Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote:
> Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
Yes, but I don't think a snap in a public area would implicate it in most
if not all states. It's a matter of state law, not federal law, so it's
impossible to draw a general rule about what "US law" is in this
context. California and New York could be very different.
A more likely problem is an area generally called "right of publicity"; it
basically allows an individual to prevent the use of his likeness to aid
in the sale of a product (in California, it's in Civil Code section 3344;
I don't know about other jurisdictions). An interesting case is where the
product being sold is the image itself -- for example, if you sell a photo
of a street scene including an individual. I know that Tiger Woods has a
case pending trying to prevent someone from selling paintings of him; I
don't know how that case has progressed.
I am a lawyer, but this area is a little outside of my area (which is
copyright, patent and licensing), so don't take any of the above to the
bank -- if you have concerns, check with someone who knows the law in your
particular jurisdiction, or err on the side of caution and get the
Terry Carroll | "Denied."
Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494,
email@example.com | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001)
Modell delendus est |