judith phillips?

[Seeker]

Unless Judith had a written Work-For-Hire agreement up front with Patsy delineating the photos could never be used without Patsy's permission, then Judith owned all of the rights to all photos she took, and she could do anything she pleased with them.

Actually as a "professional photographer" she would have been remiss if she didn't get a signed release to use the photo's. And yes, if she was told verbally that she couldn't use them to profit from even after they were taken she could still be sued if she had sold them anyway.

No professional photographer with any sense just arbitrarily believes the photo's they take of people belong to them to do with as they please. Why do you think Amber Frey was able to sue the photographer who took and sold her photo's years later?

As for Miller, she did get a signed release, I just found that it's mentioned in DOI.

 

[Seeker]

I think she did sign a release. But I suspect she didn't give it much thought at the time.

What Phillips did was morally wrong. She knew the Ramseys wanted the pictures kept private and went ahead and sold them anyway. She did it because she could fully knowing it would cause pain. In my book that is wrong.

Added: As I look through her interview with Mame, Phillips claims copyright but I haven't found a release mentioned yet. Have to go pick up my son now. Will check further when I get home.

I would tend to disagree with the statement that she sold them to cause Patsy any pain.
Remember that Judith was a friend of Patsy's who was one of her staunchest supporters (at first). I believe she sold the photo's to show the human side of the person so many people believed murdered her daughter so they could see the close bond that mother and child shared. She wanted people IMO to see that there was no way that Patsy could have murdered JonBenet.

 

[tipper]

I would tend to disagree with the statement that she sold them to cause Patsy any pain.
Remember that Judith was a friend of Patsy's who was one of her staunchest supporters (at first). I believe she sold the photo's to show the human side of the person so many people believed murdered her daughter so they could see the close bond that mother and child shared. She wanted people IMO to see that there was no way that Patsy could have murdered JonBenet.

I'm glad you found it in DOI. All I could find in the interview was "That I constantly pressured Patsy into signing a model release for the photographs. Why would I do that when I had a copyright of the photographs in the first place? "

I agree she's quite a good photographer and I didn't mean to imply her motive for selling the photos was simply to cause the Ramseys pain. She may well have done it for the reasons you suggest. But just as when Jameson sold the interviews, I don't think the end justifies the means. She knew they didn't want them put out to the public. Right or wrong, especially if she considered herself their friend, she should not have done it knowing it was against their wishes. At least I wouldn't have made that choice under the same circumstances.

Added:I don't know when they were first sold. Probably would have to have a date to get any sense of what she was thinking when she sold them.

 

[capps]

I'm glad you found it in DOI. All I could find in the interview was "That I constantly pressured Patsy into signing a model release for the photographs. Why would I do that when I had a copyright of the photographs in the first place? "

I agree she's quite a good photographer and I didn't mean to imply her motive for selling the photos was simply to cause the Ramseys pain. She may well have done it for the reasons you suggest. But just as when Jameson sold the interviews, I don't think the end justifies the means. She knew they didn't want them put out to the public. Right or wrong, especially if she considered herself their friend, she should not have done it knowing it was against their wishes. At least I wouldn't have made that choice under the same circumstances.

Added:I don't know when they were first sold. Probably would have to have a date to get any sense of what she was thinking when she sold them.

Tipper,

At first,I felt the same way you did ... as one friend to another,please respect wishes,especially at such a traumatic time.

But ... the more I thought about it ... it seems again.the Ramsey's did not handle it right. Instead of Ramsey's talking it over as friend to friend,explaining to Judith why they would prefer not to have the pictures published,they sic pitbull S.Stine on her, and have their lawyers contact her.That may have made Judith defensive,and less compassionate.Maybe?

When will the Ramsey's learn?

 

[Brefie]

When will the Ramsey's learn?

What do they have left to learn? They at the very least covered up a murder....all that's left is to get that lavish lifestyle back IMO.

 

[Toltec]

Of course Judith Phillips had Patsy sign a release...I recall the Ramseys wanting to sue her over publishing the pics....

Heaven only knows how much money little JonBenet's death changed hands. It is nauseating beyond belief.

 

[tipper]

Tipper,

At first,I felt the same way you did ... as one friend to another,please respect wishes,especially at such a traumatic time.

But ... the more I thought about it ... it seems again.the Ramsey's did not handle it right. Instead of Ramsey's talking it over as friend to friend,explaining to Judith why they would prefer not to have the pictures published,they sic pitbull S.Stine on her, and have their lawyers contact her.That may have made Judith defensive,and less compassionate.Maybe?

