I don’t have a dog in this fight (har!), but I just wanted to stop in and compliment Tygerbright on an extremely thoughtful, well-reasoned, and well-written post. I publish a business newsletter and wish that half of the submissions I get were as well written. Nice job, Tygerbright!
Compliments also to pulykamel and Tabby_Cat for their excellent posts.
Thank you.
Problem being, that from what I’ve researched and from what others have researched, the photographer has not done anything wrong. I thought a property release was required in these instances, and it is certainly recommended by ASMP, PPA, and other professional photo/media organizations, but there is no caselaw establishing this as fact. In America in the case of a person’s likeness, then, yes, releases are required. But for animals and other property, this does not seem to be the case, unless you have other citations suggesting otherwise.
Can you honestly say that minor detail stops her from trying? It never slowed my Husky bitch down.
I said before that IANAL. I wasn’t talking about caselaw.
I was talking about “best practice” for the photographer, and how an injured party could put pressure on someone who has done something that is not strictly ethical. AAMOF, there are regions of the country where someone who did this would be seriously risking being forced either out of business, or out of the area/region. People can get more incensed, and raise a bigger ruckus, about their animals than about their children. You were talking law; I was talking business … and human nature.
IANAL
A photographer may own the copyright to the photographs for the purposes of a portfolio, book, etc. but they do not own the rights to the likeness of the dog. Let me put it this way - I take a photo of a celeb coming out of my restaurant and use that photo to advertise my restaurant (i.e. commercial use). I argue that I am using the photo in the advertisement but the celeb argues that it is their likeness being used.
From what I saw on the tshirt, the dog’s likeness was used and not the photograph.
And? Celebrities are a special case, and there’s a whole slew of laws that deal with how you can use a celebrity’s image. In the US (and not the UK as we’ve established), there are agressive privacy laws which prevent the photographer from using pictures of people in an advertisement or on a mug or whatever.
Cats, dogs, cars, houses, and other property do not have privacy or publicity rights, so your example has really no bearing on the case at hand.
Personally, **tygerbright/b], I don’t feel the photographer has done anything unethical in this case. Like I said, as a matter of courtesy I would have at least informed the owner of my intentions and, as a matter of covering my ass, would get a property release signed. But I don’t think there’s anything “unethical” about it.
Legal considerations aside, the photographer is just a jerk if he/she doesn’t give you a free tee shirt or two.
You’re welcome. And sorry for misspelling your name, tygerbryght. :smack:
Update: I got an e mail from the photographer today, she is going to send me a free shirt.
One.
Better than none, but still…
One. :rolleyes:
One dog, one shirt.
Sounds fair to me 
Maybe you should try:
Two eyes, two shirts (thankyouverymuch).
Four legs, four shirts?
Six nipples, six shirts?
Did she apologize?
Now now, there’s no need to get all shirty…
Nope, not an apology to be had. But, I will be happy to just have a shirt of my Kharmee Girl.