Sports Illustrated Swipes Photo of Woman in Her Underwear | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Sports Illustrated Swipes Photo of Woman in Her Underwear

At what point does the person in the photo get any rights to the picture being released to the public? why do some things require people to sign a release form and others dont seem to?

If I'm out in public and take your picture randomly you have no recourse. You're in public and have no expectation of privacy. If I want to use it for commercial purposes though I need a release form (movie/commercial). News media is typically excluded since they're reporting on the picture and not using your likeness to sell a product.

What's the argument again? She was being dumb in public, everything you do in public is public domain. Don't be stupid in public.
 
The photographer who took nude photos of Vanessa Williams and sold them to Penthouse did not have her permission to sell them to the magazine. And our very talented Syracuse student lost her Miss America title as a result.
 
Pre-save edit: Much of what I say here isn't aimed at this specific event but uses it to point out concerns with both a knowingly diseased media, and a less guilty but just as diseased public consciousness. So my intent isn't to offend the copyright holder(lol, i still get a kick out of that even if others dont understand why), or those who would think I'm taking a swipe at him or the behavior of this forum. It's more about how beliefs are formed, the apparent lack of vigilance when it comes to such, and our belief that the providers we seemingly choose to follow(dont worry, I won't trouble you with biological evidence against free will here) have our best interest in mind(that last part isnt so much in question in this example).

Back in the original 317 thread, I posted what I just learned is supposedly "copyrighted" material(lol) in which I brazenly lashed out at both mainstream journalism(both the "serious" and the more obvious infotainment), and the average brain-numbed American(I'd say Westerner, but I won't assume all Western countries are this guilty) who readily laps stories up like a dehydrated canine who doesn't have the strength to get to water and has to take whatever is in the bowl brought to it. While I originally praised the OP(I dont want to give the dude grief by even mentioning his screen name) like everyone else, I felt a powerful mid-sentence responsibility to issue an admonishment that it wasn't proper journalism to not utter the 1 syllable, "Why?" to the subject. Certainly the OP knew a d*mned large enough audience here would see it, and mentally have their way with it(no, not that way, well not necessarily anyhow) with the stories they came up with, on top of his brief and now oft-quoted blurb. As for the other quoted fellow who called in, I certainly have no proof that he was in that seat, not that it would matter if I did. He didn't take the time to utter the one syllable either. Is this society uncaring, incurious, or do we not find things of import until they are validated by large numbers of others, generally directed by the media? At least this story, unlike the predigested propaganda the 6 corporations that own 95% of all media serve to us, lets us realize "we don't know". The OP could have easily at the outset listed as fact one of the many possibilities that we later engineered, and with the proper story odds are most of us would have accepted it(myself included, possibly).

With liberty comes responsibility. When I feel compelled to write something I consider of import, I realize my popularity on here could take a hit from those who don't share the same sensibilities. No one can argue the intent wasn't to have a laugh at someone else's expense. My question to you is: at what number of people does it stop being ok to make fun of someone? That was not a rhetorical question, I'd appreciate as many answers as possible. Apparently we got more sensitive when others outside the tribe joined in the same activity(like uninvited guests to the orgy), and yet others observed the actions of our tribe and found it in poor taste. This isn't a judgment of the thread, just an observation in the change in tone and some of the factors that may have effected it. I don't claim to have all the answers, but things like this interest me and I feel are worthy of discussion(especially with so few games upcoming). I sometimes like to gauge how close or far my mind is from those of others(if not for our flesh, how much would we look alike?), and admit my communication has it's flaws. But I'm working on it, and this seems like a relatively safe(albeit not the most expedient) place to grow a bit as a person, kind of like getting playing time in some of the pre-conference games. I think we feel a certain degree of safety here that we don't elsewhere, and that became apparent when our latest Frankenstein escaped the confines of the castle.

copyright 12/10/2013 CaptainJ, may not be reposted/reprinted in part or in whole (yes, that includes quotes) without express written consent from CaptainJ. Not that Axeman or anyone would ever care to lift anything thoughtful from here.
Oh crap. How much do I owe you?
 
At what point does the person in the photo get any rights to the picture being released to the public? why do some things require people to sign a release form and others dont seem to?
Unless you paid someone to a
At what point does the person in the photo get any rights to the picture being released to the public? why do some things require people to sign a release form and others dont seem to?

I think a lot of this discussion has overlooked the concept of "fair use". In general, pictures and accounts (or at least portions thereof) can be taken without proper attribution if its deemed newsworthy or used for educational purposes. I believe the release forms typically relate to commercial endeavors and waiving rights of privacy.
Generally true, but there's no fair use implicated in SI's use of the photo of the woman.
Even if it's "newsworthy", "fair use" involves the nature and the amount of the protected work taken (relative to the whole) and as it relates to the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work himself (should he choose to do so).
Sports Illustrated took EVERYTHING.
That one photo was it.
It's theft.
Period.
 
Unless you paid someone to a



Generally true, but there's no fair use implicated in SI's use of the photo of the woman.
Even if it's "newsworthy", "fair use" involves the nature and the amount of the protected work taken (relative to the whole) and as it relates to the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work himself (should he choose to do so).
Sports Illustrated took EVERYTHING.
That one photo was it.
It's theft.
Period.

Sorry for making a mess of the response there.
 
Yeah, it's obviously difficult with visual imagery. It's not like sampling music or taking a few snippets from written work.



Unless you paid someone to a



Generally true, but there's no fair use implicated in SI's use of the photo of the woman.
Even if it's "newsworthy", "fair use" involves the nature and the amount of the protected work taken (relative to the whole) and as it relates to the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work himself (should he choose to do so).
Sports Illustrated took EVERYTHING.
That one photo was it.
It's theft.
Period.
 
The photographer who took nude photos of Vanessa Williams and sold them to Penthouse did not have her permission to sell them to the magazine. And our very talented Syracuse student lost her Miss America title as a result.
That's true.
But he probably didn't need her approval.

Photographer Tom Chiapel apparently took the photos for himself...not for her.
So he held the copyright.

She claimed she never signed a release to use the photos commercially.
And that Chiapel had assured her he'd keep the photos to himself.
But when she won the Miss America title the photos became newsworthy.
So they probably were not subject to protection under NY's privacy law.
And if she had a bona fide legal claim it seems she likely would have sued Chiapel and Penthouse.
 
There has definitely been a surge in users requesting handles. Some might be related to the football team/its quest for a bowl game and some just based on the great play by the basketball team early, but based on timing, most of it has been driven by "the photo".

Well at least they can all join the board and learn the truth about UConn, Georgetown, etc.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
169,404
Messages
4,830,431
Members
5,974
Latest member
sturner5150

Online statistics

Members online
45
Guests online
1,251
Total visitors
1,296


...
Top Bottom