BloodSquirrel said:
Therumancer said:
I do not know the state laws there about taking people's pictures in public places, or publically open private places. In most states the protection of artists (public photography being artwork) limits the options of people who are photographed, even if someone makes money off of the pictures. Of course laws are slowly changing in some places given various incidents in the ongoing battles between celebrities and pararazzi
Fair use laws allow for limited use of images for the purposes of news, reference, reviews, or parody. Public figures (ie, the president) are basically fair game.
Outside of that, using somebody's image or likeness for profit without their consent is illegal. That's why you have to pay an athlete to put his image on your cereal box. If the girl didn't sign a wavier, she's clearly in the right.
I do not think you are correct about that. Paprarazzi take photos of celebrity for profit without their consent, and the fact that none of the celebrities can do anything about it (and are even being stalked in many cases) is part of the issue.
I believe the nature of the venue has a lot to do with it also, a professional athlete or celebrity performing is typically covered under a contract to the ticket holders. The venues they perform in are also "closed" private property as opposed to "open" private property as you can only enter with an invitation/ticket and by agreeing to the policies set by the performers and venue owner. This is why a lot of places these guys perform have rules against photography, recording, etc... If you show up with a picture of a show and try and sell it, you can get in trouble since you either got it in violation of the policies, or by tresspassing.
It also comes down to a matter of what you say about the person. Simply showing a picture of someone as they were on public property is one thing. Claiming that they said or did something other than what is in that picture is quite another. You cannot for example snap a picture of a celebrity at a grocery store, tack it on your product, and then claim that they said positive things about your product or use it. The guys being paid for their image are typically being paid for more than that, they are being paid for an endorsement which goes further than just the pictures. This is also incidently why when a celebrity does something messed up, a lot of their sponsors pull out since they no longer want to be associated with that guy talking about their product or service.
In this case, she was in a privatly owned public area with no policies preventing photography. What's more she apparently posed for the photo. The game itself puts no words into her mouth at all, all it does is claim that The Situation thinks she's unattractive.
I can see where it's a touchy subject, but as things stand now I don't think it's illegal. What's more even if the laws were to be changed to deal with things like this, he's likely to be just fine since the law can't be applied retroactively.
