From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #413 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, October 13 2000 Volume 04 : Number 413 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The Item On EBay [sisterpuff@my-deja.com] Re: The Item On EBay ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Tired of SPEED CAPPING and CENSORSHIP ? Tell the F.C.C.! Link to TIME WARNER - AOL merger case docket here!.,.,.,.,`.,.,.,.,`. .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,`.,.`,.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,.,.,.,.,.,.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,.`,.,`.,`.,` 9590 [] Re: The Item On EBay [Kate Leahy ] Re: The Item On EBay ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: The Item On EBay ["Colleen Anne McClanahan" ] Re: The Item On EBay [Ellen A Handbasket ] Re: The Item On EBay [Ellen A Handbasket ] Re: The Item On EBay [Ellen A Handbasket ] Re: The Item On EBay ["Colleen Anne McClanahan" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:37:57 GMT From: sisterpuff@my-deja.com Subject: Re: The Item On EBay thank you, amy Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:49:56 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: The Item On EBay lawrence solomon and Jordan and SugarFly wrote: (stuff deleted) You know you guys are really doing a fabulous impression of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Anyone who can successfully mediate this discussion should probably be sent immediately to the Middle East. A.J. - -- "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - --G.W.Bush Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:43:47 GMT From: tnktri@aol.com Subject: Tired of SPEED CAPPING and CENSORSHIP ? Tell the F.C.C.! Link to TIME WARNER - AOL merger case docket here!.,.,.,.,`.,.,.,.,`. .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,`.,.`,.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,.,.,.,.,.,.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,`.,.`,.,`.,`.,` 9590 The merger between AOL & Time Warner will be approved - BUT - the F.C.C. is going to require some form of open access. The question is - open access for WHOM? Will the conditions protect ONLY THE CORPORATIONS or will they also protect YOU the END USER? This is what AOL and Time Warner have to say about censorship and speed capping: IF TIME WARNER DETERMINES THAT THE SUBSCRIBER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE'S STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OR LIMITS ON BANDWIDTH UTILIZATION, TIME WARNER MAY SUSPEND SUBSCRIBER'S ACCOUNT. TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS SHALL HAVE THE SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONTENT VIOLATES THESE STANDARDS. DID YOU KNOW: These are the things that Colette Lantelme, Security Administrator of Road Runner, claims are against the Road Runner Acceptable Use Policy. 1. Posting a message on any "For Sale" message board. 2. Listing a product on any Ebay, Ubid, or similar service. (Boy, is EBAY gonna be PISSED!) 3. Announcing a job availability. 4. Replying to a job availability. 5. Mentioning that the user had tried any product and found it satisfactory - or unsatisfactory. 6. Posting a message to any "personals" board. 7. Asking a user for a date. 8. Calling attention to any commercial or non-commercial website, including personal websites provided as part of the purchase price of the service sold by Time-Warner. 9. Calling attention to any IRC chat channel. DID YOU KNOW: AOL cancelled the account of the President of the Chemically Disabled Americans - they said it was a commercial usage! The president ran it from his bedroom. As a public service. His comment expressing his outrage is contained in the F.C.C. file. Want to say that Al Gore can't be elected because he is a democrat? No problem! Want to say that Leiberman can't be elected because he is Jewish? BANNED FROM AOL! A very small effort on your part can well induce the F.C.C. to outlaw this censorship and Speed Capping, and protect YOU as well as the corporations. You have some powerful allies; Consumer's Union, Disney, and many commercial software companies. Even the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut is on YOUR side - you may read their petitions at the link below. But YOU MUST HELP! You can F.I.L.E YOUR C.O.M.M.E.N.T IN THE O.F.F.I.C.I.A.L C.A.S.E FILE! - ---> This is NOT merely a EMAIL message which will be ignored <--- Any response which you file will be an OFFICIAL document included in the F.C.C. FILINGS! It will appear in the OFFICIAL CASE FILE as a comment read by ALL THE ATTORNEYS who are participating in the action, as well as ALL THE F.C.C. C.O.M.M.I.S.S.I.O.N.E.R.S! It will remain there FOREVER as part of the O.F.F.I.C.I.A.L R.E.C.O.R.D of the AOL - Time Warner merger! With YOUR name on it! Since this internet campaign started, approximately 250 comments have been received by the F.C.C from individuals. (Some are funny as hell!) We need twice that! The FCC is on the verge of requiring the protections this letter asks for. Your letter