Unauthorized use of photos in a book....

[Queen_of_Navarre]

Has anyone heard this?

Hey RenFair Ladies! Reposted from Ken, who reposted from Kara Mia: ATTENTION RENFAIR LADIES! Please pass this along to any ren group websites and cast members. This jerk is using photos he did not take or get permission to use in a book "Breasts of the Renaissance" to sell for profit. Many of these are cast members we know but I also recognize several performers and rennies as well. This is not acceptable and the models need to know so they can take legal action.
Breasts of the Renaissance | By Dave Wilkie & Linessa Lindsay | Category: Arts & Photography | Blurb
www.blurb.com
Book title: Breasts of the Renaissance, By: Dave Wilkie & Linessa Lindsay, Category: Arts & Photography, Book Description: Intimate portraits of the ladies of the Renaissance in rich photography ...

[raevyncait]

There's a thread posted in Books/Publications about this here: http://www.renaissancefestival.com/forums/index.php?topic=10394.0;topicseen

[Queen Bonnie]

 That is not great that the person did not bother to get permission! Most would be flattered when asked- but to just use people- not classy at all.And might get expensive!

[JP yard troll]

Ladies, I hate to tell you this cause your going to complain,but I have to make you aware, the models permission is something that isn't required by texas law. As to the copyright of any picture taken in a public or private venue the PHOTOGRAPHER owns the copyright(unless the copyright is given to the model as part of a contract) NOT the model, or owner of an item (think pics taken by olan mills,sears or walmart photographers, the companies own the copyright to those pics not you, and thats why nobody willingly copies pics from them cause it is copyright infringment). A photographer may use any image he/she owns for any and all purposes to include monetary gain. there are some very rigid exceptions to this as in the photographer obtained the photos illegally as in placed a camera in your home without consent or any public/private privy. Essentially your friend who has a father that is a lawyer doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing a thing unless he wants to spend alot of money and can convince a judge to even take the case, most judges won't touch it with a sterilized fence post a mile long, the photographer won't have to defend his pics till after your friend and her lawyer have spent better than several thousand dollars to begin preping the case for filing, and that doesn't even begin to include somekind of trial. and yes I do know from experience, I am a freelance photog for certain community papers and a couple of area nightlife magazines and its been tried.

[lys1022]

Actually, you are partially correct and partially incorrect.  The individuals probably could not make a case against him, as abhorrent as that seems (though they could probably try for a defamation angle as the sexual implications of the photographs could be seen as negative), but Scarborough Faire could take him to court and make a good case of it.  Scarborough is private property, and as such can control the use of images taken on their grounds.  They generally don't, but there is support in the law for such a position.

Just sayin'...

[JP yard troll]

Lys, the only part that they could cause a problem with is taking pics there at all, should they have a no camera rule then only authorized persons could take pics, but as they don't control cameras or pic taking they don't have a leg to stand on there either, I agree that the subject matter is as you say repulsive in its pointed nature, it could have been way more tastfully done. the private property thing doesn't hold water unless they refuse to admit all cameras because it is considered a public atended venue during the open hours(look up public domain) same as you can be given a ticket for display of power in parking lot(spinning your tires) also pictures taken from a public place even if the subject is on private property can't be infringed as long as your not trepassing

[raevyncait]

JP,
The tickets at Scarby specifically state that photography or recording may NOT be used for profit without consent from Faire. This guy was using it for profit, AND at least 2 of the "models" were minors at the time the photos were taken.  At this point, it's moot, because the book was taken down by the site, as the site's requirements included signed releases for images of other people, which he did not have.

[JP yard troll]

well raevyn, then I guess I broke the rules too since I wrote an article and sold some of the pics I took to a magazine, hmmm so sue me but I don't remember the ticket saying anything about not being able to profit from photos of the attendee's just the performers(as in copyright infringment on Scarby) however the statement on there probably won't hold water in a legal action, but oh well cause he or she will find some other outlet for the book, I'll have to recheck my ticket and my press credentials. I will say that I didn't take pics specifically of breastseses but of many things. what I was trying to get across was that the ladies who had their photo's published in the book had very little to no legal standing to complain about the photo's in the book. it protects we as photographers and reporters so that an unflattering pic used in a legitimate article or book can't be sued over just cause it looks bad. the law also doesn't distinguish minors from adults in a public setting, just in a private setting and even then it only recognizes the legal age of consent for those pics that would be considered "erotic" or "pornographic" and actually no model release is required under texas law for any of it unless it is erotic/pornographic then the only thing required is that some type of legal proof of age of consent/majority is on file. not sure how the site is policing itself or where its based at so I can't speak to that. but sure I'm gonna let it go from here, the guy may be a dirtbag and an asshat and maybe deserves his arse handed to him. but for my part its done, k??

[meauho]

This could easily be argued under section 21 of the state Penal Code.  It would make it a criminal action, and civil remedies can be sought for criminal actions.

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.  (a)
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.21.
   (b)  A person commits an offense if the person:                               
      (1)  photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
         (A)  without the other person's consent;  and                               
         (B)  with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person;  or
      (2)  knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
   (c)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.                     
   (d)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

[Bonny Pearl]

I was curious about this and tried to find the publication.  Did it dissapear?  I have not been able to find it.

[raevyncait]

I was curious about this and tried to find the publication.  Did it dissapear?  I have not been able to find it.

It was removed from the site, as it's "author" or whatever he is, failed to meet the site's requirement that he have signed releases from persons whose photographs he was publishing & selling.

[Bonny Pearl]

Well that's good.  I suppose the publication company would know best what can and can't be sent to market so to speak. 

[lys1022]

well raevyn, then I guess I broke the rules too since I wrote an article and sold some of the pics I took to a magazine, hmmm so sue me but I don't remember the ticket saying anything about not being able to profit from photos of the attendee's just the performers(as in copyright infringment on Scarby)

Actually, several of the people in the photos WERE performers. Thus why Scarby could have a say in this.

[Stalkwell]

And at least one of the subjects is married to this photographer, who happens to follows the rules.  We are not amused.  It gives all of the Renaissance Press Corps a black eye.  What's more, I'm pretty sure it will make my job harder to capture candids without grief.  Unfortunately, if you have a pig wallowing upstream from you, you get muddy too.

Stalk well... (but legally ;-)

[Queen_of_Navarre]

Stalkwell and his lovely lady have always done their photos in the highest tastes... there is no way I would compare them with the other person.