Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 434061" data-attributes="member: 9240">SB-79 places an unprecedented burden on all photographers whose work&nbsp; could be viewed within the state of Arkansas to either get explicit&nbsp; consent from every individual whose likeness appears in all of their&nbsp; photographs or risk defending themselves in a lawsuit where they will&nbsp; have to shoulder the burden of proving the use of their photographs&nbsp; qualifies as an exempted use.Essentially, if you have a photograph on the internet and there is a recognizable face in that photograph, if it can be &quot;viewed within the state of Arkansas&quot; (which has me voting that we ban the internet from that backwards place) then you must have, and apparently manage to maintain record of the &quot;explicit permission&quot; you obtained from said person or face a lawsuit.&nbsp; &nbsp; I've looked through the bill and cannot see a clear list of what &quot;exempted use&quot; means.&nbsp; The real horror is that, as stated in the ASMP link in the article, &quot;By extending publicity rights to all individuals — not just&nbsp; citizens of Arkansas or celebrities — SB-79 will allow any individual or&nbsp; heir whose likeness is viewable in Arkansas to sue photographers over&nbsp; uses that would be allowed in their state or country.&quot;&nbsp; This means that because the image I took in New Jersey is &quot;viewable&quot; in Arkansas, the person from NJ can sue me under the Arkansas law.&nbsp; It's batsh*t crazy legal mumbo-jumbo that goes far beyond what the likely intent was (but who knows?!).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 434061, member: 9240"] [I] SB-79 places an unprecedented burden on all photographers whose work could be [U][B]viewed within the state of Arkansas[/B][/U] to either get [U][B]explicit consent[/B][/U] from [B][U]every individual[/U][/B] whose likeness appears in all of their photographs or risk defending themselves in a lawsuit where they will have to shoulder the burden of proving the use of their photographs qualifies as an exempted use.[/I] Essentially, if you have a photograph on the internet and there is a recognizable face in that photograph, if it can be "viewed within the state of Arkansas" (which has me voting that we ban the internet from that backwards place) then you must have, and apparently manage to maintain record of the "explicit permission" you obtained from said person or face a lawsuit. I've looked through the bill and cannot see a clear list of what "exempted use" means. The real horror is that, as stated in the ASMP link in the article, "[I]By extending publicity rights to all individuals — not just citizens of Arkansas or celebrities — SB-79 will allow any individual or heir whose likeness is viewable in Arkansas to sue photographers over uses that would be allowed in their state or country."[/I] This means that because the image I took in New Jersey is "viewable" in Arkansas, the person from NJ can sue me under the Arkansas law. It's batsh*t crazy legal mumbo-jumbo that goes far beyond what the likely intent was (but who knows?!). [/QUOTE]

Verification