might PUSH THEM OVER THE EDGE and make the internet a BETTER PLACE for EVERYONE, INCLUDING YOU! PLEASE - can you HELP PROTECT IRC and USENET? SEND the SAMPLE COMMENT to the F.C.C! MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO USENET AND IRC! This letter WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE if there are enough of them received by the FCC. If at least 500 letters are received, we can probably count on the FCC to take decisive action to prohibit both censorship and speed capping - and to protect the users, not merely the corporations. GET A CHAIN RESPONSE STARTED! I can do only so much. I can only post to so many newsgroups - I can't do it alone. WE ALL NEED YOUR HELP! Copy this message and post it to (at least) 3 newsgroups where it does not appear! Then, Send this message by EMAIL to (at least) 5 friends! If everyone does that, we can FLOOD THE F.C.C. with comments and THEY WILL LISTEN! The major ccorporations and the politicians are coonducting this merger on their terms, for their benefit, and giving no thought whatsoever to the users. They are all fighting over our dollars, but do they give any concern whatsoever to us? Does a fish ride a bicycle? They believe that the internet, which WE, not them, made great, is now too valuable to be left the users. Their attitude is, "let them comment, they don't count, they are not rich corporations, they are merely poor users. Will YOU let them get away with this? They can ignore 250 users. They can't ignore thousands of users. LET THE F.C.C. know that THE INTERNET DOSEN'T STAND FOR ANY BULL! Tell the F.C.C. I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE! The future of USENET and IRC depends on the FCC forcing all ISP's starting with Time Warner and AOL to recognize free speech and fair marketing practices. PLEASE HELP! TO FILE YOUR COMMENT WITH THE F.C.C: 1. Copy the letter to a file. You can put it on your letterhead with MS Word or just use a text file. You can make any change to the letter you want, or add any comment you have. CHANGES ARE GOOD! They show you READ THE LETTER and REALLY CARE! If you had a bad experience with AOL or Time Warner PUT IT IN! 2. go to: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts (This is the official FCC page where electronic filing of petitions is accomplished) 3. Fill out Cover sheet Put your name, Address, Email address, and all other required information on the form. (Remember this is an OFFICIAL FILING so the FCC requires this information. It is not published unless you put it in the letter as well as the form) Proceeding is 00 - 30 (Leave out the spaces, they are there to get by the spam filter. Put in the -) (this is VERY IMPORTANT, it is the case number of the AOL TIME WARNER APPLICATION for merger. If you get it wrong, your comment WILL NOT BE FILED!) 4. Send Cover Sheet. 5. After you send the Cover Sheet, THEN select the filename of the letter you are sending, and send that. 6. After you send the file, you will receive an official confirmation of the filing from the FCC. 7. You can TYPE a comment instead of sending this sample comment, but DON'T PASTE THE SAMPLE COMMENT into the Short Comment box - it DOESN'T FIT! Comment will appear for all to read in about 4 hours (but won't appear after business hours or on the weekend.) 8. If you want to see your letter, or read the other submissions, other letters, the AOL petition, the Disney or Consumer's Union objections, etc, here is the URL - Its long! Put in the case number, 00 - 30 (no spaces) and nothing else. https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=00-30&start=1 IF YOU LIVE N A FOREIGN COUNTRY and wish to make a comment (This is a world wide problem) the Cover Sheet will not accept your address. You can do this: Enter your real name and address including country in the address lines, but in the STATE box put CA and in the ZIP (first field) put 90001. Ignore the 2nd zip field. Ignore the 2nd form, and TYPE your SHORT COMMENT in the 3rd form. Please identify the country you live in the message. Don't use the sample letter supplied because it isn't appropriate for non-US residents. ***>Remember the FORM INFORMATION will NOT appear, only the letter. NOTE: There is NO WORD WRAPPING on the letter below, to make it easy for you to format so it may be hard to read until you copy it, depending on your news reader. SAMPLE MESSAGE - ------------cut here---------------------------------------------- To the Commissioners: The Internet is an international community. It is America's gift to the world. It is a gift that will, sooner or later, touch the life of every citizen of every country. It will likely be the greatest force for freedom the world has ever seen. Where there is freedom of speech, no other freedom can be far behind. Gentlemen, what would be your reaction if I were to suggest that you institute the following rule? IF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DETERMINES THAT THE SUBSCRIBER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE'S STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OR LIMITS ON BANDWIDTH UTILIZATION, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY SUSPEND SUBSCRIBER'S ACCOUNT. