-
legality of using images from Google searches in productions
-
Yup. Being polite and respectful is always a good policy in my book.
-
Exactly. That’s one of the documents I’ve read in coming to my beliefs that it’s fair game to shoot folks in public space on the street and use the images in productions. Here’s another older reference that’s more “legal precedent” based, but pretty useful:
https://rcfp.org/photoguide/Also, on a separate but related note, for anyone interested in the latest thinking on “fair use” of copyrighted materials (music, film clips, etc) for documentarians, this is an interesting document:
https://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/fair_use/ -
Even if someone has a right to take a photograph of a person in a public place, they still don’t have the right to portray that person in a way that would make people think that they endorse a particular product (or the right to defamation of character)without that person’s knowledge and release of rights.
For example, you could tape a man walking down the street and use it in a story that says “the average man walks 6 miles every day”. You can’t play the same footage with a voice over that says “this man’s own wife doesn’t know that he’s a psychotic killer”. You will get sued, and unless the man you taped has been convicted of the charge, you will probably lose. (Even the truth can be a shaky defense, depending on how and when the person was portrayed in the bad light.)
Heck, you can’t even say “This man loves to eat at Jim Bob’s Barbecue”… unless either he does – or you have a a release from him giving you rights to use the footage for that purpose.
Now, on the other hand, a crowd of unidentifiable people can be used to support concepts about general “groups”. (Such as “One in three men will develop colon cancer in their lifetime.)
Now, if you take a persons picture without their permission, that doesn’t mean they can take your camera or even your tape. It just means you can’t use their photo for other than private use, unless it’s a “news” type event (like if you took video of the person mugging someone or getting mugged) If it’s valid news, all bets are off as far as rights issues.
-
Trademarking buildings is a new one on me, I have to admit. Any pointers to articles on that specific issue? It’s not like I’m going to photoshop-out the Sears Tower and John Hancock tower from my Chicago panorama establishing shots on just anybody’s say-so.
-
The idea of tradmarking a building – rather than a specific image of a building used as a device, with or without verbal accompaniment, to identify specific goods or services as coming from a particular supplier – is moderately comical, and no doubt would raise a chuckle from legal practitioners in the area. This is from the US Patent and Trademark Office at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/trade_defin.htm
What is a trademark or service mark?
* A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
Some individuals and organisations may seek to claim such rights, though however fanciful their basis in law. The trustees of the The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund made their own, failed, attempt to create a new class of “image rights”, preventing anyone else from using any image of Diana – an expensive lesson for them. For a time, a region of Italy flirted with the idea. And in London, a port of authority has made grand claims for its ability to prevent people from taking or using images of the River Thames – with success to date only in fleecing the unrepresented. -
A great resource for “real” looking photos is morguefile.com. Ordinary people post their snaps there, and the terms of use are quite clear about it being royalty and license free.
-
Thanks so much–this is a terrific link!
Ruby
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up