[Kenard]

Quote:
Bad day at work and not in the mood for an internet arguement.  So they are gone.  

VtexFlux,
Thanks for the effort anyway.  I appreciate it, as do many others!

 

[Scotchman]

Thanks for the link, Rev!

"Releases are generally not required from people who
are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public
place, provided...the identifiable people are not
the focus of the photograph."

In the case of BE candids, they obviously ARE the
focus of the photograph.

Rev's link also mentions that these laws vary by State.
 

[Tiggo]

Vortex, I thank you for trying.  

This place can be somewhat constricting  

Please post again!!    

[L_C_R_ANT]

I meant no harm in what I said.  I thought that a rule was being broken, and rather than imeadiately bringing in the moderators (especially since I was a little unsure and felt that that would be a little back handed with out saying something here first) I tried to say something directly and give the oportunity to fix things without the intervention of a mod.  I'm sorry if I offened anyone.    

[VortexFlux]

Second One reposted  

[BP]

THere are two issues here. The BEA rules are one thing. But legally, you can photograph anyone or anything you want in a public place. What you *use* the photograph for (like posting it on a public web site devoted to huge breastages) is a different issue.

Quote:
Unless the gals gave you permission in writing, I'm
99% sure you do not have a clear copywrite to the
images. The models can sue you and the BEA for publishing
the images without their permission.

Are there any legal eagles out there who can judge
the risks?

This issue probably needs to be specified in the forum
rules. The best policy is: ask first and post later
if you're not sure rather than make a Mod correct you.
     

[Kenard]

The problem is there are several aspects of things taken into consideration and there isnt any one easily definable rule that covers all situtations.

If you photograph a person sitting in a park, enjoying the day, reading a book and post it in an artical on how people enjoy a nice day, you would not need a release.  If they attempted to sue you,  they would have to prove that this was somehow harmful to them.  Its a Civil matter, not a legal one.

If you then took a photo of someone swinging a golf cub in that park as well, didnt get a release and because of the angle it appeared the person was swinging at a **09**, It could be looked at as damaging and would have grounds for suit.   But if you had gotten the release, you covered your butt ahead of time.

If its for Comercial Gain it changes things (posibly bad). If Its Newsworthy and/or informative it changes things (likely good).  

Regardless, The photo taker is the responsible party, not the BEA.
 

[VortexFlux]

Again repost  

[Calanen]

Taking clothed photographs of women in a public place, even without their permission is perfectly legal in all jurisdictions of which I am aware. There are complicated issues surrounding use of a person's image, ie say a **29** - ie if I take a picture of Arnie in the street and put it in my advertisment for aluminum siding....... There may be some weird Euro privacy laws of which I'm not aware - but in the States and in Australia, you are pretty Ok with taking photos of whoever you see in a public place.

I wish the armchair lawyers would go and take the Bar exam before they start beating this poor guy over the head for taking some pictures.........