Copyright question

S

sids

Messages
53
Name
sid
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

A question I am hoping you can help with.

In the UK if someone displays a group photo online with multiple people and one of the subjects (previously willing participant) now wants the photo taken down due to privacy concerns. What rights does this 'subject' have? I understand, because the subject previously willingly had the photo taken, and it is a group, the photographer has full rights (even if no waiver etc was signed?)

I as this because I was recently asked to remove a photo (which I have out of respect) and am curious how the legal aspects work.

Thank you.
 
Exact circumstances may have a bearing, eg age of those involved.

But it's not a copyright issue. For politeness I'd generally comply with such a request.
 
My understanding is that in the UK for non-commercial postings, then there is no specific 'right to privacy', and the photographer is free to both take and post online images of anyone they chose (there are, I think, exceptions relating to some members of the security services).

However, there are often 'terms of admission' rules on entry to property that restrict what you can photograph or what you can do with photographs - this is the way many schools 'ban' photographs, or prohibit sharing on social media.

In the example you gave, it sounds like someone simply changed their mind, and now doesn't want to be in a photograph - legally, I don't think they have any right to require you to stop sharing the image.

Morally, however, I think that you did the right think in respecting their wishes (assuming there was not some compelling reason why the image shoudl still be available for others to view)
 
Faldrax said:
My understanding is that in the UK for non-commercial postings, then there is no specific 'right to privacy', and the photographer is free to both take and post online images of anyone they chose
Click to expand...


You're right about this. With the notable exception that if you chose to publish photographs can and do still fall foul sometimes of libel/defamation laws.

If a shoot is commissioned by the subject then that subject has the right to stop publication. After the event I'd be inclined to take them down if requested. However if you've published online the reality is that you haver little control of what happens after publication
 
and also harrasment/stalking etc

if you take several hundred pictures of your ex girlfriend in the streeet and post them on your facebook wall to show you are still watching her you can expect the police to come knocking (no, it wasnt me :bat:, the girl concerned is a freind of mine)

likewise there was that guy in scotland who'd used a basement window to collect several thousand legs and upskirt shots of random women onto his flikr - he got jailed as i recall
 
sids said:
What rights does this 'subject' have?.
Click to expand...

Given your story and not all the made up ones in replies.. the answer would be none..

For the last somehting like 15 years.. I ahve had a notice saying I will remove pics from my website on request.. I find it easier and more friendly to just remove.. hwoever I have never been asked to remove a group picture and may thingk differently if all the other people showed an interest in it staying ... Like most things.. take each case as it comes..
 
If it was a commission shoot of just that person then yes take it down, if its a group photo you were asked to take and someone wants it taking down because they fell out with a group member or got caught having an affair then I would take it down but only if all the others agreed.

Laws on people under 16 is a whole different ball game in the UK.
 
Drakie drake said:
Laws on people under 16 is a whole different ball game in the UK.
Click to expand...


Its not you know. Its exactly the same (unless you make indecent photos of minors). What constitutes indecent is another matter and probably outside of the scope of this
 
KIPAX said:
Given your story and not all the made up ones in replies.. the answer would be none..
..
Click to expand...

Actually given his story there isnt enough information to say categorically one way or another ... the missing element needed being why does the person concerned now have 'privacy concerns'
 
I had this questioned last night for some of my images. The images are of motorcyclists on there bikes there faces obscured by there helmets, no number plates are visible. The images are taken in a public place and are not for any commercial use. The question I was posed was I was breaking the law posting those images on facebook without written waivers signed by each individual.......This was raised because 2 of my images from this shoot ended up being printed by the local paper....I was unaware they had used these images and I've contacted them and sorted all that quagmire out now LOL
 
Owen Evans said:
I had this questioned last night for some of my images. The images are of motorcyclists on there bikes there faces obscured by there helmets, no number plates are visible. The images are taken in a public place and are not for any commercial use. The question I was posed was I was breaking the law posting those images on facebook without written waivers signed by each individual.......This was raised because 2 of my images from this shoot ended up being printed by the local paper....I was unaware they had used these images and I've contacted them and sorted all that quagmire out now LOL
Click to expand...
But that's still incorrect.

Unlike the OP, you have a copyright issue as the local paper has used your images without your consent.
 
