• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help create amazingmeeting.com

Flag on the field

I protest. I set the ball down in post #31 but you guys are still piling on. I request a 10 yard penalty and a free kick. ;)

From Stanford University website regarding fair use:
A release is not needed to use a person's name or image for informational purposes. An informational (or "editorial") purpose is anything that informs, educates or expresses opinions protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and of the press). An informational use would include using a person's name or photograph in a newspaper or magazine article, an educational program, film, nonfiction book, or informational webzine (a magazine published on the World Wide Web).
Click to expand...

Common sense is all that's required. If you get a photo of me stuffing $ in the G-string of a dancer at next years TAM then please have the discretion to keep it to yourself. If you get a photo of Uri Geller standing outside the Stardust you can use the photo, just don't caption it "Uri supports JREF"

If you took a photo and you want to be a nice person and donate it to the cause then fine and dandy. Trust Jeff to know how to use it. If you want to place all kinds of restrictions on it's use then you aren't really giving much. JREF has plenty to do without us adding to the burden. In saying that you think a model release is required you are almost setting the stage for complaints by implying that you think something shady might be going on otherwise.

ETA...This situation reminds me of the year my grandfather gave new skirts to my sisters for Christmas. What he actually gave them was some fabric and a sketch of what he thought the skirts should look like. We all loved him dearly but had to admit that he was starting to lose it at that point. He was about 90 at that time and had only another 6 good years to go.
 
Last edited:
YoPopa said:
I protest. I set the ball down in post #31 but you guys are still piling on. I request a 10 yard penalty and a free kick. ;)

From Stanford University website regarding fair use:
Click to expand...
Your definition of fair use does not include any statement about using pictures to promote a fund-raising event. So common sense should dictate that the fair use rule doesn't apply, or different regulations might exist excluding such usage from "fair use". Hence, people are wondering how best to proceed without further problems like the one that already occured with renata's picture for instance.
 
exarch said:
Your definition of fair use does not include any statement about using pictures to promote a fund-raising event. So common sense should dictate that the fair use rule doesn't apply, or different regulations might exist excluding such usage from "fair use". Hence, people are wondering how best to proceed without further problems like the one that already occured with renata's picture for instance.
Click to expand...
It's not my definition. Please see the linked webpage. The only argument I've seen so far on this thread is the assertion that the new website has some commercial aspect to it. If you read the entire page at stanford.edu you will understand that it is the primary purpose of the website which will determine whether it is commercial or informational. I leave it to Jeff to decide if the website's main purpose is to inform or to sell.
A little more from stanford.edu:
• If the use of the name or image at the website relates to a newsworthy event, the use is more likely to be informational.
• The more website space devoted to selling, the less likely the use is informational.
• The longer the person's name or image remains at the site, the use is less likely to be informational.
• The more separation between the informational content and the sponsorship of the site and related advertisements, the more likely the use is informational.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the renata problem. Can you provide details?
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
There's an entire thread on it, is this really the place to bring it up again? A derail too far...
Click to expand...
Please gimme a break. I did not bring it up. I only asked for more info. because someone else brought it up as if it was relevant. If it's a total derail then that is all you need to say, but say it to exarch. I did a little searching but I can't find the relevance so what is wrong with asking exarch to explain more? A link to the thread maybe?
 
tkingdoll said:
There's an entire thread on it, is this really the place to bring it up again? A derail too far...
Click to expand...
Well, no, but it's part of the reason why I suggested getting permission in the first place.

Anyway, it seems the obvious, logical, common sense conclusion ("fair use" rules and definitions aside) is to just make sure you have permission of anyone in any of the pictures on the site. That way you're covered no matter what.
 
tkingdoll said:
Here is the link to the other thread, lest this one go the same way:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52392&highlight=rocky
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think I have the gist of that photo problem and I agree that it is irrelevant to the issue. Someone politely opted out of having photos of them shown online. There was no law suit, no expressed basis for a suit, and no one has been harmed. Have I got it? I would never have seen that thread unless pointed to it because I have never looked at Forum Management.
 
exarch said:
Well, no, but it's part of the reason why I suggested getting permission in the first place.

Anyway, it seems the obvious, logical, common sense conclusion ("fair use" rules and definitions aside) is to just make sure you have permission of anyone in any of the pictures on the site. That way you're covered no matter what.
Click to expand...
The problem with trying to "cover no matter what" is that you are imposing an unnecessary burden on Jeff by requiring that HE get releases. If you want to be reasonable and you think that model releases are required then you should be the one to obtain them. It is normal for the photographer to be sued if there is a problem.

I used to carry a bunch of model releases with me in my camera bag. That was just in case I saw a shot that had the potential for advertising value. On occasion I would ask someone to sign one of the releases. A few smiled and happily signed. More of them acted like I was a JW knocking on their door at dinner time. And still others think that there must be money involved so they want to be notified before the photo is published so they can negotiate a contract. It is more trouble than it is worth.

Don't ask someone else to go to all that trouble if you wont. That is my definition of reasonable.

If you expect Jeff to identify everyone in a crowd scene and contact them then you are thinking he has a lot of time to kill.

The best protection from possible legal troubles is for everyone here to agree that the PRIMARY purpose of the new website is to educate. If the law firm of Doowey Dickem and Howe ever see this thread they've already got some basis for arguing otherwise.
 
In the future, the membership for TAM should include a complete release for all moving and still images, sounds, and any other recordings in any format invented or to be invented in the future, in perpetuity.

Skiffy conventions have releases like that all the time.
 
YoPopa said:
The problem with trying to "cover no matter what" is that you are imposing an unnecessary burden on Jeff by requiring that HE get releases. If you want to be reasonable and you think that model releases are required then you should be the one to obtain them. It is normal for the photographer to be sued if there is a problem.
Click to expand...
Who's saying anything about lawsuits anyway? I said that Jeff had to figure out whose pic he could post and whose he couldn't. Getting the legal issue settled at the same time is just a convenient bonus.
 
exarch said:
Who's saying anything about lawsuits anyway?
Click to expand...
Have you read the other posts?
I said that Jeff had to figure out whose pic he could post and whose he couldn't. Getting the legal issue settled at the same time is just a convenient bonus.
Click to expand...
I agree completely that it is convenient for you. We differ on whether or not the benefit is worth the cost to JREF. You have a perfect right to impose whatever restrictions you'd like on the use of photographs you have taken. I have made my points in the hope that others will feel OK about sharing photos without adding unnecessary restrictions. And please don't think I am insulting you. I know that you are acting in good faith and that you support JREF. You've been here longer and undoubtedly contributed more than I have.
 
megafly said:
In the future, the membership for TAM should include a complete release for all moving and still images, sounds, and any other recordings in any format invented or to be invented in the future, in perpetuity.

Skiffy conventions have releases like that all the time.
Click to expand...
That would likely be reasonable for all recordings taken at the conference and all offical conference related events. However, if recordings are taken at locations other than the actual conference and conference related events (eg. a dinner with presenters), then the model release scenarios may be in effect.
 
xenxabar said:
That would likely be reasonable for all recordings taken at the conference and all offical conference related events. However, if recordings are taken at locations other than the actual conference and conference related events (eg. a dinner with presenters), then the model release scenarios may be in effect.
Click to expand...
Indeed, any pictures taken outside the conference room itself could be considered unrelated to the conference (since people not attending the conference could be present in such areas).
In other words, it wouldn't do you much good to have people sign something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom