
No reputable company would use a photo of somebody in their ads unless that person signed a formal "model-release" or consent form. When such photos sometimes get used, the people in the ads often sue, and often win very large judgements for "breach of privacy."
But I've been hearing from advertising and PR clients for years that this right of privacy doesn't apply to people in government service. It's not true, as my client discovered to their dismay.
Even DoD, who provides lots of photos for "editorial" or new-related purposes, makes clear, those photos aren't supposed to be used for advertising, and the people in the photos have not provided model-releases.
The DoD photos, however, are partly responsible for the confusion; these photos normally include somewhere in the caption the word "Released." "Released" means that DoD has released the photograph to the public for use in newspapers, magazines, and similar outlets. It does NOT mean "model-released."
If you use a photograph in any kind of promotion -- print, web, outdoor, video, broadcast, trade show display -- it pays to be sure that it is covered with a model-release.
No comments:
Post a Comment