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE THE SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONTENT VIOLATES THESE STANDARDS. It is obvious that the courts would not allow you to make such a rule. If the courts did not intervene, the Congress would. And if the congress did not, there would be a major revolt among the general internet population. But you may be making exactly such a rule - not by mandating it, but by failing to prohibit it - because, of course, the hypothetical, and ridiculous, rule is merely the current standard of Time Warner. And I believe, or at least hope, that my comment is the beginning of that interet revolution. There was a time when you believed that market forces would sufficiently protect the internet; and the internet community applauded your action. If there is anything the internet community despises more than rules, it is only the loss of freedom to speak one's mind. But the internet community has recognized that there are now no market forces at work. There is only the AOL - Time Warner megalith. They, in high speed access, are the only game in town. We, the internet community, must recognize that it is only the rules we so despise that will protect our freedom. There has been much discussion that AOL and Time Warner are merely protecting their customers by institutions such restrictive regulations. Our founding fathers long ago wisely decided that the only thing worse than freedom of speech was the lack of it. Would that there were some way to outlaw only BAD speech - but experience has shown that it is impossible to keep from throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Consider this; AOL and Time Warner are aptly called gatekeepers. They have the power, now, today, to terminate my account for posting this message. And they may do just that. Both Time Warner and AOL have the sole and unreviewable right to determine whether content OF THIS COMMENT violates THEIR - not your - standards. Does a criticism of Time Warner violate their standards? Do you know? More to the point, do you CARE? Worse, they have the power to keep me from accessing the United States Government computers, including your site. Do you want them to have that power? Yes, they would NEVER do that. Today. How about tomorrow? Do you REALLY want Time Warner and AOL to control the gateway to the United States Government? If they do, ask yourself this - who will be the government, and who will be the governed? Gentlemen, there is no way to outlaw only bad speech; so you must insure that no speech is outlawed. Thank you for your attention to my comments. - ----> YOUR NAME <---- yumoxddxdejmciswlyecliliueiwcbthujowhixmkfrivcjglrwdsffqbyjgkstgdrrijlbjzmlfumjwumrgyromywicodvetk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:37:40 +0200 From: Kate Leahy Subject: Re: The Item On EBay a) Lindsay rocks the party that rocks the body. b) Something to ponder: Was anyone ever in the Girl Scouts? I remember that when I joined the Girl Scouts I had to sign a waiver saying that the Girl Scouts of America were free to use my image in their promotional materials. That means that I had to give written permission for them to use my picture to promote their organization - and they're *non-profit.* I've actually had to do this on other occassions as well, but this is the only one I can remember specifically. I can't imagine the legal trappings of *selling* someone else's likeness (for profit, really, whether that was the original intention or not) without any kind of permission at all. *shrug* c) An actual example situation! Someone a few months ago made a watch with a picture of Brian Rosenworcel from Guster on the face and put it up for sale on Ebay. He used a promotional photograph, meaning that permission had been given to circulate the image. Brian saw the watch for sale and laid the smack down immediately. What this says to me is that there are at least *some* people who don't appreciate having their likeness auctioned off. Ah well. Funny thing - there are basically no print copyright laws in Belgium. All the students here photocopy entire books for their classes. Pretty nifty :). Also, one of our main trade issues with China is their refusal to comply with American intellectual property law. You can buy copies of practically any CD on the planet on the streets of Beijing for three dollars. Makes you wonder . . . - --Kate, off to Ghent tomorrow - a city that just elected several right-wing, anti-immigration local politicians . . . yay! PS - Identify the (musical) source of my .sig quote and win a Belgian franc! - -- Kate Leahy kleahy@loyola.edu http://kleahy.scribble.nu Yeah, you might need a raincoat. