Open Photography Forums  

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Photography Discussions > Photojournalism - Street - Documentary

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 4th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 35,136
Default Photographs that get published: libel per quod.

You take a picture, license its use or even give it to paper or an agency and feel proud they use it.

However, don't let anyone change your caption without letting you know or holding you harmless.

Imagine you take a wonderful picture of someone sleeping in Central Park, New York.

Be careful how they use the picture.

First the caption must be honest and not defame.

Certainly reporters who caption the picture "Park Benches used by Sleeping Drug Users" or editors who add text on Drug Users in Central Park associated with the picture have, IMHO, crossed the line and may very well be legally libel.

Such cases, in which people are defamed by your photograph because of implied meaning because of it's title or context in a publication, ccould, IMHO, be claimed to be libel per quod.

I discovered libe per quod in my study of photographer's rights and the law.

This is so important that I thought it's worth noting.

Now has anyone had experience of bad captions or context for their pictures once under control of a publication or agency?

Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM.

Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!