I got someone's autograph and the newspaper took a picture of the person using MY pen and MY notebook to sign the autograph while he was signing it. I feel I should get some money the newspaper is making if they sold a picture of MY pen and MY notebook. Why is the newspaper allowed to do this? They are making money off of ME and not giving me any of the money. What is the law about this?
2007-11-13 05:33:30 · 9 answers · asked by ♥Me♥ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They are not selling your belongings, they are selling an image of your belongings. Whatever value your notebook and pen have has not been reduced in any way. Assuming your picture was taken in public, they do not need your permission to publish it.
2007-11-13 05:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law allows this. If you were getting an autograph (pen ownership and notebook irrelevant) then the event was newsworthy. As such taking pictures is completely protected and a model release is not required.
2007-11-13 05:39:09 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do not have a leg to stand on. Did you lend this notebook and pen with the expectation of a monetary return? You would have had to have had a verbal agreement from the borrower - with witnesses. You'd have to file with small claims and prove all this. You risk tarnishing your reputation for charitably, and common decency. All other respondents are correct - a picture of "your stuff" in public is all in fair play.
In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without ineive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
2007-11-13 06:05:20 · answer #3 · answered by jana_westover 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are out in public view anyone can take your picture and use it non-commercially, as in a public interest format such as a newspaper.
You could always get an agent and an entourage for MY pen and MY notebook and then rough up the paparazzi that dare take MY pen and MY notebook's pictures.
For crying out loud get a life.
2007-11-13 05:47:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! you were reading my mind. superstars today have no personality. wwe has as tight grip on everything as you said. John cena even jeff gets some freedom because vince knows that they bring in the $$. But what happens when fans get bored of john again and have a major craving for something new, vince is stuck trying to get his creative team to work there @sses off to come up with new ideas and storylines. Of course we will rebel until were satisfied and he loses money. What I'm saying is only a certain few have creative freedom because vince can trust them to bring in money, he knows what they do and what they say is appealing to audiences and is making him rich so he'll keep giving them more freedom and less to other wrestlers. I have a feeling soon that wrestling fans are going to rebel over old storylines and boring personality on wrestlers and wwe will be stuck with no clue what to do.
2016-04-03 22:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice try, however royalties can only be collected when they are using your image, copy-written material, or if the image or likeness is established to be owned by you.
They are no making money off your pen and notebook, they are making money off the newsworthy event. You have no claim. They did not use your likeness without consent, nor did they use any of your copy-written material.
2007-11-13 05:54:29 · answer #6 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yahoo sells advertising and your icon is visible.
But really come on it was a picture of your pen?pad?
Anyway if in public news can take pictures of anyone or thing photo or video. They make money of adverts and owe you no money.Funny story though. Hope you conceal your pens in the future.
2007-11-13 05:48:41 · answer #7 · answered by יונתן 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it was in a public place where you have no expectation of privacy.
You also, under the facts presented, you have no copyright or trademark isues as again, the newspaper is (or anyone for that matter) is free to photograph public events where an expectation of privacy does not exist.
2007-11-13 05:42:00 · answer #8 · answered by hexeliebe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You only have legal rights if you are either a minor or the company used audio (your voice). If neither applies, then you do not have legal grounds.
2007-11-13 05:38:42 · answer #9 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