The higher one’s ‘public’ profile or ‘celebrity stature’ the greater are both the benefits – and the ‘risk of use’ – for the photographer.

The benefits are ‘publicity’ & monetary. On the other hand, the ‘risks’ of using a ‘famous’ person’s image in the form of any ‘product’ – without their consent – is potential legal confrontation.

This is increasingly happening when ‘celebrities’ or public figures legally challenge publication or broadcast of their privacy.

The higher up the totem pole one goes, the greater control the ‘subject’ of the shoot wants of the use of their image.

I understand Cariou reads this blog. He could wiegh in on this matter if he so chooses.

Best to you.

If you’re so concerned about this book, why don’t you contact Cariou yourself and voice your displeasure. You don’t need to know photographers in order to contact them.

Tangentially, parallel, & more food-for-thought re: the ‘copyright’ issue: –

Woody Allen & American Apparel are duking it out. AA used a frame of Woody from one of Woody’s films costumed as a Hassadic Jew for one of their NY/LA billboard advertisements. Allen sued for ‘defamation of character’ & $10 million. AA balked, and says ‘NO’. They say he’s ruined his own public image cuz of salacious affair with his step-daughter way back when and it makes no dif now if they ‘use’ him or not. …

My take is that Woody (… like Brooke Shields & no-name Rastas … ), has the Right to determine how his image is used in public. Specifically, the implication of the billboard advertisement was that he endorsed the product. He has clearly stated he did not.

IF, as AA claims, it makes no dif, then why did they use him in the first place? They obviously made a ‘marketing’ decision to promote their product using his clearly recognizable mug. Obviously Woody never signed a ‘Release’, nor was he consulted about the use of his ‘public’ image for their ‘branding’ purposes …

http://www.brandfreak.com/2009/04/american-apparel-isnt-backing-down-from-woody-allen-lawsuit.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i680cdd40645913b0489988f8e7495515

It is equally as true that just because others say things over and over again, that doesn’t make it ‘true’ either.

I’ve enjoyed this discourse, I’ve learned from the engagement. and I hope others have picked up a thing or two too.

Best to you.

If as you argue that the copyright should belong to the original then who would own the copyright to a photograph of a sunset? Since a person can’t create themself then I suppose the copyright would belong to their parents. So now I guess before I photograph someone I need to get a signed release from their parents or maybe from God.

Lest you think that photographing the poor and marginalized is only exploitive please remember that Lewis Hine helped to force the governement to pass child labor laws by photographing the poor, the marginlized and underaged, and I’m certain that he didn’t get model releases.

Just because you say something over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Obviously he can. The photographer has made a book of his ‘celebratory’ images to SELL.

And that too is about all I’ve got to say about it.

I am an mid-career artist AND a maturing photographer. I make my living as best I can, as ethically as I can, and with as clear a conscience as I can. If that makes me ‘naive’ & ‘unrealistic’ in your mind, well, phfffft, that doesn’t bother me.

‘Taking’ a photograph of a politician with a hooker to EXPOSE his private behaviour in the public arena of his life is very different then a photographer churning up a ‘story’ amongst media-illiterates …

I also find it curious that you said ‘make’ not ‘take’. The ‘taking’ comes first, the ‘making’ comes later.

Anywho, I really do not wish to brow-beat this to death. There are alot of DIFFERENT points that are getting aired here. I did just want to primarily focus on and consider ‘the issue’ of ‘copyright enfringement’ as you presented it.

I didn’t know I was just supposed to climb on board and AGREE with you. If you would prefer I don’t bother commenting on your blog, please just say so. No big deal.

I do like this blog, and found this particular article very interesting. I do appreciate the comments of all participants to date. Thank you.

I’m not arguing for arguments sake. I think this a very interesting ‘issue’ and one that clearly ignites passion and discourse. I think that’s a good thing.

We clearly don’t see this the same way. I’m not contesting the merits of Prince’s ‘art’, I’m questioning the merits of Cariou’s ‘case’ against Prince. If a photographer uses the excuse that he can’t afford or pay for the hundreds of faces he’s ‘exploited’ over all the years, that’s not a ‘justification’ for doing so, it’s just an ‘excuse’ and a kind of laziness/disrespect for those hundreds he’s exploited. Duh. Likewise, books, exhibits and paid editorials are still ‘commercial’ making ventures for a photographer. It is jejune to suggest they aren’t.

It’s unfortunate that someone would look at these beautiful pictures and immediately jump to the conclusion that the subjects were somehow being taken advantage of. You don’t get images like that if you don’t love and respect the people you’re photographing. And that’s about all I’ve got to say about that.

We don’t need releases in a democratic society because it allows us to make pictures of people without their consent. That way politicians who don’t want their picture taken with hookers cannot tell photographers that they need a release to take the picture of them with hookers. The reason photographers are allowed to make money selling these images should be obvious but I will explain to you that people need to make a living doing this kind of stuff so it continutes to happen.

Do you get it now.

I never said he made a great deal of money. You did. I merely noted he made a book with the intention of making money/publicity for his Self. Come on, he didn’t do it FOR the Rastas.

How does National Geographic handle ‘Releases’ and compensation? It’s well worth asking.

It’s all very easy for industrial nations to ‘exploit’ and ‘use’ under-developed nations for ‘our’ entertainment, but perhaps the time has come when THAT sort of ‘colonializing’ appropriation of ‘found’ people OUGHT to be reconsidered …

That Photo Editors don’t insist on Releases, and that Photographers don’t use them, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be used. To me they are, at the very minimum, a courtesy to the ‘taken’.

I just reviewed Carious’s website. I found it interesting that his ‘books’ are predominately about the marginal and the poor. In other words, those who are least likely to UNDERSTAND their own Legal Rights about ‘use of their image’ for OTHERS gain. Note that there is no equivalent publication about ‘the rich’ or ‘influential’ on his website. There is no ‘book’ about corporate executives, lawyers, bankers, or even photographers. Cariou clearly understands ‘Releases’, he’s been at it long enough to know what they are, and why they SHOULD be used. He also understands about Copy – Right enfringement, he’s suing Prince. But, again, to me, it’s a bunch of hooey. It’s calling the kettle black.

Somehow it’s alright for him to ‘take’, ‘use’, and claim ‘Copy Rights’ without apparent compensation to the Original, but it’s not alright for Prince to do the same. That just ain’t right in my books. It’s a double standard.

Check it out: http://www.patrickcariou.com/

You also seem to be under the impression that Cariou has made a good deal of money from this book. It is extremely rare that photography books generate any sizable amounts of income.

Imagine how much more ignorant the world would be if not for photographer’s documentations of cultures, lifestyles and peoples.

You think theft is silly? Your equation of Cariou’s documentation and Prince’s theft of his work is completely off base. As to knowing exactly what Cariou’s arrangement was with the Rastas, it is simply none of your business, or, anyone else’s for that matter.

As it stands, it’s kind of a double standard. Meaning, everyone seems to think it’s ok for Cariou to do it, but not for Prince. Well, how can that be right – ?

At this point, I’d like to KNOW, from Cariou, what arrangement he did make with the Rastas. Anyone here know him well enough to ask?