Beginner A question of copyright - or something?

S

Steve922

Messages
104
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
If I were to take a photograph of a stranger, (say someone fixing a car in a street or climbing a rock face or something else off the cuff) and I were to sell this to a magazine, does the subject of the photograph have any claim to anything? What if I were to publish it for free somewhere, say in these forum pages?

I can't this this has been discussed anywhere.

Steve
 
There's no law against shooting somebody if you're in a public place and they're not in a place where they should expect privacy (so no shooting through the window into the shower room), And you can publish that picture with no legal problems - as long as you don't imply something nasty about the subject, or they'll be able to sue you for libel.

However, a magazine will almost certainly require a model release, signed by the subject, unless the image is to be used as part of news reporting.
 
hollis_f said:
There's no law against shooting somebody if you're in a public place and they're not in a place where they should expect privacy (so no shooting through the window into the shower room), And you can publish that picture with no legal problems - as long as you don't imply something nasty about the subject, or they'll be able to sue you for libel.

However, a magazine will almost certainly require a model release, signed by the subject, unless the image is to be used as part of news reporting.
Click to expand...


Only if the person is demonstrably the subject of the photo... otherwise no problems. Done it may times. If it's just a person in the shot, and they're not the main subject, and it's on public land... no issues whatsoever.
 
Steve922 said:
If I were to take a photograph of a stranger, (say someone fixing a car in a street or climbing a rock face or something else off the cuff) and I were to sell this to a magazine, does the subject of the photograph have any claim to anything? What if I were to publish it for free somewhere, say in these forum pages?

I can't this this has been discussed anywhere.

Steve
Click to expand...
Like Frank says, legally you're fairly safe, morally can be an issue of the 'wrong' subject, but when it comes to selling images, lots of publishers favour the risk averse approach.
 
Just think about all the railway stations in the UK that have railway enthusiasts on them all taking photographs of trains with people on them and the train driver in full view. Then there are all the bus spotters with their cameras photographing buses full of people. The answer is you can take photos in public areas of people and are not have any claim against you. The railway and bus photos are regularly published in many magazines. Also it does not matter if the person being photographed is being shown in a bad light as long as the photo refelects the truth.
 
Hmmm.... so what if the person IS the main subject? The example I gave of a rock-climber would be a good one (which is not on public land BTW.) I'm not asking IF I can publish it (paid or not paid) so much as whether the subject has any claim on me if I somehow in some form do. I'm surprised that I couldn't find this discussed anywhere. I would have thought it is a question that the pros in here would be sure to know to be on safe ground.

Steve
 
Steve922 said:
Hmmm.... so what if the person IS the main subject? The example I gave of a rock-climber would be a good one (which is not on public land BTW.) I'm not asking IF I can publish it (paid or not paid) so much as whether the subject has any claim on me if I somehow in some form do. I'm surprised that I couldn't find this discussed anywhere. I would have thought it is a question that the pros in here would be sure to know to be on safe ground.

Steve
Click to expand...
They are, they do, they told you.

Why would you think there's a difference how much of the image the person takes up? It's irrelevant.

If they're in it, they have the same rights if they're in the background or the main subject.

And when you take a photograph, you own the copyright (there are exceptions, but basically you have to actively sign away those rights).
If for instance you set up an advertising shoot, the model has no rights, but she's signed a contract from which she's happy with her remuneration. She has no rights over the image. Her remuneration could have been a free print or a million dollars.
 
shapeshifter said:
Just think about all the railway stations in the UK that have railway enthusiasts on them all taking photographs of trains with people on them and the train driver in full view. Then there are all the bus spotters with their cameras photographing buses full of people. The answer is you can take photos in public areas of people and are not have any claim against you. The railway and bus photos are regularly published in many magazines. Also it does not matter if the person being photographed is being shown in a bad light as long as the photo refelects the truth.
Click to expand...
But the railway isn't a public space.
 
Steve922 said:
Hmmm.... so what if the person IS the main subject? The example I gave of a rock-climber would be a good one (which is not on public land BTW.) I'm not asking IF I can publish it (paid or not paid) so much as whether the subject has any claim on me if I somehow in some form do. I'm surprised that I couldn't find this discussed anywhere. I would have thought it is a question that the pros in here would be sure to know to be on safe ground.

Steve
Click to expand...
It depends on what the message attached to the image is. If, for example, you used the image in an article that said climbers defaced and damaged fragile ecosystems, then you may have defamed them.
 
Steve922 said:
Hmmm.... so what if the person IS the main subject?
Click to expand...
Then you'd need a release from the "subject" before most magazines would touch it.
 
Model release has no legal standing in the UK so why would they need one?
 
Keith W said:
Model release has no legal standing in the UK so why would they need one?
Click to expand...

Because while it not may be a legal document, it goes a long way to indemnify the publication against improper use if the subject themselves have given written and signed permission to use the image. The complainant doesn't really have a case to argue.
 
