New Blog - And everyone is invited

If you recall, a couple of weeks back, there was a bit of fuss when I accidentally used an Associated Press Photo that I thought was simply a Thune publicity photo.

In the midst of all of that, I think it might have been one of the other bloggers who suggested "why don't the bloggers get together to share some photos that they can use freely between each other?"

And as I sifted through a pretty good volume of photography I've done yesterday to find a photo, I thought to myself "well, why not?" So, today I'm starting the SD Blogosphere Photo Repository.

If any of the other South Dakota bloggers want to participate, I'm happy to send them an invite so they can put their photos up. In fact, I hope my inbox is flooded with requests this afternoon.

What are the ground rules that I'm setting? Only a few (and I'll post them on the website).

First, by posting each person doing so (the poster) is granting permission and license for their photos to be used electronically. The person who uses the photo (the user) must give photo credit back to the poster, with a link to their website.

Second, Permission to use the photo electronically on a blogsite is NOT license to use the photo in a printed or published format without explicit permission. If someone is going to make a buck off of my photo, at least throw me a freaking bone.

Maybe some of the attorneys out there can suggest some other protections that we probably need to institute, but that's where we can start.


Douglas said…
When I suggested that, I thought there might be some response. When there was NOTHING, I sort of stopped considering the idea. Good to see you have picked up on it. I will check what you are doing.

Perhaps some variation on the open source software rights might be useful.

Definitely Stay Tuned on This Idea.
Anonymous said…
Perhaps you should be careful about the subject of the photo and whether you are publishing their likeness without express permission.

Or -- just make a rule that if a photo subject objects to their image appearing on-line, they can request it be taken down and the bloggers will honor that request.

just a suggestion ... ... ...
Anonymous said…
Yeah, that's true. You make money off this site, so if you ever use my likeness, I am going to sue your arse off.

PERIOD. Public officials are one thing, but, snap me up again in a crowd when there isn't notice posted that my likness will be captured, THEN BLAMMO, shutting this little blog down.
Anonymous said…
oh Pat you're the best.........
PP said…
5:41, that's an interesting thought, and one I'd ask an attorney about, but I'm sure you aren't Britney Spears or someone who has their own likeness trademarked.

Even in those cases, I don't think it's so cut and dried...
Anonymous said…
5:41 sure is rude and greedy, I hope he's kidding, or is he a lawyer?
Douglas said…
some of the 'anonymous" can sure get a discussion off topic. Anyway, if you are in public you are pretty much meat for photographers. Pick your nose or scratch a nether region and you can find yourself on a newspaper cover with or without your permission.

Of course, some SD newspapers never printed a picture of George McGovern for anything unless he was picking his nose. Some printed him with rifle scope crosshairs over his head in ads.

You might not want to be a male like Rudy G. and have your picture in a dress spread all over the world either. And I suppose if you are a judge, you might not like to see a photo of you with your hand out reaching for a few thousand dollars.

And, if you are somebody molesting kids or chopping up murder victims, you might not want your picture spread all over.

Even if you are a Sunday school teacher walking to church, you might not want your photo in the paper or in a blog, but not sure there is much you can do to stop it in a free country.

I assume that if the blogger or newspaper writer has a line under your innocent photo indicating you are returning from a John Birch Society meeting or a Republican State Committee meeting and that isn't really true, then the photo might pass into some illegal problem area.

Call the editor of the Argus. He might even know what he is talking about on this issue.

Where is the Editor of the South Dakota Blogger Legal Guide And Soccer Diversions on this issue?
Anonymous said…
Hey Douglas, i got a hehe after your last line. That was a good one.
Anonymous said…
You have to be careful about selling use rights to pictures of people from whom you have no signed talent release, PP. It's a right to privacy thing.

And people in the public eye such as entertainment and political celebrities are less protected by this, not more.

Seems like you'll want to do a little more homework on this before you start selling reproduction rights to your images.

Just a heads up from someone who knows.

That being said, you do have some really fine shots. Good work.
Anonymous said…
Here's an overview of the situation regarding use rights to your pix, PP.
Boiled Owl said…
If the first sentence here is a stand-alone, we should all be careful about clicking that shutter.

22-21-4. Taking of pictures without consent as misdemeanor. No person may use a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, any other person without clothing, or any other person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Source: SL 2004, ch 151, § 1.
Anonymous said…
Public officials are fair game - that's the price they pay for being in the public.

Ordinary citizens and public or private events must be notified that their picture will be used unless there is a person can reasonably deduce that their picture will be taken.

For example, a person's who's in the background at a sporting event ought to know that sports media will cover the event, and they are not entitled to their privacy in that instance.

If, however, a person is at a funciton, like a Licoln Day Dinner, where there is no reasonable expectation that a picture will be taken, then their claim to privacy will be upheld.

No SOUP for you.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long