Is he liable?

[wanda_whitehead]

A photographer took pictures in the 1970s of some cousins and family friends of mine. When he took the photos he stated they were for his own collection. The problem is these pictures were "Hardluck Applachia" style. In the past 15 years or so he has published books of and displayed these pictures in shows all over the country. My cousins NEVER signed any release agreements period. Some of the participants were just small children at the time.

What would his liability be? What should they do? Any advice?

I will not name the photographer but will say he was born and raised in the area he took the photos but now lives elsewhere and it is a good thing too because he has POd a lot of people.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by wanda_whitehead

A photographer took pictures in the 1970s of some cousins and family friends of mine. When he took the photos he stated they were for his own collection. The problem is these pictures were "Hardluck Applachia" style. In the past 15 years or so he has published books of and displayed these pictures in shows all over the country. My cousins NEVER signed any release agreements period. Some of the participants were just small children at the time.

What would his liability be? What should they do? Any advice?

I will not name the photographer but will say he was born and raised in the area he took the photos but now lives elsewhere and it is a good thing too because he has POd a lot of people.

None of that is commercial use. He doesn't need releases.

[LeeR]

I would talk to an attorney. Keep in mind, the ciritical issure here is not taking the pictures, but publishing them. It is the publisher, therefore, that is on the hook for publishing these images without proper permission. You could talk talk directly to the publisher, but you are much more likely to get a positive response if you let an attorney handle this.

[dakwegmo]

An attorney would be the best resource to find out an appropriate course of action. That said, books and gallery shows are not considered commercial use, so the images he shot can be used without a model release. The photographer could face liability if the images were shot in private settings, but I'm pretty sure the statue of limitations for trespassing is going to be much less than 30 years. I don't think there's much your family can do, legally he's in the right. Although, I'd have to question his ethics.

[gturner]

Is someone trying to block the use of a redundant image or screw some cash out a the guy 30 years after the fact?
If there was a story to tell and he took the photo's, then he doesn't owe anyone anything in my understanding.
Every travel photographer or photojournalist would have a problem if that was not the case.

Excuse my frankness, but it all sounds odd to me.

[candleman]

Originally Posted by wanda_whitehead

A photographer took pictures in the 1970s of some cousins and family friends of mine. When he took the photos he stated they were for his own collection. The problem is these pictures were "Hardluck Applachia" style. In the past 15 years or so he has published books of and displayed these pictures in shows all over the country. My cousins NEVER signed any release agreements period. Some of the participants were just small children at the time.

What would his liability be? What should they do? Any advice?

I will not name the photographer but will say he was born and raised in the area he took the photos but now lives elsewhere and it is a good thing too because he has POd a lot of people.

sounds silly to me.. but if you want to waste your life arguing with people about stuff from 30 years ago.. cool beans for you.

if he's been doing it for that long, chances are he knows his rights and has been through the proper process with publishers to make sure they wont be sued.

BUT, as above, if you really feel the need to wase money on Court Systems ....good luck with that.

[Jim Poor]

I will not name the photographer . . .

Then don't even bother with the thread then. Really.

[Jim Poor]

I will not name the photographer . . .

Then don't even bother with the thread. Really.

[TheDarkReaver]

All seems ok to me. He stated they were for his own collection and that's where they appear to be. After all, collections aren't just pictures in a box, you can display collections and publish them.

Also, as others have stated, it's not commercial use.

[tuxcomputers]

Originally Posted by wanda_whitehead

What would his liability be? What should they do? Any advice?

1. For what? Publishing photos that he owns the copyright to?
2. Cry into their milk.
3. Get over it.

Any competent lawyer will tell you that you have no case. There is no difference if the photos were taken 30 years ago or yesterday. He owns the copyright he is allowed to publish them.

I think you (and others) are confused about the term "commercial use" of the photos. The only time a release is needed is when the image is used to promote a product or service. It does not means "Of or relating to commerce"

Look it up, here I will start you off:
Google