Comment

Comment by Julija Sukys on August 31, 2011 at 11:31pm

Please come by to read my review of Andrew Westoll's excellent The Chimps of Fauna Sanctuary. The book is an expertly written biography of recovering research chimpanzees. http://julijasukys.com/

Comment by Nancy Mueller on August 31, 2011 at 3:50pm

How about a visit to one of Ecuador's historic haciendas?

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/blogs/wanderboomer/2011/08/31/who-...

Comment by Nancy Mueller on August 27, 2011 at 2:56pm

Please join me in Otavalo at Ecuador's most famous outdoor market:

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/blogs/wanderboomer

Comment by Cheryl Merrill on August 26, 2011 at 9:22am

Yep, lots of shades of gray.  My inclination is:  "When in doubt, ask."  Always worth the effort.  (And most of the time permissions are given quickly.)  In newspapers, when someone is identified in a photograph, a legal document has usually been signed.  Old photos, with you in them, are yours.  But the 5x7 I would identify as "given to the author by . . ."  If this essay/book is to be published, trust me, someone will be asking you the very questions you ask yourself.

Comment by Lucille Joyner on August 26, 2011 at 8:20am

What if the person and I have our picture taken together prior to fame with MY camera? Isn't it MY picture to do with what I please? Famous people aren't necessarily always famous, so do the copyright laws hold prior to fame? 

Also, when the famous person gives you a large portrait, doesn't that make it YOURS? If not, then giving is not giving, only lending. Is there a new legal definition of Giving?

I know . . . it's safer to get permisson from the estate, but there have to be limitations when a person voluntarily enters a picture with you, or voluntarily hands you a 5X7 portrait. If I don't have a legal right to what's mine and what's given me, is it really mine?

In that case, does anyone really HAVE anything?

Comment by Cheryl Merrill on August 26, 2011 at 7:54am

Here's my take on summarization of emails, letters, and actual quotes: in this litigious world, let the person know and get their permission in writing.  If they don't want to give it to you - now there's something to write about, too!  And most photographs of people require permission, too, if you can make a reasonable attempt to get it.  If the person is in a public place being mobbed by photographers, that's usually acceptable not to have permission.  You can see all the shades of gray that arise in different situations.  That's why I take photographs of animals.  So much easier!

Comment by Sue William Silverman on August 26, 2011 at 7:14am

Oh, wait, sorry: I still have another question: it's my understanding, however, that one can (more or less) summarize the contents of a letter without permission. Is that true? (Kind of how one can summarize the lyrics of a song without getting permission -- at least that's my understanding.) Sorry for all these questions! And thanks!

Comment by Sue William Silverman on August 26, 2011 at 6:55am

One other question: I assume that e-mails (from "famous people" or even "ordinary people") would fall in the same category as letters, in that one would likewise need permission from the writer or author of the email in order to be quoted or reprinted, say, in a memoir? Thanks!!

Comment by Lucille Joyner on August 25, 2011 at 12:43pm

Thank you very much, Lynne for your valuable input. We are here to help each other and you have done just that.  Lucille

Comment by Lynne Barrett on August 25, 2011 at 12:24pm

I think that as long as the famous person knew the pictures were being taken, no problem.  And without permission seems to be no problem, either--the tabloids publish them all the time. You own them and can do what you like with them.

  Letters are writing, and writing has a lot of copyright protection.

You can sell a letter from a famous person, as an OBJECT: the recipient owns the physical letter (the link I sent talks about this).  Can be sold to a museum or to a collector.  You just can't publish the text of it without permission.  (Of course there's a time limit to this--a two hundred year old letter would be fine. But if it's within the last 90 or so years you need to go to the estate.  If there's no estate (or agency for this person), there's no one to sue you.  But there are estates/agencies for famous people, to protect their copyrights (and make money from them).  Some will give permission for a brief quote (sentence or two) in a noncommercial work (like a scholarly work) but that doesn't sound like what you have in mind.  You would have to find out who represents the estate's literary interests and see what their attitude is.  They might give permission if the project you are doing appeals to them.

 

Good luck!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• …
• 86
• Next ›
• Page