Photographer's Opinon on Photography Contract?

jydurocher,
I appreciate your responses, but you seem to think that I am wanting a legal argument that I could use in court.

This is not the case at all. I'm not going to sue the poor girl. If she insists on using the photos that she took for me herself, I will just hire another photographer to take new images for me only after signing a very specific contract, hmm or maybe even give it a shot myself! I think my a99 is just itching for a "pro" to pick her up.

I stated that I wanted a layman's opinion just as a general poll, for my knowledge, of how the community at large thinks about this issue. I thought that if I found that the majority of people, as my photographer did, thought that copyright grants them the right to publish a private person's likeness without permission, that my post would benefit everyone here, and I might write a longer explanation.

Although I am only interested in Mississippi law, as I am only licensed to practice law in the United States, the State of Mississippi, I did review the case that you linked to here. It was very interesting to see a side by side opinion written in two languages.

From your post, at first I thought you were in disagreement with me, but after reading the case, I see that we are of the same opinion.

The higher court held that "The artistic expression of the photograph cannot justify the infringement of the right to privacy it entails. An artist's right to publish his or her work is not absolute and cannot include the right to infringe, with- out any justification, a fundamental right of the subject whose image appears in the work. It has not been shown that the public's interest in seeing this photograph is predominant. In these circumstances, the respondent's right to protection of her image is more important than the appellants' right to publish the photograph of the respondent without first obtaining her permission."

The Court of Appeals also stated that, "According to LeBel J.A., writing for the majority, since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. How- ever, the unauthorized publication of the photo- graph constituted an infringement of her anonym- ity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy."

This case law would only apply in Quebec, however, so remember guys, to know the law in your area. While Mississippi case law also supports a similar conclusion, there is no guarantee that Alabama would be the same.

Hopefully, I will have some time later to post a Mississippi case to point for post completeness.