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:38:16 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: The Item On EBay Kate Leahy wrote: > > a) Lindsay rocks the party that rocks the body. Yeah we all love Lindsay, who can blame us? > b) Something to ponder: > Was anyone ever in the Girl Scouts? I remember that when I joined the Girl > Scouts I had to sign a waiver saying that the Girl Scouts of America were free > to use my image in their promotional materials. Yes but that was for promotional material. Amy isn't promoting anything. She's selling a picture. There is no implied endorsement, nor is she implying anything about Murray. (Aside, perhaps from the notion that he is "hot", but that is an opinion, and a rather intangible one at that, so I think she's safe there). > c) An actual example situation! > Someone a few months ago made a watch with a picture of Brian Rosenworcel from > Guster on the face and put it up for sale on Ebay. He used a promotional > photograph, meaning that permission had been given to circulate the image. > Brian saw the watch for sale and laid the smack down immediately. What this > says to me is that there are at least *some* people who don't appreciate having > their likeness auctioned off. Yes, but again this is a very different situation. The person who made the watch used a publicity photo. It matters not that said photo was widely distributed, the person making the watch didn't have copyright on the photo and so could not use it without permission. In Amy's case, I believe she took the picture in question, so she would be the copyright holder. This gives her far more freedom of action when it comes to disposing of the picture. None of that of course addresses the issue of the legality/propriety of selling someone else's face without their permission. A.J. (who personally wouldn't SELL a portrait of someone without first getting a release from that person) P.S. Note: I am not criticizing Amy here. I really don't care one way or the other about the picture auction at the center of this whole thing. But I do think the issues surrounding it are interesting. - -- "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - --G.W.Bush Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:32:31 -0400 From: "Colleen Anne McClanahan" Subject: Re: The Item On EBay Lawrence Solomon: | SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: | | > I think she was pointing out how she got the original starting price. | | the fact that she felt the need to explain that indicates that she wasn't | totally clear on what our objection to this was - most of us would have no | problem if she simply stated "I have a photo of Murray that I got developed, | and I'd like to get rid of it, but it was rather expensive to have made," | rather than posting it on eBay, intending to *profit* from it. You know, whether we like it or not, we DO live in a capitalist society (at least, if you're reading this from the US or Canada.) It is completely Amy's right to do whatever she wants with the picture. I could see objections if this were taking money from the band, but it's not like you can buy pictures or posters of the guys. If she makes any profit, it's going to be minimal. And I think the picture's pretty decent, for a snapshot. | > I don't think she said she didn't want the picture..If she didn't want it, | > she could have sold the original. And maybe she did want to make a little | > profit. I highly doubt she's going to rake in hundreds of dollars. | | um, I would guess that she kept an original for herself anyway. the question | still remains as to why she made a duplicate. Is it any of our business? It was her roll of film. She took the picture. She can do with it what she likes. Regardless, she has an extra she doesn't want/need. And I think even if she had offered it on the newgroup first, people would have still had problems with it. | > here and there. I believe the seller is in college, correct? I'm in high | > school. I know I don't exactly always have money to toss around. (And don't | > give me a big lecture about how most working people don't either. I know.) | | *most* people, working or not, don't have money to toss around. but those | people probably shouldn't be spending $7 on pictures they don't want, either - | that is, if we're to believe that she just happened to end up with an extra | picture unintentionally. But if they do, and they want to spend the money, then that's their prerogative. Why is that an issue? I think most people on this group are aware of the vast number of pictures of Fruvous available online. If they want one of those, they'd seek them out. | > chance? Or jump down her throat? But then, I forgot, everyone else has a | > million pictures of Murray anyway. | | no, not everyone has a million pictures of Murray. my point was more to | compare costs - all my pictures of Murray and the rest of the band, however | many they are, cost me... probably about $9 total per roll of 36, from buying | the film to having it developed. | | besides, why does she have the extra picture in the first place? no one has | even come close to addressing that issue yet. Once again. Why does it matter? | > Yes, they can. Especially if they have very high resolution colour printers. | > And since I don't and also since I prefer my pictures not on normal paper, | > and prefer not to use up lots of color ink on my family computer, I