|
|
|
|
verticallaw
Jun 14, 2002, 6:23 PM
Post #1 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2002
Posts: 552
|
I thought of this while I was out taking pictures recently. I was taking shots of my team when I notice a very gracefull climber doing laps on a route. I got some exellent photo's of him and when he finished up I went and talked to him. I told him that I had some great pic's of him and offered to send him the doubles. He thought that was great but informed me that he was a sponsered climber and that I couldn't publish any of the shots. Sounded fair enough, he told me his name which I immediatley recognized. ( name is purposely ommitted as per agreement with him) this guy was doing laps on a overhang 5.14d!!!!! Gracefully!!!!! The question that I am putting out there is unless I spoke with him I never would have known that he was who he was or that he was sponsored. If I had of published those shots I could have gotten in serious "whoha", so how do we know if we can use what we shoot. The guy looked like every other normal climber and he made the 5.14 look like a 5.8 the only reson I know what the rating was is from him and confimation with the guide book. So what are the ethics for this, what about liability?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
climbinscared
Jun 14, 2002, 6:39 PM
Post #2 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2001
Posts: 49
|
A little letter saying that they consent to you to have use of the print for publication will always helps in getting your photos in the mags.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
zee
Jun 14, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #3 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 35
|
As a journalist I can tell you that if you take a picture of someone climbing you may publish it with or without permission on the condition that A) it does not defame or falsely portray them B) it is not for commercial purposes (use in an advertisement or product endoresment). Otherwise you can post your picture your artistic property any way that you see fit. And if someone has a problem with that they can take it up with the supreme court.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 14, 2002, 6:46 PM
Post #4 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
If you ever have plans to publish photos anywhere for profit or not, it's not hard to type up a small form asking for consent for whatever purposes you need, as well as any information they want to add to get a hold of the pictures. It's not a massive leagal document or anything, just here's how I might use the picture, please write your name, mail, e-mail, and sign. It sounds a little anal, but it takes nothing to put this in your camera bag with a pen, and you can always not use it later if you don't feel like it, but if you thin that you have a really great shot that you'd like to publish, you'll be able to contact the climber if you need to.
[ This Message was edited by: kriso9tails on 2002-06-14 12:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Jun 14, 2002, 6:49 PM
Post #5 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
you need a model release for any picture where an individual is identifiable: a group shot of a crowd is considered public domain so no model release is required. Basically, any time you use someone's image for a commercial (ie: you're getting paid & their image is being used to sell a product or service) application they need to be renumerated in some fashion and you need their express written consent to use their image, otherwise you'll be looking at legal problems. If you want to submit the shot to RC.com where there is no commercial value to the image, it's up to you since you don't need a model release because it's non-commercial. If the climber specifically requests that you don't use their image then it's best to respect their wishes. I usually try to talk to people before I start shooting and explain to them what I may want to use the images for, that way I don't waste my time shooting pictures that I can't use later on.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Jun 14, 2002, 6:57 PM
Post #6 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Am I going to be the first to call BS on this one? First of all I doubt somebody was doing laps on a 5.14d. Considering there are only a small number of people on this earth that can do one lap on a 5.14d. Secondly, since you are from Canada I am assuming that this incident took place in canada and I believe the hardest route in Canada is Sonnie Trotters 5.14b.
And finally assuming this did happen, why would the "sponsored" climber not want their picture taken. That is what they do. They pray every night that their image will land in the pages of Rock and Ice or climbing or some catalog (just make sure the 5.10 and Prana logos come out crystal clear) because then they get paid. You can take their pictures anytime you want but if you get paid for those pictures they get a cut.
I don't mean to flame verticallaw, but he has previously posted BS hypothetical situations hoping to get a rise out of people. Find the thread titled "Can't we all get along?"
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jun 14, 2002, 7:02 PM
Post #7 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Everything the others said above is right on. You don't need permission to use the photos for your own artistic and non commercial endeavors.
However, I wonder......although you personally wouldn't make a profit by posting them on RC.com, isn't RC.com technically a commercial site in that commercial ads would exist on the same page with your photograph. Right?
How does this work with the tabloids?(Those papers you see at the grocery store) Certainly those celebrities didn't grant permission and the photos are being published to generate reader circulation and ad dollars.
[ This Message was edited by: dsafanda on 2002-06-14 12:08 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jun 14, 2002, 7:10 PM
Post #8 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Just saw wigglestick's comment.
Verticallaw,
there's no reason why you can't tell us the name of the 14d and the guidebook that you confirmed it with is there? It would make the story more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 14, 2002, 7:17 PM
Post #9 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Regardless of the laws, you don't have the right to asociate MY image with any organization. I mean what if the image was posted on a non-profit fan based George Bush site? I don't know if that's illegal, but that person has no right to falsely represent me that way.
You can't post someone's picture on this site without their permission, because maybe they have fundamental concerns or ethical issues with the site, that your picture will compramise.
