Message

Gilded Serpent was asked by the producer of the event to come take pictures at the event to publish on the magazine web site.
------------------------

On the one hand, libel suits are a necessary recourse for those who believe that they have been wronged by the press. On the other hand, even the threat of a libel suit can serve as a subtle censor of the press."

The threat of libel suits can cause individuals to keep quiet about issues of public concern. Very few people have the economic resources to defend themselves after being hauled into court for defamation.

But the First Amendment protects everyone, and it is important to maintain a proper balance between libel law and the First Amendment.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=libel_defamation

efamation verdict against TV station overturned
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12131

Cameras in the Courtroom
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=cameras_courtroom

Massachusetts judge bars photos of 2 witnesses in murder trial
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11787

LOS ANGELES — A local college confiscated — then released — nearly 4,000 copies of the weekly campus newspaper over concerns that a front-page photograph might endanger a potential witness in a murder investigation.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5336&SearchString=photos

Photojournalists call for balance, compassion in news coverage
The panelists agreed that photographers must report the news, but that the line between what is news and what may be too graphic to be shown is often blurred.

"I thought it was an image that needed to be seen," said Gregory, describing his station's decision to show news footage of an American soldier being dragged through the streets in Somalia. Gregory noted that the station decided to pull the segment after viewer complaints. However, he maintained the importance of the piece.

"That image changed people's minds about our involvement in Somalia," Gregory said.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5357&SearchString=photos

A California trial judge violated the First Amendment rights of the media when he banned them from publishing photographs of criminal defendants obtained from sources outside the courtroom, an appeals court has ruled.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5656&SearchString=photos

Perhaps Parri thought her expression was sexually explicit?
A measure recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would punish individuals who post online pictures of others engaged in sexually explicit conduct without their permission.

The Personal Pictures Protection Act of 2000, House Resolution 5462, was introduced Oct. 12 by Rep. Mark Green, R.-Wis. The bill would punish anyone who "with the intent to embarrass or cause emotional distress to another person places on a computer photographs of the sexually explicit conduct of that person so that such photographs are accessible on the Internet." Offenders could face a maximum sentence of two years in prison.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=6023&SearchString=photos

Student, Arkansas school district settle lawsuit over Web site
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5715&SearchString=photos

Nevada lawmaker seeks to limit newspapers' use of photos
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=6212&SearchString=photos

Arkansas newspaper to fight contempt ruling on photos
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=7120&SearchString=photos

New York high court: Model can't collect damages over use of photo
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=10312&SearchString=photos

Hello Lynette,

Wrong! It was not a public event, the festival was a private event open to the public. Also, the picture in question is displayed on your website in this months issue that is damaging and causing me personal injury, and....etc.

If I am wrong regarding your violation of my legal rights, the lawyer will direct me not you.

Money? Oh! I am not after money. There is more to life then money.

This is my third request. Please remove the photographs you have posted of me on Gilded Serpent.com. I did not give you the permission to take these photographs and/or publish them on your website, or in any other publication. If all the photos are not take off your website, I will continue with legal advise and support.

Thank you,

Parri / Patricia Kahangi

----- Original Message -----

From: Lynette Harris

Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:37 AM

Subject: RE: commercial gain

I'm sorry you are still upset. I still like the pictures. I think you look great! We don't always have to be smiling. We will be careful in the future to never post a picture of you again. I've consulted several experts. We were invited by the sponsor to cover the event and it was open to the general public. You have previously never expressed any objection to having your pictures posted. In fact you hugged Susie and thanked her profusely for being recognised. When you are ready to talk let me know. I will be gone for the holiday and weekend. If you decide you are ready to talk you can call me on my cell phone at 415-297-4658.

Regarding below, I doubt that either of us makes any money at this.

Use for commercial gain

Finally, we come to the issue of exploiting our photograph of another person for commercial purposes. This differs from the other three categories in that it does not require the complaining party to prove that the pictures caused embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, or other emotional injury. The subject needs to prove only that the pictures were used for commercial purposes--that is, used with an expectation of bringing profit directly or indirectly. Personal use of photographs does not apply. Also excepted are photographs of public figures which are deemed to be newsworthy or informative, even if profit is derived from them. Lastly, the subject of the photograph must be identifiable. In other words, the subject must be able to prove that the likeness is, indeed, hers. If the person in the picture is unrecognizable because no face is showing, or if the photograph has captured only a generic part of the body--such as someone's back--the case becomes a "your-word-against-mine" situation.

In any case, when you use a photograph of person without a written release form, you take the chance of being embroiled in a lawsuit involving one of the above rights to privacy issues. What constitutes "use"? It's generally accepted that if the photographs are not displayed or published, but kept for the photographer’s own enjoyment or as instrumental in perfecting her craft, then a release form is not needed.