don't. | > And hence, my only picture of Fruvous *not* on an album cover is the postcard | > of tour dates I got awhile back. And it's black and white. | | who cares about printing them out? the point is if you want to look at | Murray, his picture is very much available. | | and to be honest, having an 8x10 of a band member seems kind of stalker-ish, | unless you have some close personal connection to them - that is, my parents | have 8x10s of me and my brother. They don't have 8x10s of musicians they | admire. Excuse me. I have several album flats (which are about 12X12), and single covers of Tori Amos on MY wall. Yet, that doesn't make me a stalker. I've not once tried to locate her outside of a concert setting, nor have I sought out her attention otherwise. Admiration does not equal stalkerhood. And might I note that no fan of Fruvous (myself included), that follows the band as much as we tend to do, has a right to turn to anyone else and imply that they're a stalker. That's just inane. From what I've seen of Fruvous fans, they're very devoted, and wanting a symbol of what they've come to care so much about isn't unnatural. Millions of girls all over the country have N Sync posters on their wall, and I don't see anyone pointing at them and calling them stalkers (ok, although for a few of them that might just apply). | > picture and/or delete posts with this thread title. I tried to see where you | > were coming from, but basically couldn't. I wonder why that is. | | because you didn't really want to? I find this subject completely silly, but I really wanted to stand up for Amy and the fact she has the right to do whatever she wants. She's not illegally profiting from the band, nor is she hurting them in any way, shape, or form. Anyone that would bid on it is probably aware they can find pictures of Murray elsewhere. If Murray's offended, I'm sure someone out there has access to Murray, and could let him know what's for sale on Ebay, and he could contact Amy himself and express his displeasure. As for the subject of printing it out in color... let it be known that a lot of us don't have access to a high quality color printer, and that photo paper and the photo ink is prohibitively expensive, and you don't always end up with the best photos. I don't post here often. Few of you know who I am. But I felt the necessity to say something on the topic. Thanks for listening. :) Colleen Anne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:13:23 GMT From: Ellen A Handbasket Subject: Re: The Item On EBay In article <39E710F4.A152CD35@locicero.org>, "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > None of that of course addresses the issue of the legality/propriety of > selling someone else's face without their permission. exactly. whether it's for promotional materials or not, you need the model's permission before you can sell a photo of them. i photograph climbers a lot, but i can't sell the photos to any magazines etc. without getting their permission first. 99.9% of the time they'll give it gladly, because it's good exposure for them. so i could go ahead and sell a photo and prolly never get "caught." but i'd rather not piss off a potential friend, so to be on the safe side, i don't photograph anyone that i don't have a way of tracking down later should i need their permission to sell a photo. > P.S. Note: I am not criticizing Amy here. I really don't care one way > or the other about the picture auction at the center of this whole > thing. But I do think the issues surrounding it are interesting. M3 t0O0O0O, D0oD! i *am* critical of the idea of selling a photo of a band member for profit. it's nothing personal against amy, though. i doubt she realized what she was doing in terms of legality. peace, ellen ************************************************* When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:02:02 GMT From: Ellen A Handbasket Subject: Re: The Item On EBay In article , SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > And is Saturn really *giving* me something when they say they want to > *give* me an opportunity to buy a brand new car? No. They're selling > it. What they're giving is the opportunity for me to buy the car. Much > like being given the opportunity to buy a picture of Murray. which murray (the photographer's model) did not give consent to be sold by (amy was it?) for profit. saturn did give consent for its cars to be sold by its dealers for profit. >(with regard to intending to profit from the picture's sale...) > Yeah...and? Your point would be...? the legality issue, if nothing else. professional photographers have their models sign release forms that allow them to use the photos taken for whatever purpose they see fit, including their own gain. i'm willing to bet that the photographer in this case does not have murray's consent to use photos of him to make a profit. what makes this all a really pointless argument is that it's fairly likely that murray doesn't care. it's not likely he's going to sue anyone for doing this. that doesn't make it any more right, though. > Maybe she