Yes Phil V the copyright issue with the paper was a separate issue and one that I sorted with them today, and was a pain. The jist of what was being said was all of the non commercial (ignoring the ones that were published without consent) images I posted on facebook were illegal due to no waiver being signed......Never had a complaint about it and as far as my knowledge goes as long as I'm not using them commercially or for profit then there is no issue.
 
Faldrax said:
My understanding is that in the UK for non-commercial postings, then there is no specific 'right to privacy', and the photographer is free to both take and post online images of anyone they chose (there are, I think, exceptions relating to some members of the security services).
<snip>
Click to expand...
There is no general right to privacy if you are in a public place (with many specific exceptions) - but there is very much an expectation of privacy if you are in a private place.

If the subject was in a public place engaged in non-private activity, you may well have a legal right to publish the picture but in any case where you have rights, good manners should take precedence.
 
Thought this forum maybe different from the rest.... see ya round.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drakie drake said:
Depends on what aspect same as normal, In some parts of some motor sports you are not aloud to use images of under 16s without prior permission from that governing body such as junior dragster.
Click to expand...


Is that the law, or the governing bodies guidance? (which has no legal standing)
 
Drakie drake said:
Depends on what aspect same as normal, In some parts of some motor sports you are not aloud to use images of under 16s without prior permission from that governing body such as junior dragster.


Its not misinformation its in what circumstances you need to use it for.
KIPAX
Click to expand...
That isn't statutory because of their age - that's the rules of a sports governing body - not the law.

Try selling a photo from the premier league of a 22 YO without permission and see where that lands.
 
Owen Evans said:
The jist of what was being said was all of the non commercial (ignoring the ones that were published without consent) images I posted on facebook were illegal due to no waiver being signed.......
Click to expand...

whoever was saying that was talking out their arse - its perfectly legal to post the pictures you describe to facebook... the purpose of model release is to preclude lawsuits if you seem to suggest someone endorses a product/service or if a publisher uses a picture derogatority ... i believe there was a case where someone used a picture of a scruffy old guy sat on a park bench drinking to illustrate an article about homelessnes and alcoholism and he sued and won on the grounds that he was neither homeless nor an alcoholic.

That is why the likes of Getty/ Alamy etc tend to insist on model releases for pictures put up for stock .. however they are not legally required (in the UK - the law over seas varies)
 
Drakie drake said:
Depends on what aspect same as normal, In some parts of some motor sports you are not aloud to use images of under 16s without prior permission from that governing body such as junior dragster.
Click to expand...

So if i take a picture of junior dragster from the stands and post it on facebook what exactly are they going to do ?
 
boyfalldown said:
Its not you know. Its exactly the same (unless you make indecent photos of minors). What constitutes indecent is another matter and probably outside of the scope of this
Click to expand...
I was meaning more moral than legal, guess I should have stated that.
 
A warning has been given for this post
boyfalldown said:
Not seeing the moral ground either
Click to expand...
Just because someone dont like what you do or in fact what you write dont make you a better person just make you look like a MOD EDIT: LAY OFF THE PERSONAL INSULTS IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE USING THIS PLACE PLEASE.

As for this post you dont need a signed disclamer to put it on facebook, however facebook is an american based company and they may stick by the laws of its own country so you may have to have in their eyes, one of them things I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drakie drake said:
Thought this forum maybe different from the rest.... see ya round.....
Click to expand...
It's a shame really - we do struggle when people give out incorrect legal advice, but generally it's lovely

Stick around, you might grow to love it here.
 
I didnt mean anything in a legal sence, got a few police friends going to ask what they think of the taking pictures in public thing, often wondered where I stood on that one myself an will get back after, they should know shouldnt they?!? Haha.
 
Drakie drake said:
I didnt mean anything in a legal sence, got a few police friends going to ask what they think of the taking pictures in public thing, often wondered where I stood on that one myself an will get back after, they should know shouldnt they?!? Haha.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you never qualified that when you posted.
That about the police is a joke right? Or have you been away from the interwebs for the last 5 years.
 
Ask them if they've read the guidance letter from acpo...
 
Phil V said:
Unfortunately you never qualified that when you posted.
That about the police is a joke right? Or have you been away from the interwebs for the last 5 years.
Click to expand...
Geez and it didnt state im a cop or lawer in my profile either.
I never qualified it?
Qualified? Stated was what you were looking for then I think.
No I been to busy recovering from a shattered shoulder from a track injury for 2 years while before that I was stood trackside 3foot off 1500hp cars starting from a standing start on the quarter mile having U-joints engine parts and blower belts fly at me at a great rate of speed when they explode setting off from the line, I dont do normal, I do extreme with a slight risk of death when im on the track.

