4 ms·

While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone

by tghw 14y ago

While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. They should also give copies of those releases to any company that wants to use the photo commercially, so that company can defend themselves if the model tries to sue. The Photo Attorney blog has a more detailed article about it: http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/05/when-you-definitely-need-model-release.html http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/05/when-you-definitely-nee...

wheaties 14y ago
So what you're saying is that unless it's a photograph of themselves or a shot sans people, they won't be able to use it?
mistercow 14y ago
>In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. It's not all states, and it's not entirely clear cut in many states (it depends on how the likeness is used), and their TOS does give permission to use your likeness (which means that if the person in the photo is also an Instagram user, they have a tougher case). But Instagram would certainly be playing with fire if they tried that with a celebrity, and I don't think they would. It's your ordinary folks who can't afford to lawyer up against a huge corporation that are more likely to be affected by this.
rescripting 14y ago
I think the point you're making here is separate from the original article. It's always been a bit of a grey area that you can take a picture of someone and post it on InstaFlickaFacebookOGram without their consent. However Will's point is that Instagram's new agreement may compromise a user's ability to manage their personal brand, because their photos are no longer their own. If I'm Will Wheaton and I post a photo of myself having a good time at Disney Land, I don't want Disney Land taking that photo and using it in their ads. Since it's a photo of myself the photo release issue isn't the problem, since I've forfeited that right to sue by agreeing to Instagram's new agreement.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by tghw 14y ago

wheaties 14y ago

So what you're saying is that unless it's a photograph of themselves or a shot sans people, they won't be able to use it?

mistercow 14y ago

>In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. It's not all states, and it's not entirely clear cut in many states (it depends on how the likeness is used), and their TOS does give permission to use your likeness (which means that if the person in the photo is also an Instagram user, they have a tougher case). But Instagram would certainly be playing with fire if they tried that with a celebrity, and I don't think they would. It's your ordinary folks who can't afford to lawyer up against a huge corporation that are more likely to be affected by this.

rescripting 14y ago

I think the point you're making here is separate from the original article. It's always been a bit of a grey area that you can take a picture of someone and post it on InstaFlickaFacebookOGram without their consent. However Will's point is that Instagram's new agreement may compromise a user's ability to manage their personal brand, because their photos are no longer their own. If I'm Will Wheaton and I post a photo of myself having a good time at Disney Land, I don't want Disney Land taking that photo and using it in their ads. Since it's a photo of myself the photo release issue isn't the problem, since I've forfeited that right to sue by agreeing to Instagram's new agreement.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]