Quote:
Originally posted by BV
It is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places.
It is not illegal to charge money to view these pictures.
But this does not mean that you can not be sued in a civil court.
However time after time when these cases are brought to court the plaintiffs do not win. These are the comments from the Judge himself:
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during
Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which
they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out,
whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those
photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or
not it went nationally or locally or household to household."
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed,
Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the
French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras.
This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even
those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me
that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this
type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or
photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty
willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not
expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose
your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an
individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going
to be shown all over the place."
-- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a
little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of,
let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this,
prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will
be all over the country at some point, because people from all over
the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters."
That's right from the horses mouth!
So don't be a hater be a player.
Peace Out!
BV
|
I'm not attorney, but... This commentary seems mostly to be based on the right to privacy, and of course, you don't have privacy in a public place. However, there are other legal bases for a suit: strangely, the right of publicity is also a right under some circumstances, and if any of those people are not amateurs, and actually earn a living from their body and likeness, there's a possible lawsuit there, because the law recognizes the right of people in certain lines of work (mainly entertainment) to control the use of images of themselves, especially when someone else profits from those images. There is a famous case involving Dustin Hoffman where, I believe, a magazine put his face on a woman's (or transvestite's) body and he sued successfully.
So, the need for a release goes beyond the mere question of invasion of privacy. Beyond the right of publicity, if for example someone in the shot was simply passing by, and now their image is frozen in time with someone who is appearing nude or doing something naughty. They may have been unaware what was going on when the picture was taken, but now it appears they were a participant. Even if they're outright lying and were definitely participating, can you prove it? If not, here comes the defamation lawsuit!
You may get away without a release. You may never be sued. But if I were a webmaster, I'd thing twice or three times before spending money on unreleased images.