"Educational" or even "nonprofit" doesn't relieve any organization or person of the legal requirement to obtain a model release from a person in a photograph that is used for promotional purposes.
exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,184
It's educational, but the site promoting TAM could probably be considered commercial, since TAM does make the JREF foundation money, even if it is a not for profit organisation.
I know people at snopes.com deleted any trace of posts and threads with links to skepchick.org, since they considered the calendar a commercial product, and thus skepchick a commercial site. Their thinking was: if it's something you're selling, it's not allowed on our site. For some reason, they also considered anyone posting those links a troll. But let's not get into that again.
The key here would be if it used for promotional purposes. The E in JREF still stands for Educational IIRC. A website with the primary purpose of education is in no danger. Of course if you ran an ad in magazine or created a banner ad using someones image that would be entirely different.
Can you cite an instance where an educational website was sued successfully? I would like very much to look into the details of that case.
As I said, ask a lawyer. An individual's right to privacy isn't trumped by an organization's nonprofit status. The JREF directly profits from TAM and a TAM website is by default promotional for that event. Use of photographs on that site could legitimately be deemed promotional and the persons shown in those photographs would have certain rights under the law. Those rights do not disappear simply because an organization is nonprofit or educational.
We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here, kiddies. This is the real world, and speculations won't wash. Ask a lawyer.
Last edited:
I have asked a lawyer but I am not trying to play one on this thread. I have had photos published, both for commercial as well as educational purposes and I did my homework before I did the photo work. I could be mistaken re. the real risk here but I could also be mistaken about aliens. All I'm saying is that before you get your knickers in a knot and start an avalanche of paranoia provide us with the cites.
When was a nonprofit sued for photos published on a website??
When was a nonprofit sued for photos published on a website??
exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,184
Interesting side-track:
If someone is making money selling books or other stuff about bigfoot and all that, including some pictures by anonymous photographers, or by people not asking for any money for their pictures, could the guy in the ape-suit sue them for damages? After all, they used footage of him and his suit for their own personal gain without securing the model release first? The photographer's permission surely can't be enough. Right?
Such interesting court cases you could have there.
What about pictures of crop circles? The possibilities are endless ...
If someone is making money selling books or other stuff about bigfoot and all that, including some pictures by anonymous photographers, or by people not asking for any money for their pictures, could the guy in the ape-suit sue them for damages? After all, they used footage of him and his suit for their own personal gain without securing the model release first? The photographer's permission surely can't be enough. Right?
Such interesting court cases you could have there.
What about pictures of crop circles? The possibilities are endless ...
Sorry, I have no such example. I can cite examples of the law.
I am trying to protect the JREF as well as the privacy of people who have rights. That is not "getting my knickers in a knot" and it is not "paranoia".
With that, I wash my hands of this issue. Do as you will.
I think it's more about using them to promote something that is being sold, regardless of what the medium is (website, leaflet etc).
If there is a risk of being sued, it's probably a tiny one, but it's always best to act within legislation, especially when you have critics. Even if it's just to ensure that everyone appearing on the site is happy to be shown. Why take any risks?
I don't think model releases would be necessary if the photos aren't 'posed' though.
Also from your link http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html
I'm sorry tkingdoll. I'll stop fighting now.
Operative words here are ridicule and libelous. That is the only risk that I am familiar with for print. The web is even safer than print in that if some wacko thinks they are being shown in an intentionally ridiculous or libelous manner then you take the image down and say "I'm sorry". No big deal. It's such a not big deal that I can't believe I've made it such a big deal by participating in this thread.
I'm sorry tkingdoll. I'll stop fighting now.
JREF is an educational non-profit organisation, but that in no way prevents it from making commercial ventures now and again, such as TAM. TAM is therefore a commercial venture with an educational purpose.
The designation "non-profit" is probably the misleading bit - it does NOT mean a non-commercial operation. As I understand it, "non-profit" means there are no dividends paid to shareholders, and any profits are put into forwarding the purposes of the organisation. However it is not excused from operational and legal restrictions that apply to other businesses.
The designation "non-profit" is probably the misleading bit - it does NOT mean a non-commercial operation. As I understand it, "non-profit" means there are no dividends paid to shareholders, and any profits are put into forwarding the purposes of the organisation. However it is not excused from operational and legal restrictions that apply to other businesses.
Not quite the same--but some years back a small college I worked at had a brochure with a photo of one of our students with Bill Clinton. The caption read: "get hands on experience in an internship!"
The brochure made its way onto the tonight show, and the student sued for "defamation of character."
Yes.
He does.
TAM can be argued to be a moneymaking proposition, and as such, that makes the use of the person's image commercial. At least that's how it's gone down here in the USA where people have sued over being a few pixels in the corner and won.
Luciana
Skeptical Carioca
Well, I give blanket permission for anyone to publish any picture of mine. I can sign papers later on if needed.
I have many pics here. I suspect some people featuring in it wouldn't mind having their pictures posted (mostly because they posted pics of themselves many times over) but I would not be sure until I contacted those people. And that's quite a lot of work.
So once the legalities are sorted out, could there be a list of people who have allowed their pics to be posted? That would help people like me, who have pictures but are not sure about all the people involved and are not are willing to ask each person one by one. ETA: so they will remain in my hard drive for the time being.
I have many pics here. I suspect some people featuring in it wouldn't mind having their pictures posted (mostly because they posted pics of themselves many times over) but I would not be sure until I contacted those people. And that's quite a lot of work.
So once the legalities are sorted out, could there be a list of people who have allowed their pics to be posted? That would help people like me, who have pictures but are not sure about all the people involved and are not are willing to ask each person one by one. ETA: so they will remain in my hard drive for the time being.
I agree, it's probably going to be just a trivial formality to get most people here to agree to have their picture used for promoting TAM. But to prevent future unhappiness and to keep the lawyers at bay, better to make "giving approval to publish" a definite box to tick on the way forward.
Hmmm.....what do you know about that?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Legal issues aside, I think it's only decent and proper to make sure the photo subjects give permission. I mean, come on guys...