас фотки без модел релиз.

[idle0]

NEW YORK — A judge has dismissed an Orthodox Jew's lawsuit, finding that a photograph taken of him on a street and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars is art — not commerce — and therefore is protected by the First Amendment, even though his religion forbids such images.

И ты готов нанимать лоеров и биться за это право?

Ну как только начну продавать по $30,000 за отпечаток - тогда уже можно нанимать

[idle0]

а для чего же тогда Model release? IMHO, w/o model release продавать нельзя, ни один сток не примет у вас фотки без модел релиз.

Фотки не обязательно продавать на стоках.

[cybopob]

ну я знаю что не обязательно, просто как правильно сказала Цаца, будете возиться с лоерами
Продадите за 30К? хехе, ну тогда и лоер запросит с вас не 300 доллларов.
ИМХО, там где приходят лоеры, прибыль сходит на нет.