Keith W said:
Model release has no legal standing in the UK so why would they need one?
Click to expand...
Of course it does. It's a legal contract. You get the model to sign a form that says that they agree to your using their image for.... whatever purposes you want to include. Without a signed release you leave yourself open to the model claiming that you promised to pay them a million quid when their image appears on the front of Trainspotter's Weekly.
 
Steve922 said:
Hmmm.... so what if the person IS the main subject? The example I gave of a rock-climber would be a good one (which is not on public land BTW.) I'm not asking IF I can publish it (paid or not paid) so much as whether the subject has any claim on me if I somehow in some form do. I'm surprised that I couldn't find this discussed anywhere. I would have thought it is a question that the pros in here would be sure to know to be on safe ground.

Steve
Click to expand...
It's been discussed here loads of times. If the person is obviously the main subject and is identifiable (would a rock-climber be "identifiable") then there may not be copyright issues, but there may be data protection issues. Very unlikely that it would come to anything, but it's legally possible that it could.
 
See here:

"Are photographs personal data?
The courts have determined that photographs and images of people are capable of being personal data (the case of Durant v Financial Services ). Where the name and image of a person are linked - or are capable of being linked - then the person can be identified and the image should be regarded as personal data.

The problem arises where an image is anonymous (unnamed and unknown to the Data Controller) but is theoretically capable of being recognised and identified by someone else who knows that individual.

The Act states that personal data is information relating to living people who can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller (our italics). Does 'can be identified' mean 'is identified' or more broadly 'is capable of being identified'?

The UK courts have not yet ruled on this issue. The Information Commissioner's Office has not given unambiguous guidance, but has tended towards the 'is capable of being identified' definition. They have said to JISC Digital Media that where a person is the focus of an image, that image is likely to be personal data - even in the absence of a name or other identifying information. But where people are incidentally included in an image or are not the focus (e.g. a busy street scene) the Information Commission's Office believe that the image is unlikely to contain personal data."

From: http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/data-protection1

A "data controller" can, in law, be a private individual (e.g. a hobbyist taking photographs) as per the Data Protection Act.
 
Keith W said:
some speculation in that and also out of context
Click to expand...
It's not speculation, it's the recommendation of the Information Commissioners Office who have said that it is possible that anonymous photographs could be considered personal data IF the subject is capable of being identified. A situation that is yet to be legally tested, as is made explicit.

And how is it out of context? If the OP is taking photographs of strangers they are unlikely to fall foul of copyright law but it is worth considering that there is a small possibility they could fall foul of data protection law, IF the stranger is the clear subject.
 
So this one of mine for example:

Climber by Tim Garlick, on Flickr

I was contacted by someone who wanted to use it, and they asked if I had a model release for it (I didn't). I assume without the model release the person featured would still have some rights over the image or how it was used...
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
It's not speculation, it's the recommendation of the Information Commissioners Office who have said that it is possible that anonymous photographs could be considered personal data IF the subject is capable of being identified. A situation that is yet to be legally tested, as is made explicit.

And how is it out of context? If the OP is taking photographs of strangers they are unlikely to fall foul of copyright law but it is worth considering that there is a small possibility they could fall foul of data protection law, IF the stranger is the clear subject.
Click to expand...

That is not from the information commissioners office, it is the opinion/interpretation of JISC Digital Media
 
TimmyG said:
So this one of mine for example:

Climber by Tim Garlick, on Flickr

I was contacted by someone who wanted to use it, and they asked if I had a model release for it (I didn't). I assume without the model release the person featured would still have some rights over the image or how it was used...
Click to expand...
The subject has no specific 'rights'. A publisher might get nervous that you have no permission and it's possible the subject could sue them, but as has been pointed out, that's more a theoretical issue than an actual one.
 
Phil V said:
The subject has no specific 'rights'. A publisher might get nervous that you have no permission and it's possible the subject could sue them, but as has been pointed out, that's more a theoretical issue than an actual one.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, but why would they be at risk of being sued if the subject had no rights?
 
Keith W said:
That is not from the information commissioners office, it is the opinion/interpretation of JISC Digital Media
Click to expand...
They've not made any interpretation, they've repeated the interpretation they've been handed from ICO.
 
Some of these posts actually made me laugh and I am wondering if all the posters here have actually had real life experience..?


OK heres one of many many examples I can give you over the years.. about hmm 8 yrs ago i shot a womens football fa cup final and some women from the crowd ran onto the pitch to streak.. I published pictures of her (for sale) in all her glory (she had skin coloured pants on but bare breasted) She ran around the pitch I got loads of pictures..

About a year later she sent me a rather nasty email threatening solicitors and everything unless i took down the pictures... then went on to say if I gave her a full set she would let me keep them onsite..

suffice to say.. even though I had pictures of her half naked.. she ddint have a leg to stand on.. I had the pics published in mags and newspapers with no model release needed.. i didnt have to take the pics down... she had no expectation of privacy.. they where my pictures i could do what i wanted with them..


PS I do have a policy to take down picture if asked.. but she contacted me nasty so I didnt..

i make a living from taking peoples pictures and I have shot rock climbing.. i dont need a model release and i can do what ever I want with the pictures..

to answer your actual questions and not the ones people are making up.. the person in the picture has no right to anything....
 