PS. Canada is right next to the US you know . We do climb there often enough.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jun 14, 2002, 7:17 PM
Post #10 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
If a judge rules that your shots are editorial or artistic in nature, you can be a jerk and use them whether he likes it or not. No one got consent forms from Manuel Noriega or OJ Simpson for their front-page shots. That is under US law; it *may* be different in Canada, but it would be remarkable if taking pictures of someone in a public place was made illegal. I am not a lawyer -- if you want definitive advice, you'll have to pay for a good lawyer in your jurisdiction to advise you on this.
It's not a real cool thing to do, however, and you ought to keep them for personal use and nothing else. The guy is a person and like you or me, he may not want to do something that would jeopardize his career. I doubt strongly that he'd be running laps on a consensus .14d, but that's beside the point. And, again under US law (and again, you'd have to retain a Real Lawyer to confirm this), if the guy has granted all promotional rights of his likeness to a sponsor, they can sue your ass into the ground if you turn around and sell his image to a competitor.
The above is simply a reading of the laws that apply to ME, geared towards MY typical usage of photographs. (btw jmlangford -- Heinz Zak *can* probably sue your ass, but what my PM meant was, it's damn unlikely since jgill granted you permission and you're not making money off the shot, so he wouldn't get much for damages if he did sue) You need to consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction for a legal opinion on this.
Personally I'd keep the pics, maybe put them on my website or something, but if dude asked for them to be taken down, I would. YMMV.
--tim
|
|
|
|
|
mauta
Jun 14, 2002, 7:19 PM
Post #11 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 177
|
Do we have any climber-lawyer among us??
WE CERTAINLY MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE !
Lets wait to listen to his/her opinion.
Meanwhile, i want to give my point of view.
I guess i am probably wrong, given all the opinions expressed up to now, but i have allways thought that if you are in a PUBLIC PLACE (and a crag is a public place...), everyone can take a picture of you and do what he wants with it without asking for your agreement (unless, i beleive, the picture is being used to damage your image on purpose, or to take some economic profit).
Just the opinion of an ignorant in what respect to laws.....
JUAN
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Jun 14, 2002, 7:52 PM
Post #12 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
As far as RC.COM is concerned, there is whole assload of fine print you have to read and agree to before posting photos. Part of which is turning over right of usage of the photos to rc.com for any purpose they want including, I think, use in promotion for the site or other commercial related uses. I'd imagine this is why they specifically tell you to get permission from the photographer and climber before posting the photos.
For most of us this is no big deal, however, professional climbers (and photographers)are dependent on exposure in mags and catalogs etc.. I doubt they would like rc.com scoring a free photo of them while all the catalogs and mags are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for them. (Even if the photographer gets the cash and the climber only gets a chalk bag or a pair of shoes) Basically, you should know the medium where the pic is going to end up and make sure you're not stepping on anyones toes.
DISCLAIMER: I AM FROM AMERICA AND I AM NOT A LAWYER (basically, I'm talking out my ass and you can take it for what it is worth)
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 14, 2002, 7:53 PM
Post #13 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
So long as I'm in a public place then people should be able to take my picture (and by law they can I guess), because I was there to do whatever I was doing in the shot in public viewing, so why can that be not recorded on film. So long as it isn't used to portray any falsehood.
If it's for personal use or in a portfolio or whatever, then I don't care. If it is published in a newspaper, so long as the story and the picture are both true when put together, then what's the problem. I mean I should have a certain right to privacy in public that my picture isn't smeared up everywhere, but if everyone of the people who saw that picture could have seen me doing whatever it was that I was doing in public, then there's no real problem. It's still rude without permission. Perhaps that person in the news paper didn't want the attention that photo could draw. So long as the picture does not misrepresent me then I do not care.
I just hate the mentality of the few out there who think that just because it isn't illegal, they should abuse the privlage. I don't have to say please and thankyou by law, but it's still polite, and appreciated. Laws are meant to keep society in order, not to dictate good scocial conduct or even humanity for that sake.
[ This Message was edited by: kriso9tails on 2002-06-14 12:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
theamish
Jun 14, 2002, 8:04 PM
Post #14 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2002
Posts: 144
|
Good call Matt. It sounds like Mike is taking advantage of the fine people on this site for another one of his BS projects. By the way when you all realize this is another of his psychology projects if you rate him low he will, in turn, rate you the same. Hmmm surely this says a lot about someones psychological profile.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jun 14, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #15 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I must admit I'm now much more curious about the name and location of this 14d.
|
|
|
|
|
topher
Jun 14, 2002, 8:30 PM
Post #16 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 477
|
Both at horn lake and crest creek there are 5.14d they are new routes so i dont think many people will have heard of them. just because you havent heard of it donesnt mean it isnt out there.
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Jun 14, 2002, 8:44 PM
Post #17 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
"Hey dude don't tell anyone you saw me out here climbing this 14D. OK? I REALLY don't want anyone to know I climb 5.14. And don't send it in to Hotflashes either because that would ruin my life."
Something to do with the witness protection program maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
toobigtoclimb
Jun 14, 2002, 9:20 PM
Post #18 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 426
|
I think the only real ethics in climbing photos is to NOT get the dreaded ass shot. Everything else is fair game.