wants to make a little money. Is there something really so > wrong about that? see above. > Well, tell me of a good site where I can "sell to cover my expenses" > rather than "auction." I certainly don't know of a site like that. are you kidding? you know about Ebay but you don't know about the dozens of free classified sites on the internet?? yahoo? excite? etc? > So who cares how they got it? (Unless of course they stole it...) *cough* not far from what she did, actually. it's pretty clear that since the band allows people to photograph them at shows, they're giving consent to be photographed. but not for profit to be made off the photos. think of it this way-- the band allows taping at shows, but makes it clear that while they don't mind us making tapes for our personal use, and for limited trading, they do not want us to use them for our own profit. see? how everything's "connected?" peace, ellen p.s. and the issue of whether people are "defending murray's rights" or whatever just because it's the Almighty Fruvous is kind of laughable. duh, this is a fruvous newsgroup. go over to the Limp Bizkit newsgroup and start this same war and see what happens. ************************************************* When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:43:21 GMT From: Ellen A Handbasket Subject: Re: The Item On EBay In article <002e01c0351a$09d6d570$263091d0@maxweb.com>, "Colleen Anne McClanahan" wrote: >It is completely Amy's right to do whatever she wants with the picture. i'm sorry, but this is simply not true. pasted directly from a copyright attorney's web site: - ---- Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street. Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases. - ---- http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html this is pretty small beans in terms of "trade" or commercial use (small enough that, as i said earlier, murray probably doesn't give a shit), but there are still laws governing it. peace, ellen ************************************************* When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:47:59 -0400 From: "Colleen Anne McClanahan" Subject: Re: The Item On EBay Ellen: | In article , | SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: | | > And is Saturn really *giving* me something when they say they want to | > *give* me an opportunity to buy a brand new car? No. They're selling | > it. What they're giving is the opportunity for me to buy the car. Much | > like being given the opportunity to buy a picture of Murray. | | which murray (the photographer's model) did not give consent to be sold | by (amy was it?) for profit. saturn did give consent for its cars to be | sold by its dealers for profit. | | >(with regard to intending to profit from the picture's sale...) | > Yeah...and? Your point would be...? | | the legality issue, if nothing else. professional photographers have | their models sign release forms that allow them to use the photos taken | for whatever purpose they see fit, including their own gain. i'm willing | to bet that the photographer in this case does not have murray's consent | to use photos of him to make a profit. Yes, but Murray might be considered a "public figure", which might change things a bit. I just dug out my old Associated Press Stylebook, back from my Journalism School days. As far as the picture.. well, she could PUBLISH it without permission, since Murray seems to qualify for public figure status, meaning he intentionally puts himself in the limelight (although I find it amusing, since he's the most likely to literally step OUT of the light on stage, and just be all cool and laid back). I'm not sure the rule is the same for selling.. but.. t hinking about it. If someone takes a picture of a public figure (such as at movie opening or at an awards ceremony), and sells it to the Associated Press for publishing, that public figure doesn't see a dime (I'm pretty sure). However, there's a good possibility that Murray may NOT quality for "public figure" status. | are you kidding? you know about Ebay but you don't know about the dozens | of free classified sites on the internet?? yahoo? excite? etc? To be fair, I wouldn't have necessarily thought about a classified ad to sell the picture, and I'm relatively internet savvy. Ebay's the best known of all selling venues on the 'net. | > So who cares how they got it? (Unless of course they stole it...) | | *cough* not far from what she did, actually. it's pretty clear that | since the band allows people to photograph them at shows, they're giving | consent to be photographed. but not for profit to be made off the | photos. | | think of it this way-- the band allows taping at shows, but makes it | clear that while they don't mind us making tapes for our personal use, | and for limited trading, they do not want us to use them for our own | profit. Still.. it's pretty obvious that the profit she'd be making would be extremely marginal. But you do have a good point. :) Colleen Anne ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #413 ********************************************