Legal wont help me if I get a piston in the face at 4000 rpm! So lets give the lad his post back you wanna try rip me to bits on a forum ( not thet that would ever work ) message me instead eh an keep it off the public eyes.
 
Drakie drake said:
Geez and it didnt state im a cop or lawer in my profile either.
I never qualified it?
Qualified? Stated was what you were looking for then I think.
No I been to busy recovering from a shattered shoulder from a track injury for 2 years while before that I was stood trackside 3foot off 1500hp cars starting from a standing start on the quarter mile having U-joints engine parts and blower belts fly at me at a great rate of speed when they explode setting off from the line, I dont do normal, I do extreme with a slight risk of death when im on the track.

Legal wont help me if I get a piston in the face at 4000 rpm! So lets give the lad his post back you wanna try rip me to bits on a forum ( not thet that would ever work ) message me instead eh an keep it off the public eyes.
Click to expand...
I think you may need to re examine the meaning of 'qualified' in my comment. You might have misunderstood completely.

You know the advice you gave was incorrect, I offered a tip to avoid drama in the future. It seems you didn't 'get it' which oddly added to your drama.

You'll need s thicker skin and a bit more understanding to give out business advice on here.
 
Owen Evans said:
I had this questioned last night for some of my images. The images are of motorcyclists on there bikes there faces obscured by there helmets, no number plates are visible. The images are taken in a public place and are not for any commercial use. The question I was posed was I was breaking the law posting those images on facebook without written waivers signed by each individual.......This was raised because 2 of my images from this shoot ended up being printed by the local paper....I was unaware they had used these images and I've contacted them and sorted all that quagmire out now LOL
Click to expand...

...was I breaking the law posting those images on facebook without written waivers signed by each individual
No, if taken if a public space.
 
Owen Evans said:
Yes Phil V the copyright issue with the paper was a separate issue and one that I sorted with them today, and was a pain. The jist of what was being said was all of the non commercial (ignoring the ones that were published without consent) images I posted on facebook were illegal due to no waiver being signed......Never had a complaint about it and as far as my knowledge goes as long as I'm not using them commercially or for profit then there is no issue.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter if you were selling them at £1M a go, in the UK there's no expectations of privacy in a public place.
 
Drakie drake said:
Geez and it didnt state im a cop or lawer in my profile either.
I never qualified it?
Qualified? Stated was what you were looking for then I think.
No I been to busy recovering from a shattered shoulder from a track injury for 2 years while before that I was stood trackside 3foot off 1500hp cars starting from a standing start on the quarter mile having U-joints engine parts and blower belts fly at me at a great rate of speed when they explode setting off from the line, I dont do normal, I do extreme with a slight risk of death when im on the track.

Legal wont help me if I get a piston in the face at 4000 rpm! So lets give the lad his post back you wanna try rip me to bits on a forum ( not thet that would ever work ) message me instead eh an keep it off the public eyes.
Click to expand...

He asked you to qualify a statement, not if you had and qualifications, i.e. this statement is true under the following circumstances.

If you're in the UK and you're in a public place as defined in law and are photographing a subject which is either in a public place or can be seen from a public place and you're not causing a harassment in the legal sense...
 
Sounds good to me :) rock on.

Off to the park today to play on the swings
 
Cheers everyone, clear advice. I was aware it was perfectly legal but the general public have many misconceptions when it comes to photography in public spaces. I tend to use common sense and courtesy to avoid problems with people who are not fully aware of the law concerning photography in public. I just added my question as it actually happend to myself so I could add the adsact details to any questions on here..........At no point did I say "This fish is good enough for Jehova!"

Thanks again:)
 
Setting aside the assumption that this is a public space and UK law around right to privacy..as it's unclear if this is relevant..

If this was a commissioned (or requested) group shot, e.g. sports club, social event, with a mixed range of ages. At what age can a child give their permission for a group shot including them to be posted? - under 7's can't enter into a contract so I assume they can't give binding permission and would require parent/guardian permission. The OP notes that permission was given and then withdrawn, but there are circumstances when permission could not lawfully have been given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top