Re: Copyright, an answer to revenge porn

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




There seems to be a break in the discussion, so now I’ll tell one of my weird stories. All photographers will remain nameless.

In the 1980’s, I was assigned to shoot near Rio, and we had been booked into a US chain hotel. We checked in late at night and in the morning my client said she thought she recognized her husband in a piece of wall art in her room. After breakfast, we all trooped up to her room to look at the print, and lo and behold, it was a scene from Rio’s Mardi Gras shot from an elevated position. I couldn’t recognize her husband’s face, but I could tell he was on the hood of a car involved in a sex act. We all had a good laugh, but Karen didn’t crack a smile as her husband had been in Rio a few years earlier.   

She returns to the States, calls a lawyer to file for divorce, and as evidence displays some prints made from a medium format camera on a Gitzo tripod in her hotel room. She also sues the photographer and his stock agency for invasion of privacy, etc. Of course she won her divorce, but the case with the photographer and the hotel’s art consultant dragged on for years. She eventually won a pretty large judgement against the hotel (which had displayed 100 prints throughout their chain) and photographer, but lost the case against the stock agency and art consultant because the stock agency agreed to indemnify their client against damages. None of them had noticed this guy on the hood of the car on a transparency, but with a tack sharp large format shot printed at 24x30, the small details became clear. I saw the original print and to me it was a stretch to see her hubby, but the law says that if a mother could recognize somebody, there is a case. PArt of Fred was covered, but I doubt a mom could recognize that.

Now that I know more lawyers professionally than I would like to, my solution for the revenge porn is to hire a shooter from Red Hook NJ or perhaps the Company and forego the lawyers.    



On Nov 16, 2013, at 10:30 AM, PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote:

I've heard a lawyer speak to this point in a lecture. He said if you change enough to make it a new work it is permissible. I hope he wasn't just looking for clients :)
 
In a message dated 11/16/2013 3:35:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx writes:
What you can't do is make copies or derivative works.
 


Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post

.






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux