Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
Nope, although if they take his picture, they are supposed to get a release allowing them to use the picture. Or at least, they did when I was doing reporting (pictures of the players is considered fair use due to the fact that "they're performing for a paying audience" - pictures of the fans used to require a release since the paper was using their images to make money for itself. Otherwise they could be sued. Don't know how much that's followed these days, I don't keep up with journalism law since I don't work as a journalist these days.)
Copyright law is if you create it, you own it for life + 70 years (IIRC). Still, I think the initial post might have fallen under the "fair use" clause since it was originally posted for the purposes of review. It's the same way that newspapers, magazines and web sites can post "short excerpts" of novels and pictures of the cover. It, in effect is free advertising.
However, for example, if an author believes a web site has posted more than is necessary for review purposes (like say the first three chapters of their book - or the big reveal at the end of a thriller), they can (and should) approach the site and ask them to redact or remove the work. If they refuse, that's usually where lawyers make their money.
Now, could Kyle have approached the moderators in a better manner than coming out swinging the lawyer stick. Absolutely. It was a pretty clueless move when it could have been handled more amicably.
But, if he does own the copyright, (and unless someone has evidence stating otherwise, why would he open himself up for this if he didn't?), he has the right to ask for the photographs to be removed. And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.
|
Eh, kind of. The picture of the person wasn't a problem. If you could see the person? That is another story. Since the person is not uniquely identifiable a release is not in order. Kind of like taking a picture of a crowd. You can't get model releases for the whole group of people, nobody can know who anyone is. Taking a picture of the shirt itself shouldn't be a problem unless that person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, which doesn't seem to be the case. But all of that and a lot of what you wrote has to do with the liability of the photographer. Which really isn't up for debate.
Now. Kyle being the owner of the picture and it being posted is another story. He hasn't shown that he has any right to it. Maybe he does? I don't know. Show me.