copyright creative-commons
Legal use of public event videography on a company page
<p>It is clear to me that using photography from an event of an identifiable person requires explicit consent from the individual(s) if the photo is to be used for &quot;commercial purposes&quot;. (see <a href="https://www.anthonyjohnsonphotography.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-using-event-images-for-commercial-purposes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.anthonyjohnsonphotography.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-using-event-images-for-commercial-purposes</a>).</p>
<p>When researching this in terms of videography, I am not finding much guidance. I <em>assume</em> this will follow the same rules as photography, but would like to confirm that is indeed the case.</p>
<p>Additionally, &quot;commercial use&quot; seems to be subjective. For example, if a company posts a video from an event and simply says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Our Company would like to congratulate Acme organization on your latest event! Check out their video&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...with a link to the video, does that constitute commercial use?</p>
<p><em><strong>Note:</strong> I'm talking about a California S-Corp is that matters.</em></p>

<p>The &quot;right of publicity&quot; is highly variable – it even has different names depending on jurisdiction. In the US, it is state-dependent, and what that right encompasses depends on jurisdiction. There is no such right in Oregon, there is a <a href="https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/2/7/v2/27932/01-09-2013-WA-Publicity-Laws.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">statutory right in Washington</a>, and a common law right in Idaho. California has both. Cross-jurisdictional generalizations are thus highly perilous.</p>
<p>That said, I am aware of no jurisdiction that treats still photographs different from moving pictures. The right centers around &quot;identifiable characteristics&quot; of an individual. Under the &quot;incidental use&quot; doctrine, permission may not be required. Hence in Washington, under <a href="https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=63.60.070" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 63.60.070</a>, consent is not required if the use &quot;is an insignificant, de minimis, or incidental use&quot;.</p>
<p>Under Washington's scheme, the conversation about your example ends before it starts because the right of publicity doe not exist for corporations, see <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 63.60.010</a>, <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.040" rel="nofollow noreferrer">63.60.010</a> (individuals and personalities, not corporations). &quot;Commercial use&quot; is irrelevant, see <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§50</a> &quot;An infringement may occur under this section without regard to whether the use or activity is for profit or not for profit&quot;. <a href="https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=63.60.070" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§70</a> states exceptions, which include things that are conceptually similar to &quot;fair use&quot; (in particular, &quot;comment&quot;). The legislature did not draw a bright line, leaving that to the courts. I don't find any case law in WA that addresses an alleged infringement that &quot;X, which is a commercial operation, mentioned our name, without out permission&quot;, but a straightforward reading of the statues indicates that this is permitted, even when a business congratulates a named individual.</p>