When will the Ramsey's learn?

You may be right. I'm not sure whether the Ramseys were talking to much of anyone at that point and clearly Susan Stine had no reservations about doing so and lawyer talk is usually pretty dry.

Somewhat OT but I have people who take lessons sign releases and am always amazed that almost none of them read what they are signing or ask me questions about the fact that they are signing away rights. Although it clearly states that by signing the release that's what they have done.

 

[capps]

Tipper,
You are so right!
I'm a Client Services Rep. and come acrosss this all the time.Some people just don't pay attention to what they are putting their signature on. Not good.

 

[Jayelles]

Tipper,

At first,I felt the same way you did ... as one friend to another,please respect wishes,especially at such a traumatic time.

But ... the more I thought about it ... it seems again.the Ramsey's did not handle it right. Instead of Ramsey's talking it over as friend to friend,explaining to Judith why they would prefer not to have the pictures published,they sic pitbull S.Stine on her, and have their lawyers contact her.That may have made Judith defensive,and less compassionate.Maybe?

When will the Ramsey's learn?

"As one friend to another"?

Remember that according to Judith, she wasn't treated like a "friend" by the Ramsey camp. She decribed being given the cold shoulder by Susan Stine when she tried to contact the Ramsey's after the murder. She was eventually allowed to pay her respects at the Stine home but with an audience who made her feel unwelcome.

We've heard the Ramsey version of events and Judith Phillip's version of events. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between.

I was very moved when I saw the photo of JonBenet kissing Patsy's bald head. I think it goes much farther in portraying a loving and deeply spiritual mother-daughter relationship than any of the dressed-up glitzy, photos which were released by the TeamRamsey.

Judith Phillips may be criticised for talking to the tabloids about the Ramseys but in this respect, she is no worse than jameson. ON A MUCH GRANDER SCALE, jameson sold materials to the tabloids which were used for hurtful, headline blazing anti-Ramsey stories.

None of Judith Phillip's photos did any harm to the Ramseys and IMO, her exhibiting/selling them cannot be used as a weapon of hate against her.

 

[capps]

Jayelles,

Right ....
What you said in your first paragaph,is what I said in my post.The Ramsey's didn't handle it right.

 

[asdasd]

Of course Judith Phillips had Patsy sign a release...I recall the Ramseys wanting to sue her over publishing the pics....

Heaven only knows how much money little JonBenet's death changed hands. It is nauseating beyond belief.

The issue was not just the Ramsey's being in pictures but also she sold pictures that included people who had not signed releases and had not even known that the pictures had been taken.

 

[Jayelles]

The issue was not just the Ramsey's being in pictures but also she sold pictures that included people who had not signed releases and had not even known that the pictures had been taken.

The only photos that we are aware of that Judith Phillips took - are posed photos. Nedra Paugh, Patsy, JonBenet and Burke. Which of these do you suppose was not aware that the flashing thing in front of them was a camera???? (TIC)

 

[asdasd]

The only photos that we are aware of that Judith Phillips took - are posed photos. Nedra Paugh, Patsy, JonBenet and Burke. Which of these do you suppose was not aware that the flashing thing in front of them was a camera???? (TIC)

The instance that I am refuring to concern her taking pictures of a minor, a friend of BR, for promotional purposes and not getting a release signed to take the pictures or sell the pictures in the first place.

 

[Tricia]

The instance that I am refuring to concern her taking pictures of a minor, a friend of BR, for promotional purposes and not getting a release signed to take the pictures or sell the pictures in the first place.

Did this friend of Burke's sue? Or rather did his parents? I have never heard of Judith doing this before. Please tell us a bit more ok?

Thanks,
Tricia

 

[why_nutt]

The instance that I am refuring to concern her taking pictures of a minor, a friend of BR, for promotional purposes and not getting a release signed to take the pictures or sell the pictures in the first place.

If the pictures were taken in a public place, a photographer does not legally need a release. So you must be talking about that scenario, because in a private studio, a person always knows he or she is being photographed, while in a public space, a person may never know a picture is being taken, but also has no obligation to be informed it is happening.

 

[Jayelles]

If the pictures were taken in a public place, a photographer does not legally need a release. So you must be talking about that scenario, because in a private studio, a person always knows he or she is being photographed, while in a public space, a person may never know a picture is being taken, but also has no obligation to be informed it is happening.