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Jun 14, 2002, 9:36 PM
Post #19 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
A similar situation happened to me and I didn't know what the law said about using photos. All that happended was a guy asked if we minded if he took our pictures climbing. We didn't really want him to, but he seemed alright and was kind enough to ask, so we let him.
We thought the photos were just for his own collection, but right before he left he mentioned something about using them on the web and stuff. WHAT!!!! We couldn't believe it, none of us wanted our photos published. More importantly we didn't want the location of the place published because the ecosystem at that particular site couldn't handle a lot of traffic without being heavily impacted.
After telling him this, we reached an agreement. But what if he didn't care about what we wanted??? Could he still have used the photos for non-commercial use without our permission? From the other posts it looks like he can.
Regardless of what the law tells us we can or can't do, in the end we should repect peoples wishes. Please don't take or publish other people's pictures if they don't want you to.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 15, 2002, 1:00 AM
Post #20 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Exactly my point wetrocks... good on ya .
Quote:I think the only real ethics in climbing photos is to NOT get the dreaded ass shot. However the butt shot is the entire point of Mississippi Moon (which you should no longer be climbing ) in the Red River Gorge.
|
|
|
|
|
blacksamba
Jun 15, 2002, 1:39 AM
Post #21 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 128
|
I was taking pictures of some friends in Hell Cave in American Fork and Timmy Fairfield was working the coveted and then unclimbed "I Scream" .14c I took a meter reading off of him because the route was parrallel to the one my friend was working and I wanted to set my shot up. When he came down he politely asked me if I had taken any pictures, and if I had whether I intended to publish them. He was very nice and explained that his sponsorship depended on having photos with his sponsors gear etc in the photo and he happened to be wearing another manufacturers shirt.
I told him what I was doing and we got along just fine.
ben
|
|
|
|
|
verticallaw
Jun 17, 2002, 11:10 PM
Post #22 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2002
Posts: 552
|
The 5.14 is in the horne lake anphatheatere, on vancouver island, Britsh colombia Canada.( I will get the route name as soon as I can)it was published in a 1999 edition of "Climbing magazine", anyone who has climbed there will agree that the routes are killer with major overhang. I agree that yes wiglestick I did bs ( or creativley indulge) on the can't we all just get along. But I hold this picture in my hand and wonder. I have onother picture at the deveolopers trying to "Silloute" the climber in question. As for the doing of lapps.... we where there and climbing ( a party of 5) for about 5.5 hours, we all did about 4 or 5 routes. He however was there when we araived and logged moe climbs than I could, he worked the route in question 3-4 times in a row. He claimed that he was form Vancouver and other than his name that is all that I know. I will however post the route in question as soon as I get ahold of the book.
[ This Message was edited by: verticallaw on 2002-06-17 16:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
verticallaw
Jun 17, 2002, 11:27 PM
Post #23 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2002
Posts: 552
|
P.S. he never gave a reason why he did not want to have the pic's published and I never asked. But i do know that there are a lot of people out there that DO NOT WANT THE PUBLICITY!! Think about it.... look how much attention Jhon Gill got just loggin onto a F**King website. I personally would like to be able to go to a crag and climb while knowing that i wont be hasseled by people. Who knows the guy may not be sponcered and just climbs really really good and does not want to be bothered. Publicity is not everything, usually it's just a pain in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
verticallaw
Jun 18, 2002, 8:47 PM
Post #24 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2002
Posts: 552
|
and the verdict is in "dinasoaur Highway 5.14" is in fact located in the horne lake anphatheater which is made of limestone with beautifully hidden holds. The route was named as there is apperantly a hold on the route that consists of part limestone and part fossil. so for all thos who doubt me and belive that I'm full of Sh*t I have one thing to say..........
I have the beta on this beautifull spot wich has been labeled in "climbing" magazine as "a world class crag with several 5.11-5.15+ routes yet to be established" unfortunatly the access to this amazing location is on logging land and they are quite tesy about climbers. We enjoy this crag as much as possible and don't want that to end! if you would like to visit this wonderland of fun either find the beta yourself or PM me (and ask nicely)
Cheers all
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Jun 19, 2002, 3:19 PM
Post #25 of 36
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
anyone in the public domain is fair game for photographers for editorial/artistic work but there is still the issue of defamation of character to be considered: if you take a picture of someone in Times Square and then put it in a newspaper with a headline like "Aids Victims Unite" and this person was just out shopping at Macy's or something then you're in for a bit of trouble by creating a false association between that person and a political/religious/social cause that they may have no relation to whatsoever. It also makes a big difference if it's an individual or group shot. Any commercial work requires a model release, period so that there is no confusion as to who owns the rights to reproduction/use. As far as this site goes, without securing releases it wouldn't be a great idea for the owners of the site to use any images for advertising without first confirming the existence of a release despite the caveats in the fine print on the submissions page. When it comes to law suits over photos they target everyone involved. I like to talk to anyone I'm shooting and get verbal consent for website images (my own plus RC.com) and for any commercial images I'd definitely have a model release. Ciao,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
