Image Rights - Help Please

gothgirl

gothgirl

Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a question about image rights.

If I take an image that someone purchases from me , to use an example let's say someone paid me £10 for a snapshot of their cow at an agricultural show.

Am I correct in thinking, that provided that image doesn't contain any people / people's faces , that as the photographer I still own the full copyright / rights to that image, and can upload it to stock sites like getty images?
 
gothgirl said:
provided that image doesn't contain any people / people's faces , that as the photographer I still own the full copyright
Click to expand...
I don't think the presence of people has any effect on copyright. The presence of identifiable individuals may have a bearing on what commercial uses the picture can be put to.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I don't think the presence of people has any effect on copyright. The presence of identifiable individuals may have a bearing on what commercial uses the picture can be put to.
Click to expand...

Not copyright, but don't you need a licence / release to sell stock photos that include a person's face?
 
Just a question thought out loud?

In the specific scenario you mention.....I wonder.....

Though you (of course) have copyright, is there a matter of property release i.e. if said cow was clearly identifiable e.g. by ear tag cross referencing as owned by Mr Bloggs would your use of it for commercial purposes (stock site sales?) require any appropriate 'Property Release' ?
 
Might also be worth checking if the show organisers had any photographic restrictions in their Terms and Conditions regarding commercial use of images taken at the event?

GC
 
Box Brownie said:
Just a question thought out loud?

In the specific scenario you mention.....I wonder.....

Though you (of course) have copyright, is there a matter of property release i.e. if said cow was clearly identifiable e.g. by ear tag cross referencing as owned by Mr Bloggs would your use of it for commercial purposes (stock site sales?) require any appropriate 'Property Release' ?
Click to expand...
gcgraphs said:
Might also be worth checking if the show organisers had any photographic restrictions in their Terms and Conditions regarding commercial use of images taken at the event?

GC
Click to expand...

All the images I'm thinking of uploading are generic images of animals, at shows or otherwise.

In most images, there's no branding or anything identifiable in them that would tie them to a certain person, event or location , most have a simple plain background.
At most they might be wearing a show number in the ring, which serves no purpose without context i.e if you didn't know the date, the show and have the catalogue from the day, it would be completely irrelevant. See example here - (Not the best pic, actually from my rejects but it was the first one to pop up in lightroom that would work as an example)

example.jpg
In terms of show restrictions though... all the event's I had a press pass to take photographs, in fact I still have the badges to prove it.
64399093_867498906967617_2022935184168452096_n.jpg
So even if the images contained people's faces, such as people in the show ring with horses / cattle etc, I should still technically be able to sell them as stock, as I was listed as press at the event so had permission to take photographs for editorial use...?

This is my first time attempting stock images, so apologies for all the questions
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
Not copyright, but don't you need a licence / release to sell stock photos that include a person's face?
Click to expand...

You can sell such an image for editorial and news purposes, provided they do not defame the people shown,. however you would need their permission to use it for commercial advertising use.
Unless it is sold or given away the copyright always remains with the photographer.
Stock agencies have their own rules and requirements... so read their small print.
 
So as I thought, when I sell an image, I retain the copyright unless I specifically hand over the copyright in writing also?

If I were to upload some stock pictures then to lets say getty images, of someone in a show ring for example riding a horse or showing cattle, I could upload that image for creative or editorial use? If I can't use it for commercial use, how do I know that if I upload it to Getty, they won't sell it for commercial use?
 
gothgirl said:
So as I thought, when I sell an image, I retain the copyright unless I specifically hand over the copyright in writing also?

If I were to upload some stock pictures then to lets say getty images, of someone in a show ring for example riding a horse or showing cattle, I could upload that image for creative or editorial use? If I can't use it for commercial use, how do I know that if I upload it to Getty, they won't sell it for commercial use?
Click to expand...

Read their rules and conditions.as to how you should label such an image, and their conditions for accepting it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You can sell such an image for editorial and news purposes, provided they do not defame the people shown,. however you would need their permission to use it for commercial advertising use.
.
Click to expand...