TimmyG said:
Gotcha, but why would they be at risk of being sued if the subject had no rights?
Click to expand...
Serves me right for my brevity. Not something I normally do.

Here's a real world example of what 'no rights' means...
KIPAX said:
Some of these posts actually made me laugh and I am wondering if all the posters here have actually had real life experience..?


OK heres one of many many examples I can give you over the years.. about hmm 8 yrs ago i shot a womens football fa cup final and some women from the crowd ran onto the pitch to streak.. I published pictures of her (for sale) in all her glory (she had skin coloured pants on but bare breasted) She ran around the pitch I got loads of pictures..

About a year later she sent me a rather nasty email threatening solicitors and everything unless i took down the pictures... then went on to say if I gave her a full set she would let me keep them onsite..

suffice to say.. even though I had pictures of her half naked.. she ddint have a leg to stand on.. I had the pics published in mags and newspapers with no model release needed.. i didnt have to take the pics down... she had no expectation of privacy.. they where my pictures i could do what i wanted with them..


PS I do have a policy to take down picture if asked.. but she contacted me nasty so I didnt..

i make a living from taking peoples pictures and I have shot rock climbing.. i dont need a model release and i can do what ever I want with the pictures..

to answer your actual questions and not the ones people are making up.. the person in the picture has no right to anything....
Click to expand...

But some outlets would have been nervous of being sued and demanded a model release, they'd be wrong to but it doesn't stop them asking. On this occasion they'd have missed out on the story.

If Kippax wanted to sell those images to Getty as stock, they'd definitely refuse them because of a lack of model release, and Getty have a worldwide market which includes countries where a release is necessary.
 
How do you know Getty would definitely refuse them? and why would Getty refuse them it's a completely legal news story.
 
TimmyG said:
Gotcha, but why would they be at risk of being sued if the subject had no rights?
Click to expand...

Because people have the right to sue anybody for anything. Now it's quite likely that the model would lose - but the magazine will have had to pay, up front, a lot of cash for their legal people. Even if they were awarded costs, there's always the possibility that the model would only be able to pay it back at fourpence per fortnight.

If the magazine insists on a model release and they get sued they just walk into court, show the judge that they have a signed contract with the plaintiff - case closed.
 
KIPAX said:
OK heres one of many many examples I can give you over the years.. about hmm 8 yrs ago i shot a womens football fa cup final and some women from the crowd ran onto the pitch to streak.. I published pictures of her (for sale) in all her glory (she had skin coloured pants on but bare breasted) She ran around the pitch I got loads of pictures..
Click to expand...

So your pictures were for editorial use, yes? Sold to illustrate a particular news event (Stupid Woman Interrupts Football Match). In such a case a model release is almost certainly not needed, nor would most editors ask for one.

But try using one of those images for advertising and you'll find it a different matter. Try using one of them in an ad with a disparaging caption (Streaker demonstrates what happens if you don't wear RoundEmUp Bras) and wait for the lawsuits to start flying.
 
TimmyG said:
So this one of mine for example:

Climber by Tim Garlick, on Flickr

I was contacted by someone who wanted to use it, and they asked if I had a model release for it (I didn't). I assume without the model release the person featured would still have some rights over the image or how it was used...
Click to expand...

You do not need a model release to publish this for editorial puposes, so to illustrate an article in a climbing magazine for example. Nobody will touch it for advertising purposes without a model release though which is why the likes of Getty would not touch it.
For example if a newspaper needed model releases to print a picture of an incident in a city centre, or of a football match they may need to get 100's or 1000's of model releases for one image, which is not going to happen.

If you sell stock, there are generaly speaking two license types. Rights Managed which mean you can restrict use of the image to editorial use only and when and for how long they can use it, and Royalty Free which means the buyer can do what they like with the image as many times as they like which is why you cannot sell a RF image without a Model Release whereas with RM you can do either.
 
Steve-T said:
You do not need a model release to publish this for editorial puposes, so to illustrate an article in a climbing magazine for example. Nobody will touch it for advertising purposes without a model release though which is why the likes of Getty would not touch it.
For example if a newspaper needed model releases to print a picture of an incident in a city centre, or of a football match they may need to get 100's or 1000's of model releases for one image, which is not going to happen.

If you sell stock, there are generaly speaking two license types. Rights Managed which mean you can restrict use of the image to editorial use only and when and for how long they can use it, and Royalty Free which means the buyer can do what they like with the image as many times as they like which is why you cannot sell a RF image without a Model Release whereas with RM you can do either.
Click to expand...

what steve said , and the reason that no one will touch it for advertising is that without a release the subject could sue , because the end use implied they endorsed xyz without their permission (the other circumstance where that can happen is if the image is used in a derogatory context - and the subject sues for defamation)
 
shapeshifter said:
Does anyone have a link or information as to were all these rules are stated in law?
Click to expand...

they aren't per se

its just a matter of companies limiting their liability when buying stock images - there is various case law which shows such precautions to be necessary (most recently the weller case where a paper was found to have invaded their privacy by picturing the kids and naming them)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top