I can almost hear people say “Oh no, not ANOTHER copyright question” but here is goes:
If you take your camera to the beach and you take a picture of a rather attractive stranger, who owns the rights to that picture? Can you create calendars with this person’s image and otherwise sell the photo for personal gain?
I don’t know how it is outside of the United States, but here, many states recognize a person’s “right of publicity” in his or her likeness, voice, signature, etc.
So the stranger would likely be able to prevent you from publishing your calendar without permission.
Note that the stranger does not necessarily “own the rights” to that picture though. i.e. I don’t know that the stranger could lawfully demand that you turn the picture over to him so that he can publish it himself.
So, it might be the case that you have the copyright, but still cannot publish. I’m not sure
I believe that by law you can’t make money off a picture of someone without said person’s permission. I remember hearing a few years ago about a music video that showed a picture of a young Indian boy engulfed in flames (the picture was burning, not the boy). It just so happened that the boy turned on MTV for the first time ever while staying at a hotel at Disney World and saw it. Needless to say, the family wasn’t pleased and legal action ensued.
Of course, this may have only been because the subject of the picture was a child. And no doubt elected officials are exempt to the rule.
Photographers take pictures of people without their permission for profit all the time. If celebrities had legal recourse against paparazzi, don’t you think they’d take it?
My understanding is that, like libel, there are two standards involved. “Public figures” like your typical politician/movie star/model are deemed to have less protection from libel since they are by choice public figures. And while the Enquirer is allowed to publish paparazzi shots of Madonna and such against their will, they might have a tougher time doing it with Joe Blow. If the picture brought him to ridicule, he would have an excellent chance to sue profitably.
That being said, you’d have a much tougher time of it publishing a calendar even of celebrity paparazzi shots, because that would be the sole purpose of your calendar, to make money from their images.
At least in the Enquirer and their ilk, there are other articles, horoscopes, ads and other distractions.
Though I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I think that may be a fair representation of what I’ve read in various journalism publications.