In the UK, you don't even need consent for advertising use, as long as the image doesn't either imply endorsement of a product or defame the subject.

It's probably sensible to have it but not necessary.
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
Not copyright, but don't you need a licence / release to sell stock photos that include a person's face?
Click to expand...

If you don't have a release, you can sell the image in stock libraries for editorial purposes, but not for commercial purposes.
 
I always understood that if you were commissioned to take an image (asked to photograph a cow or whatever and paid to do so) the person who commissioned it owns the copyright unless there is a signed contract that states otherwise. Is that not correct?
 
Dangerous said:
I always understood that if you were commissioned to take an image (asked to photograph a cow or whatever and paid to do so) the person who commissioned it owns the copyright unless there is a signed contract that states otherwise. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...


This is the EU, not Aus, NZ or SA (or a couple of other countries that still follow Imperial Copyright).
 
DemiLion said:
We are still part of EU law until we leave the auspices of the EU, whether that is with or without a deal; ie the ECJ still has precedence in this country.
Click to expand...

We have left although we are following the eu rules until a new arrangement is set up and signed. But like it or not we are out.
 
Dangerous said:
I know exactly what you said.
Click to expand...


I don't think you do. Whilst we might have technically left the EU, we are still governed by their existing treaties in transition.

That means we are still part of 'EU law'.
 
DemiLion said:
I don't think you do. Whilst we might have technically left the EU, we are still governed by their existing treaties in transition.

That means we are still part of 'EU law'.
Click to expand...

We have not 'technically' left, we have left. We are, till 31st Dec 2020 'technically' in in as much as in the withdrawal agreement most (but not all) eu rules & regs apply by agreement. We no longer bound by the eu Ts & Cs but by very similar ones in the withdrawal agreement. The main difference between what you & I are saying is you say we are in and bound by eu rules and have only technically left.
I am saying we have left and not bound to eu rules but are bound by withdrawal agreement rules which are for the most part the same so are actually out but technically in.

To be honest the difference isn't worth arguing about but as I say whether we likwe it or not we are actually no longer part of the eu and eu trade agreement with non- eu countries do not apply to the UK but those countries have been asked to honour them while the withdrawal agreement is in force but they are not obliged to.

So as we are virtually in agreement apart from where the words technically & actually apply I will say no more on this subject especially when my first comment was said in jest.
 
Metal God said:
If you don't have a release, you can sell the image in stock libraries for editorial purposes, but not for commercial purposes.
Click to expand...

eerm course you can :)
 
Dangerous said:
We have not 'technically' left, we have left. We are, till 31st Dec 2020 'technically' in in as much as in the withdrawal agreement most (but not all) eu rules & regs apply by agreement. We no longer bound by the eu Ts & Cs but by very similar ones in the withdrawal agreement. The main difference between what you & I are saying is you say we are in and bound by eu rules and have only technically left.
I am saying we have left and not bound to eu rules but are bound by withdrawal agreement rules which are for the most part the same so are actually out but technically in.

To be honest the difference isn't worth arguing about but as I say whether we likwe it or not we are actually no longer part of the eu and eu trade agreement with non- eu countries do not apply to the UK but those countries have been asked to honour them while the withdrawal agreement is in force but they are not obliged to.

So as we are virtually in agreement apart from where the words technically & actually apply I will say no more on this subject especially when my first comment was said in jest.
Click to expand...


This is a thread about image rights. The law is pretty clear.

If you want to argue about meaningless BS, then go back to the Coronavirus thread where you can carry on making an arse out of yourself.
 
Stansthirdboy said:
Google is your friend, but this seems to back up with what has been said
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
Click to expand...

Of note about this linked company:-
AFAIK they are selling a service that is not actually required..................you click the shutter you have Copyright (unless as mentioned elsewhere above re: employment, commissioning etc), they infer that buying into their service you get extra protection ~ but of what sort???

Oh, and as for their page at the bottom it says this
"This fact sheet is intended only as an introduction to ideas and concepts only. It should not be treated as a definitive guide, nor should it be considered to cover every area of concern, or be regarded as legal advice. "
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top