[SML] photo rights

[B. H. Ackler]

You might retain the copyright, but many hosts/websites include in there "fine 
print" their claim that by posting the photo or any photos linked to that 
photo that they have unrestricted right of usage, including the right to sell 
usage of that copy.

That is why so many professional photographers have closed down their web 
pages or the page only includes one or two photos and detailed contact 
information.

Bryan H. Ackler
Portland, Oregon

On 4/21/2015 12:00 PM, stagecraft-request at theatrical.net wrote:
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:28:29 -0700
> From: Richard Niederberg<ladesigners at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [SML] photo rights
>
> As some one who has spent years on the bench of the LA Superior Court, and
> seen a lot of Celebrity v. Paparazzi cases trot by, I can say the the
> Paparazzi almost always win when a celebrity tries to get a stay-away
> order. Essentially, if you are 'Lawfully at the looking place' (legal
> jargon), you can shoot whatever you want. People, NOT cars, possess  a
> right to publicity. Someone must prove financial loss to get a judgement
> against you. Selling a copy of your picture could be troublesome, but you
> could still copyright it - "Anybody can copy an original; nobody can copy
> the copy". In other words, you could take the picture, but perhaps not sell
> it or post it on the Internet. Taking a picture out the window of your car
> on a public street is usually OK, unless the Secret Service or other Agency
> thinks that you are violating National Security. People get 'roughed up'
> for doing that and can be held pending their figuring out what you were up
> to.
> /s/  Richard