Quote:
Originally Posted by SponPlague
|
Spongy:
Thanks. It seems to echo the copyright rules whereby anyone having a photo taken for use by the photographer later (for business use perhaps?) has to give consent for use of the photo. Usually written consent is accepted. The type of use is not usually specified and is usually unlimited as far as I know unless resricted specifically by the person having the photo taken at that time.
It reminds me of an incident at Sir Patrick's house.
I remember Lembit Opik who had been invited getting very 'shirty' and rather unpleasantly embarassing with an inoccuous photographer who was just an ordinary guest wandering around with his camera at the BBC anniversary 'Sky at Night' party of Sir Patrick Moore. Lembik was in the background of a photo he took. He agressively demanded to know what the photographer was going to do with the photo, and he did not want his photo in the press and specifically vetoing such use. The poor recipient of this unwanted unnecesary blast explained he was only taking photos for his own use and had no intention of publishing anything. I think Lembit was very sensitive at the time as he was I think with his 'cheeky' girlfriend and was a favorite of the paparatzi for a while. He left soon afterwards.
If he had thought for a second or two instead of diving-in, and had looked more carefully at the camera he would have seen it did not have a six foot long lens, nor lots of them hanging from the shoulders a la press photographers - but was a simple little digital job. Also, it seemed to escape him that there were at least a couple of dozen people with cameras wandering around, which is what they always do at Sir Patrick's parties - one of which was indeed a professional who I know - but he would never have taken a photo of Lembit for business use without gaining permission -as he knows the law.
DED.
-