Mardi Gras Indians seeking copyright protection against photographers

Photo by Chris Bickford (New York Times)


They call themselves the Mardi Gras Indians and they strut around New Orleans in expensive and elaborate costumes, dancing, chanting, singing and posing for photographs.

But now they are filing for copyright protection over their costumes, citing that they want to cash in on any pictures used in advertising, including calendars, posters and prints.

The New York Times analyzes the situation, stating that it would be difficult to put a copyright on the costumes to protect against photographers.

But they fail to mention that any photograph used in advertising without a model release is already a violation of the law that can result in an easy lawsuit.

Editorial use of images, as we know, does not require a model release. And the Mardi Gras Indians state they have no problem being photographed in an editorial sense.

Knowing that there are few legal protections for a person who is photographed in public — particularly one who stops and poses every few feet — some Mardi Gras Indians have begun filing for copyright protection for their suits, which account for thousands of dollars in glass beads, rhinestones, feathers and velvet, and hundreds of hours of late-night sewing.

Anyone could still take their pictures, but the Indians, many of whom live at the economic margins, would have some recourse if they saw the pictures being sold, or used in advertising. (News photographs, like the ones illustrating this article, are not at issue.)

So I really don’t understand why they are not suing for illegally using their images in advertising without consent rather than take a chance on a risky legal maneuver that might get thrown out of court.

Comments

Anonymous
Anonymous

I was hoping you were going to tie this in with http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/15/seattle-artist-sues-man-for-photograp...
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..2010-03-09 Yahoo Hard At Work

Anonymous
Anonymous

But they fail to mention that any photograph used in advertising without a model release is already a violation of the law that can result in an easy lawsuit.

Really? Which law is that?

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, it’s not illegal to photograph people without their permission, no matter what you use the purpose for. However, if you don’t secure a model release before using the photo for commercial use such as in advertising, you’re playing with fire because you expose yourself to liability over using someone’s likeness in a commercial context without permission. (no photo agency or ad agency would touch it, for instance.) Again, I’m not sure I’d call it “illegal”, but it is AFAIK a tort, and you run the risk of losing a lawsuit over it.
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here

Anonymous
Anonymous

Again, very well written Carlos. It’s not illegal to photograph people without their permission in the USA.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Ahh yes, the Mardi Gras Indians. Such a proud and noble tribe. Much as Yo-Yos used to be weapons, the beads necklaces were also once used as weapons.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Photo stash: Unmarked Police Cruiser, MA Plate # 8420

Anonymous
Anonymous

Doesn’t it seem that relevant issue implied by the quote you cite is “use of the photograph” not the photography itself?

If the Mardi Gras Indians are trying to address their right to control the commercial use of their images/likenesses, this might be a trademark issue.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10161 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.