Ok i was originally looking for club pics for my new site, then i tossed the idea convinced it was a legal nightmare.
I went with drunkdollars and used some of their content for now.
Now, i have a guy who works in a nightclub, willing to snap all the photo's i need for me ... he is telling me there is no 2257 for clothed women or something. I told him i would check it out.
I have 2 questions.
#1. Are we certain i cant make a profit on public domain pics if they are non-nudes?
#2. Asuming we are ... what forms would the "models" in question have to sign? Would i still need ID even if they arent clothed?
I am still questioning the legalities after seeing Kronic's post yesterday ...
Quote:
Originally posted by kronic
"One worry everyone seems to have going into this market is over the legality of the content. How can it be legal if there are no model releases? Can I get into trouble for promoting a site with public nudity? Is this content on the up-and-up? There are few laws pertaining specifically to this issue. None address it head-on, and all cases brought before courts have been dismissed, closed out of court, or quietly settled. Keep in mind that there have been for quite a few years now 2 certain fairly large companies selling videos of this exact type of content during late night TV and on infomercials. The company that provides our public nudity content has been taking photos since the 60's, shooting video since the mid-80's, and selling videos online to a very loyal fan base since 1997.
Basically, the legalities boil down to this. Most States in the US recognize that individuals have a right to privacy, and a right to be protected from intrusions. A place where a person has this right is any place where any reasonable person would believe that she could disrobe in privacy, without being viewed, photographed, or filmed by another. Obviously, individuals appearing in a wet t-shirt contest, public Mardi Gra event, or other public place, where they are being openly photographed will have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is also a clause that has been used obtaining to the journalistic attempt to portray those sexual aspects of society that are often overlooked of avoided by traditional media (such as public nudity, exhibitionism, lewd and lascivious behavior, flashers.)"
The key phrase here is "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Some girl flashing her tits in a public place for a guy holding a camera, doesn't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
If you kick open the door in the restroom and catch someone on the toilet, they would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
What you CANNOT do, is use these images to PROMOTE your product without a release.
That's why GGW, for example, only used paid models on their covers and commercials. They were sued by someone who's image they used on one of their first video covers, without a release. She won the right to have her picture removed from their product. The amount of compensation she received? Zero dollars and zero cents.
|
So can i have your input please?
Thanks in advance.