|
Newspapers here do not get model's releases before printing photos. In fact, I've been irritated with one in particular because they have run photos of my paintings twice, in different articles, without giving me attribution as the artist. I'm not talking about pictures in which there was a barely distinguishable painting in the background, but a photo of the portrait and a relative of the subject of that portrait, both prominently displayed, to make a point about the relationship between the two. That's not exactly the same issue but maybe it's close enough.
Back to the original issue, the newspaper's theory is that if the photo of a person was taken in a public place the individual can't claim that his or her privacy was breached. Don't know what a lawyer would make of that but this is the rationale I've heard.
I have only done this once or twice, but when I paint someone without having gotten permission first I just make a few changes in the features so that it's no longer a portrait of that particular person.
|