Pollyannna
In workplace another employee has taken photographs and thinks he can use them against. We have had letters from employer to say mobile phones are not to be used in the workplace so why is he using his as a camera?
Consider celebrities who hate being hounded by paparazzi and having their pics published in the National Enquirer. A photographer, on public ground, shoots, over a fence, an actress in a private outdoor pool somewhere and then it's published by National Enquirer. These types of pictures are published every day against the wishes of the individual photographed. A release is not required for "editorial use" i.e. if the publication's primary purpose is the "educate or inform the public" - very questionable when it comes to the Enquirer IMO.
How a court might define the work place I don't know. Years ago a case went to court where party A photographed party B in the restroom of a bar. B sued A and lost because the restroom was ruled to be an area open to the patrons of the bar!
5 Answers
ROMOS
Bob/PKB
Think about the number of photos that are taken of the "rich and famous" and plastered on magazines and internet videos. There are some limits to what a person can do with a photo. A photographer should ASK about taking your picture and, if (s)he wants to use it for publishing purposes of any sort, should have you sign a waiver (I did this a few years ago when a photographer wanted to use me as a model for a contest on "aging gracefully" he was entering - I was a good example, at the time).
What your coworker is doing sounds like he has been expressly forbidden to do, so, like suggested, rat him out and hope he ends up looking for work elsewhere.
| 10 years ago. Rating: 6 | |
Now ... Right here I'll say. I do not know your age and it makes no never mind. You are definitely graceful. You have not aged an inch.
Perhaps you knew the photographer and he knew your age. That would be different. : ))
Joe622
As a former part time photographer, I've encountered this question many, many times and read many articles on this in photographer magazines. Essentially, if you are in a place that is open to the public it is not a violation of your privacy to photograph you without your permission. Your photo can NOT be used for commercial purposes without your consent e.g. advertising. The photo can be used without a release from you for "editorial purposes" e.g. published in a newspaper, magazine etc. where the primary purpose of the publication is to educate or inform the public.
Consider celebrities who hate being hounded by paparazzi and having their pics published in the National Enquirer. A photographer, on public ground, shoots, over a fence, an actress in a private outdoor pool somewhere. These types of pictures are published every day against the wishes of the individual photographed.
How a court might define the work place I don't know. Years ago a case went to court where party A photographed party B in the restroom of a bar. B sued A and lost because the restroom was ruled to be an area open to the patrons of the bar!
| 10 years ago. Rating: 4 | |
Tommyh
mycatsmom
I guess it's legal unless you get a P P O for a photographer to stay away from you.............like the late Jackie Kennedy Onassis did. She got one for one of the first paparazzis that was really bothering her. He would hide behind bushes and shrubs and pop out at her and her kids. I think his name was Ron Gazella, or something like that. He made a lot of money off of her. He was the fore runner in his field. At least he had some class by hiding or staying in the background . Nowdays, the paparazzi just run up to and surround a celebrity while the celeb is trying to do something, lie teach their child how to ride a bike or swim.And they yell stupid questions at the celeb. Prince Charles said that in the U.S.., the photogs yell " Prince, Prince ! " like a dog, to get his attention.
| 10 years ago. Rating: 2 | |