That is true. We are alll being photographed all the time on cctv and no-one ever asks our permission. Also, think of those celebrity photos - the papazzazi never ask them for permission to sell or publish.

A neighbour of mine successfully extorted a settlement from a large insurance company who used a photo of her house in an ad, but the letter said something about the settlement being a "courtesy" payment. I'm not sure she would have won had the case gone to court.

Then there are all those poor unfortunates whose emarassing moments were captured on home movies and shown to the nation on "You've been Framed".... The film maker gets the cash there.

I wonder why Judith took a photo of a friend of Burke's? Presumably this occurred in Boulder and that Judith didn't travel all the way to Atlanta to do this? I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a friend of Burke.

 

[asdasd]

No the parents did not sue JP and the picture appeared back around the time of the murder it contained JBR, BR, JP's daughter and the young person that I have been discussing on the other thread. JP was never authorized by the Stines to take the picture or to sell it. JP is one of the worst people associated with this case. Not only did she profit from murder but she exploited her daughter by forcing her to lie about her relationship with JB. The Daugther and JB never hung out. JB had friends her own age to play with. Also JP was really just an aquantince of the Ramsey's she rarely if ever had seen the inside of their house even.

This all comes from my own observations.

 

[why_nutt]

JP was never authorized by the Stines to take the picture or to sell it.

And the penny drops as to who this mystery child is.

 

[Seeker]

That is true. We are alll being photographed all the time on cctv and no-one ever asks our permission. Also, think of those celebrity photos - the papazzazi never ask them for permission to sell or publish.

They are public figures...it's different when it comes to private citizens.

A neighbour of mine successfully extorted a settlement from a large insurance company who used a photo of her house in an ad, but the letter said something about the settlement being a "courtesy" payment. I'm not sure she would have won had the case gone to court.

I think a private citizen would have more legal grounds to sue and win if their picture is used without their permission as a sales ploy to benefit some company.

Then there are all those poor unfortunates whose emarassing moments were captured on home movies and shown to the nation on "You've been Framed".... The film maker gets the cash there.

Sounds like our America's Funniest Home Video's show. It's not as if the people on them didn't know they were being filmed, and it wasn't for a publicity stunt to make some anonymus company, or individual money. I would imagine that most people who are filmed on "home" video are probably contacted before the show is aired. Here at least the subject of the video is usually in the audience with the person who filmed them and submitted the tape.

I wonder why Judith took a photo of a friend of Burke's? Presumably this occurred in Boulder and that Judith didn't travel all the way to Atlanta to do this? I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a friend of Burke.

I have no idea what photo this is or how it was used.

 

[tipper]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270562.shtml

COPS in Portland

02.Dec.2003 19:53​

​

Crewguy

​

link
​

Just to let you know that no one gets their face on the show unless they sign a photo release. It's a must and the crew can't film in anyone's house unless they obtain permission. This many times is asked for as the crew goes into the house by the rest of the crew behind the cameraman. A location release is signed by someone in the house. None of the footage can be used unless these releases are signed. I've seen many stories killed and not used because the releases were not signed. So you only have the people who sign the releases to blame. Don't you think someone would have successfully sued the show in the last 15 years if that wasn't the case?

So the bottom line is no one gets on COPS unless they WANT to! How do I know? I worked for the show for years and saw a lot of good stories not used because people exercised their rights and didn't sign.


crewman is half right

25.Feb.2004 16:09​

​

hackworth

​

link
​

crewman is half right, you need to sign a release but the crew won't tell you what it is... they pretend to be cops and just tell you to sign it so they can "help you out." I know because I refused to sign and the crewman told me I had just blown my chance to avoid arrest... yeah right.



http://www.wchstv.com/abc/amfunniest/contestrules.shtml

Rules for America’s Funniest Home Videos

ELIGIBILITY

1. Employees of Cara Communications Corp, d/b/a Vin Di Bona Productions and The Walt Disney Company, their subsidiaries, affiliates and assigns and members of their immediate families are not eligible for prize awards.
   
2. Persons under 18 may enter but written parental consent will be required before their entries will be broadcast or be eligible for prize awards.
   
3. Entrants whose clips are chosen for inclusion in a program must sign a release attesting to the fact that they are the rightful owners of the submitted clips. All persons appearing in the clips must sign consent forms and/or releases before the submission may be broadcast. Parent or guardian must sign consent/release form for minors. Failure to provide requested releases and/or consents will result in disqualification of entrant.

British and American laws on privacy are different.