First, I used to work for an alt newspaper (similar to the Isthmus - in fact we ripped off the Annual Manual from them -but not as good). One day while going through the photo files I found a whole bunch of pictures a staff photographer had taken at Rochester Pride. No names on the images, but I recognized about three people in one of the pictures. I went to the E-in-C with this and explained that I didn't think it was appropriate to have stock photographs of an event like Pride, where the politics of being identified as attending can have serious personal and professional consequences. I then noted that one of the people in the photograph was not out to his family and, for reasons that aren't relevant here, genuinely felt he couldn't be. The editor told me that Pride was held in a public place and that the paper was free to take and print photographs of anyone it wished. She refused to discuss consequences.
Second, a few years ago I attended "Diva Days," an outdoors weekend for women run by REI (I hated it). Part of the registration form included a photo release - not a separate form, but rather one line crammed at the end of the usual release from liability - that would have allowed REI to use photographs of attendees for any promotional purpose at any REI branch - not just locally, but nationally. I refused to sign. The woman taking the forms said, "then you can't register." I said, "Fine. Then I want my money back, because I never would have come if I'd known you could use my face." The woman told me I was making a big deal out of nothing, and I said, sharply, "This is a women's weekend. You do not know anything about the lives of these women - you may have women here who have been assaulted, who have had to file for restraining orders, who have been stalked. If you print a photograph of someone without their knowledge and put even so much as their location in the caption, you may be putting her at risk." The registration lady called over the coordinator; I rehashed all that, and the coordinator said I could register, but that it was MY responsibility to stay out of everyone's photographs.
Both these situations made me ill to think that any organization believes it has a "right" to use a picture of someone for their own purposes.
no subject
First, I used to work for an alt newspaper (similar to the Isthmus - in fact we ripped off the Annual Manual from them -but not as good). One day while going through the photo files I found a whole bunch of pictures a staff photographer had taken at Rochester Pride. No names on the images, but I recognized about three people in one of the pictures. I went to the E-in-C with this and explained that I didn't think it was appropriate to have stock photographs of an event like Pride, where the politics of being identified as attending can have serious personal and professional consequences. I then noted that one of the people in the photograph was not out to his family and, for reasons that aren't relevant here, genuinely felt he couldn't be. The editor told me that Pride was held in a public place and that the paper was free to take and print photographs of anyone it wished. She refused to discuss consequences.
Second, a few years ago I attended "Diva Days," an outdoors weekend for women run by REI (I hated it). Part of the registration form included a photo release - not a separate form, but rather one line crammed at the end of the usual release from liability - that would have allowed REI to use photographs of attendees for any promotional purpose at any REI branch - not just locally, but nationally. I refused to sign. The woman taking the forms said, "then you can't register." I said, "Fine. Then I want my money back, because I never would have come if I'd known you could use my face." The woman told me I was making a big deal out of nothing, and I said, sharply, "This is a women's weekend. You do not know anything about the lives of these women - you may have women here who have been assaulted, who have had to file for restraining orders, who have been stalked. If you print a photograph of someone without their knowledge and put even so much as their location in the caption, you may be putting her at risk." The registration lady called over the coordinator; I rehashed all that, and the coordinator said I could register, but that it was MY responsibility to stay out of everyone's photographs.
Both these situations made me ill to think that any organization believes it has a "right" to use a picture of someone for their own purposes.