legallity issues

[STRAT]

this is picking up on a subject thats been pointed out to me before, and on the point sgee made in this thread - http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000396;p=1#000005

 

i've used various images i've 'liberated' off the internet, or scanned in from magazines, to help me out in my imagery. mostly minor insignificant piccys.

 

does anyone know how legal or illegal this actually is? maybe i'm splitting hairs, i dont know, but will or does anyone give a **** anyway?

 

my attitude has always been of the thinking of well if it's on the web or in magazines it's free and easy to use. if ppl didn't want their stuff being used then they wouldn't provide it on a plate for us.

 

ultimately i suspect it's illeagal, but what's the official line? and as i say, who really cares? how many firms would actually take legal action for something as petty as this?

[sgee]

Good Day Strat, We meet again

 

I was speaking to a friend of mine in the advertising industry, about this last night.

Well , the conclusion is that it is defiantly is illegal to use the pics from other web sites. It is comparable to someone using the images from your website.

 

Each time the picture of a model is used a the company has to pay the model a fee for the rights to use his/her picture. This is proportional to the scale of the audience. For example a model will get paid £15000 for a 20 sec advertisement of British television, but if that same ad. gets used on European television her fee can double to £30000.

 

The companies of web sites definitely have to pay the models photographed, so they would not be happy if somebody borrows, lends, steals their content for the only profitable gain.

 

The lucky point for CG architects, generally, is that our images don’t get seen by a mass audience, and if so Hopefully the building render is so good that it detracts from any people in the scene.

 

There is more….. I am sure most of us have done this, if we take pictures of people in the street, we need obtain their consent to use their picture for commercial gain.

 

So if you are thinking of compiling a CD of people to sell, best you get the consent of the people you photographed or it could get very expensive.

[Ernest Burden III]

...if we take pictures of people in the street, we need obtain their consent to use their picture for commercial gain.

I think that in the US that only applies to indoors. I think that when a person is in public, they are fair game. My father has produced books of photos of people outdoors and not had any problems. Not that it makes it legal, but I do recall that the distinction is indoors vs. outdoors.

 

Are you suggesting that everytime one of your UK tabloids publishes a photo of a Royal in a compromising position they have gotten a release from said Royal to publish it for profit?

[Christopher Nichols]

Originally posted by Ernest Burden:

Are you suggesting that everytime one of your UK tabloids publishes a photo of a Royal in a compromising position they have gotten a release from said Royal to publish it for profit?

Good point Ernest... but I don't think it applies to journalist.... if that is what you want to call them. Bush does not approve any picture taken of him, indoor or outdoor... and every one of them he looks like an idiot. As long as it is "press" you are ok...