Subj : Re: EU rejects claims of
To   : MIKE POWELL
From : Rob Mccart
Date : Wed Sep 03 2025 08:16:24

RR>> ** On a side note.  If you are taking unsolicited photos / videos for a blo
  >> vlog etc, and that post or video is monetized, does that cross the line int
  >> needing a photo/video release?  That would be a good debate topic

MP>I would say "yes" so as, at the very least, to cover your own arse.  If
  >they find out your making $$$ on it they will likely want some of the
  >profit.

I would say that any time you use a photo for commercial purposes the
subjects in it should have some share ofit. That's a little different
than random photos for your own use.

MP>That said, several years ago I too several photos and a couple of the
  >locations (one a lighthouse and another a lake cruise) reached out and
  >asked if they could use them to promote their locations.  I said yes even
  >though I am not getting paid.

Did they see the photos at the time or had you posetd them somewhere later?
Probably as you thought, there'd be very little monney to be made there
and you might just feel good that your photos were considered that good.

MP>> If you say it to them and only them, you are in the clear (Though being Kor
  >> I am sure there are other laws they can get you on.).  Though with or witho
  >> oppinion if you saw something to a third party that "defames" them, you mig
  >> want a lawyer on retainer.

I'm not sure if telling the truth about someone, and there's no question
it is true, would be 'defamation'..  Or at least shouldn't be IMHO..  B)

The definition online says defamation falls under two catagories, slander
and libel depending on if it is spoken or written, but they point out
that that refers to making FALSE statements..

---
 * SLMR Rob  * Do not judge a book by its movie!
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

.