Here’s the story, and here’s a small section:
My question is, I was under the impression that the photographer owns the rights to the photos they take. Am I misinformed? Does she have a case? Does she even remember the ceremony after the whiskey? 
I want to see the picture, darnit!
This one is kind of funny…has a police report to go along with it. 
It’s from The Smoking Gun.
And it just gets better!
Blushing brides. 
Ditto. I’m sure it’s out there somewhere, but I haven’t had any luck finding it.
The law is complicated and the article doesn’t have enough info to really clarify things. We don’t know where the picture was taken or what the photographer’s professional relationship was with the bride (I get the impression from the article that it was not the official wedding photographer.)
A good rule of thumb is that you need a model release for every recognizable person in a picture if you plan on using that picture for commercial gain. The exception is editorial use (i.e. photojournalism). For news photography, someone in a public place has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the definition of “public place” may not include places you’d expect, like privately owned stores and parking lots.
In this case, I suspect the photographer is in the wrong, because even if the bride was out on the veranda emptying a bottle of Scotland’s finest in full view of everyone, the use of the photo isn’t conceivably covered under the “editorial” use exception.
Oops, forgot to add – even in photojournalism, your editor is going to get irritated if you don’t at least get the names of the people in the photo. This is mostly because it’s just good journalistic practice but partly because getting people’s names and photos helps sell papers.
I “Googled” myself out trying to find it. I went to Portal’s website and found out that some local stores are dealers. I may stop by my favorite and see if they have it. If so, I promise to scan it.
Here is the picture.
This is from the Corbis website, via a friend of mine.
I think if she signed a standard model release, she’s SOL. If she didn’t, the photographer is seriously SOL
I believe Ms. Samen even has her very own thread around here somewhere but it’s not turning up in Search.
Jesus Christ! The only thing missing from that pic was an accompanying .wav file that say BOO!
Whoopsie-puke! :eek:
Are you sure? I can’t get much off that sight and the article said she was drinking whiskey. This one appears to be drinking High Lifes and Heinies.
When I searched, I found plenty of smoking/drinking brides but they didn’t seem to be the correct one.
I tried the front page, but OMG???
I just don’t know.
And upon closer inspection…
Is she lighting a doobie??
Looks a little tapered at the end.
You GO, girl! It’s your day!
Ugh… the poor woman.
If she was embarrassed by appearing on a greeting card in an aspect in which it seems unlikely that any of her contemporary peers could possibly recognize her, she must be thrilled with the 65 online articles that identify her by name, state her location, and provide people with all the information they need to see the photo for themselves. Not to mention the print, television and radio coverage that her suit will attract.
Bitten on the ass by that persnickety Law of Unintended Consequences.
Ok, tried Corbis Corp’s site and came up with that same pic.
OMG, no wonder she’s suing!
Thanks, Zyada.
I’m going to make it my screen saver.
Geez, I’m not normally into recommending Botox but if anyone needs it, it’s this woman!
OMG. That is so funny. I wonder how she explained that to the kids? :eek:
The photographer “was on assignment for Newsweek doing a story about families in the Springfield area when he took the picture…”
Then isn’t the photo owned by Newsweek? Or the A.P.? And if the photo is being used on a card I don’t think it’ll fall under the journalist loophole.
Though I really can’t support the bride’s side of this all that strongly… Really the only thing she had to do so that photo didn’t end up being national news is not to do things that she doesn’t want photographed in a situation where there are obviously photographers present.
SCARY looking bride!
