~~ ANALIZA SPREADS THE LOVE ~~
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, analizaamis@REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS
> From: analizaamis@REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS
> Subject: Re: Dear Analiza
> To: alcogoodwin@REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS
> Date: Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 9:09 PM
> I want you to remove all my photes
> from your blogsite immediately if you don't I will take
> legal action for this...and don't send me an email
> anymore...just remove it....
Dear Analiza,
Thank you for your lovely email, it is always wonderful to hear from former friends who blame the world for their errors.
Sorry to see you still seem to be living in a world of bitterness and unhappiness - threats like this certainly to not aid in developing close friendships. I feel your pain in this regard, I have discarded bitterness and hatred, indeed most of the Filipino community here in the process, and have found a far happier plane of existence.
Anyway, like your husband who seemed to be confused about the law when you tried to have your poor daughter removed from the country for daring to run away in fear (LEGALLY CONFIRMABLE WITH WITNESSES FROM MANY AREAS), you too seem to be confused about the law, in this instance when it comes to photography.
Please allow me to enlighten you regarding photographic copyrite, usage of peoples photos for editorial purposes and not for financial gain.
You will note that this is a free editorial website and does not make 1c in return.
That being said, I would be more than happy to remove your photos if asked in a civil way and not being threatened and harrassed, as is usually the way for select members of my former community.
If you still wish to take legal action I shall be more than happy to go and state the law - even more happier to bring up anything else of interest, like, HYPOTHETICALLY, breach of immigration conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTOGRAPHY RULES AND NET USAGE
Images of People
The most common problem you will run into is a photo with people in it. If you are using their images for editorial purposes, it's usually okay to use them without permission.If you are using photos with people in them for advertising, you need their permission. People have a right to profit, and exclude someone else from profiting on their photograph or likeness. This right continues after their death and is given to their heirs.
Here's an example to illustrate the difference between editorial use and advertising use. If you had pictures inside a book illustrating people skiing, you would probably not need their permission. If you put that same picture on the cover of the book, you probably should get their permission.
There are areas of legal exposure to also be aware of, regardless of the editorial or advertising use of the photo.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its me again. Sorry.
The last bit may be of interest The areas of legal exposure would include no photography of nudity or similarly, possibly offensive behaviour.
I am unsure what crime I have suposedly commited to warrent legal action.
* Photos were all taken with the consent of the person in question.
* Person knew about said photos last year and now threathens legal action.
* Photos do not include nudity or anything offensive.
If it comes to content, then lets look at the following piece from a solicitor and photographer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent for photographs always required?
As you can gather from the Kidman example above — not in Australia.
Aside from commercial use or Summary Offences issues, consent for photography is not required in this country. It is purely a question of etiquette and taste. As pointed out in the August 2005 Federal Attorney General's Discussion Paper "Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet And Ancillary Privacy Issues", (as quoted on the <anlysphere.com> website):
[…] for any society to function in a relatively free and open manner, there could not realistically be a requirement for all photographs to be taken with consent. If there were such restrictions, candid shots could never be taken, and the media would be severely constrained in the images they show us. Freedom of expression and artistic expression would undoubtedly be adversely affected ... while there may be legitimate circumstances when recording images should be restricted, it would not be practical or desirable to obtain consent from every person all of the time, for example, for use in television news file footage.
In Nov 2005 this view was supported by the NSW Commissioner for Children:
Even the NSW Commissioner for Children, Gill Calvert, agrees that a ban on photography without permission would be overkill. The commission has written to the Government, saying that for any society to function in a "free and open manner", there cannot be a legal requirement for consent to being snapped.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You had their permission to take the pictures at the time you took them, and they allowed you to have them. That is obvious by their response. So you are covered there.
They belong to you. They can ask you to delete them, but they cannot demand it.
Use your judgment about this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------They belong to you. They can ask you to delete them, but they cannot demand it.
Use your judgment about this.
Anyway regardless of the fact I have not commited any offence, I do agree to comply to the request to remove the photographs of you when asked in a civil manner and not using threats of using the law to have me charged for things that just aren't against the law (like, for instance, and purely hypothetically, BREACHING IMMIGRATION CONDITIONS).
Thank you for your time!
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment