Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie.P  Another area I know quite a bit about. As a publisher of a photography magazine, this gets hashed over regularly. When in public there is no expectation of privacy. Thus celebrities are open game for the paparazzi. The only time this can be litigated is when the photo has a minor in it. There is a fine line about minors. The pictures taken of Obama and McCain were both in public. What you would be paying for is the services of the photographer that took the shot. They have a expectation of payment for their services. Now if you yourself took the photo you own the rights to it. It doesn't matter who you took it of. Again there is an exception to this if it is used as an advertisement without permission. IE as a blatant prop for your goods with the persons image in it. Now the pictures in question were not used as advertisement per say, but to show that both women wear pearls. Fine line again, but one where they are not advertising a particular product other than they wear pearls. Those photos would only need to be verified who took the photo and make sure that they are not owned by a third party. I hope I made that muddled explanation clear enough. |
Dear Aggie: I got the photos from one candidate's website and from UTube. I think I'm OK. You would know better than I