Main Menu

"Are We Better Off?"

Started by raivo, September 14, 2012, 05:39:13 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flying Pig

Thats a little different than posing with someone.

Eclipse

Quote from: Flying Pig on September 15, 2012, 11:33:38 PM
Thats a little different than posing with someone.

Agreed, but the final product is the same.

"That Others May Zoom"

Woodsy

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2012, 11:28:00 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on September 15, 2012, 10:43:01 PM
You can refuse having your photo taken. Just say "Sir/Ma'am, I don't want to be photographed."

And if you are in a public place, the person with the camera can go right on taking your photo.

This is NOT true for commercial purposes.  An advertisement/corporate communication such as this (and that is exactly what it is) would require written permission.

This organization needs to get a letter from CAP legal ASAP.  Regardless of CAP's stance (or non-stance) on the issue at hand, this type of thing has the potential to create a negative public opinion of CAP to the vast majority of Americans.  It needs to be removed and retracted. 

Garibaldi

If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

abdsp51

Yup and a potential lawsuit  as well

JK657

Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

abdsp51

Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

True but parental permission is required in many instances and this would definitely be one of them.

JK657

#27
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:07:45 AM
Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

True but parental permission is required in many instances and this would definitely be one of them.

Please cite, such as case law or civil/criminal code, etc.

abdsp51

Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation. 

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.
And that would require parental consent for these guys.

abdsp51

Here in the states it's known as publicity rights a case law cite

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugosi_v._Universal_Pictures
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

Ultimately the organization had the obligation especially a moral one to obtain parental consent if this a non photo shopped photo.

Indiana statute

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title32/ar36/ch1.html

At the end they had the legal and moral obligation to obtain consent.  If either one of those cadets were my child this group would be receiving a cease and desist notice about use of the photo and a lawsuit filed.

JK657

#31
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.

You keep making this assertion without showing any proof. Please cite a civil code or even a case law. My whole point is there are lots of misconceptions in the area. So please back up your comment. I'm happy to admit I am wrong if you are able to locate something.

Here's California's Civil Code (I realize this did not occur in Cali but just for giggles)
Civil Code ยง 3344(d):
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political
campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
under subdivision (a).

Further more, You're citation of Indiana code goes directly against what you are trying to prove.

abdsp51

#32
Please see above or Google publicity rights.  I have provided you with information on it.

Here is even a blurb citing California Civil Code as well;

California's common law cause of action is complemented legislatively by  Civil Code section 3344.   As the Eastwood court explained, the statute is best understood as "complementing," rather than enacting, the common law cause of action, because the two are not identical.  198 Cal.Rptr. at 346. Section 3344(a) provides in pertinent part:  Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purchases of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person ... injured as a result thereof.

Now ergo since in most states a juvenile cannot legally enter into a contract without parental/guardian consent this is grounds for a lawsuit. 

JK657

Personality Rights are not a federal recognize right. As such they are up for the individual states to set. That being said, Personality rights pertain to the use of photos,etc in a commercial manner NOT in a political area.

Here is the definition of Commerical purpose based on your own cite:

"Commercial purpose" defined
     Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "commercial purpose" means the use of an aspect of a personality's right of publicity as follows:
        (1) On or in connection with a product, merchandise, goods, services, or commercial activities.
        (2) For advertising or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, services, or for promoting commercial activities.
        (3) For the purpose of fundraising.

JK657

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 02:06:56 AM
Please see above or Google publicity rights.  I have provided you with information on it.

Here is even a blurb citing California Civil Code as well;

California's common law cause of action is complemented legislatively by  Civil Code section 3344.   As the Eastwood court explained, the statute is best understood as "complementing," rather than enacting, the common law cause of action, because the two are not identical.  198 Cal.Rptr. at 346. Section 3344(a) provides in pertinent part:  Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purchases of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person ... injured as a result thereof.

Now ergo since in most states a juvenile cannot legally enter into a contract without parental/guardian consent this is grounds for a lawsuit.

Please see my earlier comment which cites subdivision D of that section which again says that this does not apply to a political, news or public affairs event

abdsp51

Read the whole thing.  It's recognize that a person's likeness is their property and may not be used without their consent and compensation.  The IN statute and the CA code back what I have been saying and at the end of the day this is flat out wrong the use of minors without parental consent or using deceptive practices.  You above most based off your sig block should know flat out that dealing with juveniles is always a touchy item regardless of the dynamic.

Garibaldi

Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

The cadets involved probably didn't know better. More than likely, the parents weren't around as it looks as if the picture was taken at an airshow. They probably know now, and I bet that there are phone calls being made trying to figure out the legality of using the cadets' images for their own agenda.

I'm backing off my original stance because I can't find anything to back me up and all my research has come to a dead end in favor of the photographer(s). As a college-trained journalist who has taken a few media law courses regarding the First Amendment and fair use and such, but never applied it in the real world, I can only speculate that a really sharp lawyer can argue and possibly win a case against that organization for exploitation of a minor or minors with regards to furthering a political agenda. Minors can't legally give assent to having their image used for publication, obviously, and like I said, more than likely the parents were nowhere near the event.

Sadly, all this is really just speculation because we weren't there and don't know the situation, only the result.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

JK657

#37
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 02:22:11 AM
Read the whole thing.  It's recognize that a person's likeness is their property and may not be used without their consent and compensation.  The IN statute and the CA code back what I have been saying and at the end of the day this is flat out wrong the use of minors without parental consent or using deceptive practices.  You above most based off your sig block should know flat out that dealing with juveniles is always a touchy item regardless of the dynamic.

I see it exactly the opposite way. I believe your cite as well as mine back up my views. Its one of these things where we will have to agree to disagree. The only way to settle this is with Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock...

Eclipse

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.

So CAP can't publish photos of its members?

Spin again.

The law favors the photographer in these cases.

"That Others May Zoom"

LGM30GMCC

Quote from: Woodsy on September 15, 2012, 11:59:46 PM


This organization needs to get a letter from CAP legal ASAP.  Regardless of CAP's stance (or non-stance) on the issue at hand, this type of thing has the potential to create a negative public opinion of CAP to the vast majority of Americans.  It needs to be removed and retracted.

Um. The vast majority of Americans? I think the fact it was repealed shows that there was support for these folks. And while some in the military may not like that DADT was, in fact, repealed, overall it had little impact on a large number of us.

I went through what was supposed to be about 1-2 hrs of computer based training (ok ok, it took 15 minutes. I read the highlights. 'Can't discriminate on hiring/firing whatever based on sexual orientation. Add it to the race pile. Because of DOMA, the military can't grant recognition to same-sex unions. So noted. Now, back to studying for my tests/evaluations.'

Or do you mean CAP being involved in a political issue at all. Just our existence can upset people and the fact that we had no clear stance one way or the other (which was risky). Technically, unless I missed something (and someone please correct me if I did!) we still don't really. There was a debate about this on Captalk some time ago. Best I can see is for us to follow the military example.