I have a friend who took some photos of a popular band at their concert. He developed a poster from the photos and would like me to print some posters - a couple for him and some for him to sell at their next concert.
I have heard conflicting information on copyrights:

1. Public figures are fair game and the photographer holds the copyright on his/her shots. May sell them to newpapers, TV, gossip rags, etc.

2.Right of Publicity
The Right of Publicity makes it unlawful to use another's identity for commercial advantage without permission. A person's "identity" includes, for example, his look, voice, name, nickname, professional name, and other distinctive characteristics.

So which one would cover this?

Thank you in advance,
~Nancy~

_-----------------------------------------------------

www.PhotoArt123.com

Was he hired to take the photos? Does he have a model release signed by the band? If the concert was held in a "Public" area, or if he took them while standing in a public place, he may get away with it. If this was a private gig (in a club or private land etc) I would be very careful. :nod: If he's selling them at their next gig without their permission, he may be stepping in to another legal battle over merchandising rights.

Was he hired to take the photos? Does he have a model release signed by the band? If the concert was held in a "Public" area, or if he took them while standing in a public place, he may get away with it. If this was a private gig (in a club or private land etc) I would be very careful. :nod: If he's selling them at their next gig without their permission, he may be stepping in to another legal battle over merchandising rights.

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the reply. No he was not hired, he just took his camera to the concert, to which he paid admission. So I would think it was a private area.
~Nancy~

The photographer owns the copyright to the photo, but he may be limited in how he can use the photo. He may use it for editorially, but not commercially without a release from the band members. That would violate their right of publicity, which is one of the rights of privacy. Commercial use includes advertisement and "trade." Trade is where the person's name or likeness/image is incorporated into the product, such as Elvis' picture on coffee mugs, Brittany Spears' photo on a lunch box, etc. Mass marketing/selling of posters would likely fall into the trade category. A few "fine art" prints probably would not.

For more info, go to my blog at www.photoattorney.com and go to the Google toolbar in the bottom right hand column. Type "editorial" or "privacy" or "publicity" to see some blogs on these subjects. The blog here may be especially helpful - March 24 entry: http://www.photoattorney.com/2006_03_01_photoattorney_archive.html

Best,
Carolyn

For more info, go to my blog at www.photoattorney.com and go to the Google toolbar in the bottom right hand column. Type "editorial" or "privacy" or "publicity" to see some blogs on these subjects. The blog here may be especially helpful - March 24 entry: http://www.photoattorney.com/2006_03_01_photoattorney_archive.html

Best,
Carolyn
Thanks so much for your helpful information!
~Nancy~

www.PhotoArt123.com

Not sure if you have seen these links...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12artist.html?ref=us