TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I seem to recall from my days in Journalism school in the early 1970s that people in "public places" are fair game. I think I also recall that "utterances" (speeches and the like) are also considered the same.
Now, where the line is drawn that separates using one's likeness/reputation to further a commercial or other interest as opposed to using a photo of someone for other reasons is debatable, but probably not defiinitive (at least here in this forum).
Consider Hollywood personalities who have made extra efforts to go public but "incognito" (grocery shopping or whatever), only to be photographed by paparazzi, with resulting photos -- AND identifications -- published in various magazines.
Your likes and dislikes or those personalities are irrelevant here.
Instead, the issue is whether THOSE personalities signed waivers to allow People or somesuch magazines to publish those images of them. I think not. And I'm reasonably sure that no court would stop publication of those images of those people.
Here in Atlanta, the family of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. has shown its not-so-nice side by demanding (not requesting) royalities for use of MLK's public speeches (for instance the "I have a dream" speech given in Washington, DC, in 1963). Like I said, I was taught that if you are in public and speak in public, then your image and your words are considered "public". The CBS news department caved in to the MLK family several years ago and made payment, and I'm not sure if anyone else has.
(It's funny how many folks have managed to continue riding on MLK's coattails to enrich themselves; he must be doing pinwheels in his grave.)
The King family also wound up in the public eye recently when family members sued each other over miscellaneous business interests and the release / sale of the late Coretta Scott King's letters; the family has also been criticized here for how it "plays the MLK card" whenever it comes under public scrutiny; it's been written up here for the apparently very shoddy care of their father's memorial, The King Center (now requiring millions of public dollars in repairs), while raking in bucks like crazy.
Anyway, that's the way it goes.
-------------- Original message from "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>: --------------
> Karen L. Zorn wrote:
>
> >
> > McLauchlan, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > I understand that makers of films/videos/printed mass media are
> > supposed to get a signed waiver before using someone's recognizable
> > image in a published work. There's some fair-use doctrine that might
> > protect purveyors of news... or I could be wrong on that...
> >
> > ***
> > A company I once worked at used Albert Einstein's image to promote
> it's
> > brilliant new medical equipment; they were promptly sued by Einstein's
> > heirs who own the rights. Also, Fred Astair's heirs have the rights to
> his
> > image. It is always best to check before you use an image, especially
> > those iconic ones.
>
> Did it seem to make a difference, to the success of that lawsuit,
> whether your company had used a photographic image or one processed from
> a photo?
> As opposed to a merely suggestive likeness?
>
> Around my city, dozens of companies, big and small, use cartoonish
> "Einsteins" as mascots or to promote whatever "ingenious" goods or
> services they are selling (including things like Math tutoring, repair
> services, etc.).
>
> In my own case, I'm talking about something in-between a photo (or
> posterized photo) and a cartoon. That is, following a few classes at
> the local college, I took some pencils and charcoal and drew my
> interpretations of some fellow employees, friends, family... Some of
> the co-workers liked them enough to use scans of the sketches in place
> of their company mug-shots on the internal website, mail/contact list,
> etc.
>
> I sorta enjoy doing it, for the process and challenge but there's not
> much talent involved, so unless I'm drawing from life or photo-of-life,
> I can't make a lifelike sketch of something that exists only in my head
> - they come out looking vacant and bland like Barbie and Ken dolls.
>
> Similarly, I'm doing some sketches of singles, pairs, small groups of
> people that I might photograph in a street, park, or other public
> setting. Faces watching a ball game, mom fussing with child in
> stroller, that sort of thing.
>
> So I might like to use such sketches on websites that have nothing to do
> with the people who were the nominal subjects. Decoration,
> illustration, whatever.
>
> Let's put it another way: If a website displayed a pencil sketch that
> resembled you enough that (say) a friend had drawn your attention to it
> ("Izzat you?! It looks like you!)", when you knew you'd never agreed to
> be photographed or to sit for a portrait, would you be contacting your
> lawyer?
>
> Some would suggest that it's more important what the lawyer thinks, but
> I wouldn't care to be in the position of gratuitously offending
> people... and less so if they could successfully sue me. :-)
>
> Do all stock photos, in those vast online and CD repositories that
> include recognizable people, have signed waivers behind them?
>
> Are there situations - notably everyday public ones (not newsworthy) -
> where people who are not celebrities are fair game to be used as photo
> subjects?
>
> How about the related situation where they are simply incidental to a
> photo of somebody else or of an object (perhaps architectural) of
> interest?
>
> Now, with all that in mind, note that it wouldn't even be the actual
> photos featured (or more likely not even featured, but used as
> decoration) on (say) my website (that doesn't exist yet, by the way). It
> would be hand-drawn pencil representations of faces and forms from such
> photos.
>
> "Hey, that looks a lot like Maureen!... or Celine Dion, maybe... "
> :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
