Photo legal issues

[Cindy Procious]

THIS was easy to find, once I knew what search terms to employ.

[Steven Sweeney]

This thread has split into two very distinct topics, privacy rights and sales tax. Here's my hip-shot on the former.

As has been suggested (regarding privacy rights), there is no black letter law or boilerplate language that will apply across the board. Not only is each state free to impose its own requirements (within, of course, constitutional limits), but this is an area of law that is ever developing, or perhaps

[Cindy Procious]

Steven, I would be very interested in any recent case law that you discover.

[Steven Sweeney]

Well, rats, I haven

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Cindy Procious

Steven, I would be very interested in any recent case law that you discover.

What quickly becomes apparent upon even a brief attempt to nail down this mass of gelatin is that even a survey of the law would require a small treatise. I can

[Cindy Procious]

Wow.

These cases are very illuminating. It says that the law is very mutable, and subject to interpretation as each particular judge sees fit.

The only one that surprised me was the First amendment case where it was considered parody of the judge. Since the artist wasn't a journalist, there was no editorial content to the painting of the judge in horns, so I'm surprised at that ruling.

I love your analogy of the blackjack hand. I think it's very apropos.

So no painting parade scenes, then, without first going to each person in your photo and obtaining their written authorization to use their likeness! DARN.