Legal Advice Re Use Of Images

[sd gross]

[B]IN THE MID-80'S I HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE TO BE THE STAGE PHOTOGRAPHER AT THE RUSSIAN RIVER JAZZ FESTIVAL, and I took pix of easily recognizable famous & near-famous people such as Art Blakey, Sonny Rollins, and John Mayall. I also shot for a newspaper and have pictures of Ray Charles, and other well-known folks. I've never sought to market my B & W pictures commercially and I'm thinking of putting a 12 or 18 month calendar together, with a run of (possibly) 200 to 300 calendars. I'm wondering if I need to contact these people, their agents, the executors of their estates in order to get permission to use their image for my modest "commercial" project. I'm thinking newspapers publish pix of famous people daily, and they're commercial enterprises (they sell ads). They don't ask permission. I'd love to know what's legal and ethical. If anyone has anything to offer, please feel free.
Thanks for your time
stephen [/B

[RussianRiverRattina]

You definitely need to seek permission from the performers &/or agents to use photographs of them for your calendar. Alas, society has become totally lawsuit-happy & the last thing your modest endeavor needs is a cease & desist order after you've already paid the printer! Nowadays, photographers generally obtain signed release forms from their subjects. Newspapers & tabloids get away with it because the photos go with their reporting, which falls under "fair use".

Good luck! I can't wait to see your calendar!

[b]IN THE MID-80'S I HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE TO BE THE STAGE PHOTOGRAPHER AT THE RUSSIAN RIVER JAZZ FESTIVAL, and I took pix of easily recognizable famous & near-famous people such as Art Blakey, Sonny Rollins, and John Mayall. I also shot for a newspaper and have pictures of Ray Charles, and other well-known folks. I've never sought to market my B & W pictures commercially and I'm thinking of putting a 12 or 18 month calendar together, with a run of (possibly) 200 to 300 calendars. I'm wondering if I need to contact these people, their agents, the executors of their estates in order to get permission to use their image for my modest "commercial" project. I'm thinking newspapers publish pix of famous people daily, and they're commercial enterprises (they sell ads). They don't ask permission. I'd love to know what's legal and ethical. If anyone has anything to offer, please feel free.
Thanks for your time
stephen [/B

[Tars]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. I understand RussianRiverRattina's caution. But, I think you'd have close to zero chance of getting any legal document signed by the performer or their agent.

I've never had a problem with performers. I've photographed performers & athletes, and then used the images commercially. I never had a single complaint from any of them. I'd think that if you have any problems, it may be with your former employer, who was paying you to make the images. They may believe that they own the publishing rights to that intellectual material.

Perhaps things have changed legally. But I explored this same topic in detail, with numerous other professional photographers, 10-20 years ago. Several of the photogs had sought advice about it from attorneys. The legal consensus was, that if a person appears in a public setting, where cameras are normally allowed, then a photographer's release is not required. For extreme examples of this, see the National Enquirer, Daily Sun, etc. at the checkout counter. Since those types of extreme photos still appear, the rule apparently still applies.

Whenever possible, I would contact a performer's agent in advance to ask if they'd mind if I took photos. I did this mostly so I'd have better access to good photo locations. If I got a good image, I sent a copy (with copyright) to the performer's agent, stating what I was intending to use it for, and offering for them to use it wherever they cared to, asking only for photographer's credit when they do so. As I said, I never had any resulting problems. My experience was that, most agents don't even respond. The ones who did were invariably positive.