Date: 1/29/2004 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
No, they shouldn't. The only reason they should have ANY copyright on the pics, is to keep the buyers from freely making as many copies of the pics that they want. That is ALL they should be able to do.  |
Date: 1/29/2004 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 29262
I think that studios should never give out minors pictures without the parents permission. It's not their photos... It may be the negatives belong to them but that is just.. i dunno but whoever wants a minors picture is a weirdo. There is always a reason for everything. This could lead to rape, murder, or some idiot picked up the picture to give to someone else.  |
Date: 1/29/2004 3:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 59876
honestly, i don't know how to look up how the law pertains to this. if it is infact legal or not.  |
Date: 1/29/2004 3:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 32133
Nope!!!!!  |
|
Date: 1/29/2004 3:42:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 59876
supposedly what it came down to was that jon benet was hot news and the photagraphers had the right to sell. they were offered good money and went for it. i was under the impression though that children were better protected than that. when a minor gets into trouble with the law, their name is withheld from being published for their own saftey because they are a minor. is this not similar? |
Date: 1/29/2004 4:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 45948
I will check on the law for this for you in about an hour. My mom is a professional photographer who has her own studio so I will have to check with her and see what she says. Love,  |
|
Date: 1/29/2004 4:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 59876
i would appreciate that angeleyez, thank you very much :) |
Date: 1/29/2004 4:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 60052
I don't think they should be able to do that. It seems to me that it could possibly open the door for weirdos to stalk young children. And I think that it was morally wrong for that studio to sell pictures of that little girl after her traumatic death. That was very uncouth!  |
|
Date: 1/29/2004 4:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 59876
that is what i thought as well to die for. it probably wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been such a high profile case but that is no excuse.i would not like to think that if i had studio pictures taken of my son, that sometime later those pictures could end up anywhere at the photagrapher's discretion. |
Date: 1/29/2004 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 53961
That is wrong. Just plain wrong. They should have received permission from the parents, especially on such a sensitive subject. Just shows some people will do anything for money...  |
|
Date: 1/29/2004 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 60052
It's kinda scary if you think about it, huh? |
Date: 1/30/2004 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 24732
Schools and yearbook photoghraphers have to have parents sign a legal contract before anything can be done with the photos that are taken at school. It should probably be the same with photoghraphy studios, however some clever photoghraphy studios might make you sign a form that looks just like a form for ordering pictures, that actually is a legal contract with terms of use of the pictures in small print at the bottom.  |
Date: 1/30/2004 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
They shouldnt be allowed to do that, especially with all the weirdos out there...Can you imagine, having your photo taken, and the next day it's plastered all over a shop window? Not a nice thought.  |
Date: 2/1/2004 8:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 4144
no way. i used to take my kid to olan mills a lot and she had a lot of pics made there for her portfolio. we would sometimes take our own props and a couple of times they asked for our permission to add her pictures to one of their portfolios that would go to all olan mills around the country. but i believe we had to sign a release.  |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 59876
see, that is what i was thinking moma bug, that there should be some lind of release. either the story was disreputable, or the photagraphers were. if it was illegal, they should be held accountable. |
Date: 3/11/2004 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 40741
No, they shouldn't  |
