You can call me, but no guarantees! If you choose to have Sion as your defender, the lawyers may be lost for words.......
and by default, the photographer who shot the picture, owns the copyright to the image, unless he is hired - then the person who paid the photographer owns usage rights to the image. unless specifically stated in a contract, the photographer would still hold rights to the images he created.
this of course doesn't stand if the image is used with defamatory intentions, and if such, the subject can sue the photographer for defamation.
please correct me if i'm wrong.
Just a hypothetical example :
What I took a photo of LKY in a public or even in a private function and used it in an adverstisement? I am not the official photographer. Do I need to obtain his permission proir using the ad? Because of his status such as a politician, etc, does it make any difference compared to a commoner as the TS's friend?
The rest of your post is roughly there but roughly not, I'd suggest you do a bit more reading up to understand the specific definitions of copyright, usage rights, and the other rights associated under copyright.
The only point I was trying to make was in relation to your original statement,
This is an advertisment, can it be taken as suggesting that the person in the photo endorses the company even if he's not? I guess it all depends on the context of the advert?
Last edited by Prismatic; 28th February 2010 at 01:49 PM.
the diff here is, when LKY or an elite sue, they will win...
while if the peasant sue, the peasant will lose...
if the TS friend is just a peasant... i will say, go suck thumb as he can do nothing about it.
hm, AIA is such a big company, if they dare to use ur fren photo, they should be prepare to know theres no error and by right in sg, they are authorized to use it imo. before doing such ads, they will actually seek advice from their contracts lawyers
not to impress but shoot to express