Legal help sought....

Tim Wood

Tim Wood

Messages
13
Name
Tim Wood
Edit My Images
No
Hi people,

Long time lurker, now looking for help.

I covered an event at a public park last week and have placed up the images for sale on my website.

I have had the following and just need your advice before I make my next move:

View media item 12843
Thanks,

Tim
 
Public place - nothing they can do.

As far as i'm aware (i'm no expert) there are only a few places that taking pictures in public that have bylaws preventing commercial photography (i.e. Royal parks).

No laws (that i'm aware of) of taking pictures of children in public (unless your taking an unhealthy interest - which your not).
 
markgodley said:
Public place - nothing they can do.

As far as i'm aware (i'm no expert) there are only a few places that taking pictures in public that have bylaws preventing commercial photography (i.e. Royal parks).

No laws (that i'm aware of) of taking pictures of children in public (unless your taking an unhealthy interest - which your not).
Click to expand...
Isn't there something about them being identifiable?

Personally I'd just take them down, but they could whistle for a copy of the photos
 
Given they are posing for the photo and by the looks of it, working for the promoter (looks like handing out leaflets), I'd say they had no real expectation of privacy.
I'm assuming you were there officially and there are no specific terms on photography associated with the event?
 
Hi all - Thanks for your quick responses! I have had a look at the link Mark Godley put up, and if i'm reading this right, then I should just go back to them explaining that as the event was held in a public place, and the images are editorial, I didn't need their permission to take or sell this image, and even though you are under age (assuming they are under 16) then as it's not showing you in a defamatory way, then they have no right to the image?

I hope that makes sense!

Tim
 
Furtim said:
Given they are posing for the photo and by the looks of it, working for the promoter (looks like handing out leaflets), I'd say they had no real expectation of privacy.
I'm assuming you were there officially and there are no specific terms on photography associated with the event?
Click to expand...

Yes - I was the official photographer for the event.
 
Tim Wood said:
Yes - I was the official photographer for the event.
Click to expand...

I might be tempted as they were effectively working to provide the event that you covered to offer them something better than full price - same with other performers, but then it's not my business and I'd be crap at making money :)
 
jakeblu said:
This has some useful info,

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co....cial/data-protection-issues-for-photographers

Its from a solicitors blog but that doesn't necessarily make it right
Click to expand...

It don't think that's an accurate representation of the position. The key word in that blog is "potentially". However, IANYL.

Tim Wood said:
Hi all - Thanks for your quick responses! I have had a look at the link Mark Godley put up, and if i'm reading this right, then I should just go back to them explaining that as the event was held in a public place, and the images are editorial, I didn't need their permission to take or sell this image, and even though you are under age (assuming they are under 16) then as it's not showing you in a defamatory way, then they have no right to the image?

I hope that makes sense!

Tim
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Are you sure they are underage, you only have their word ATM?
 
Furtim said:
I might be tempted as they were effectively working to provide the event that you covered to offer them something better than full price - same with other performers, but then it's not my business and I'd be crap at making money :)
Click to expand...
This would have been my starting point, I'd also generally take down any images I'm requested to.

But as the snotty little s*** has come over all junior lawyer I'd tell em to stick it.
 
I would just take them down. If they won't buy them, and no one else is going to, what's the point of having them?
I'm sure they are just trying their luck for a freebie so taking them down and the option of them getting hold of them seemingly going away will likely wind them up a bit.
 
Phil V said:
This would have been my starting point, I'd also generally take down any images I'm requested to.

But as the snotty little s*** has come over all junior lawyer I'd tell em to stick it.
Click to expand...

+1 but with a bit more politely :D

As said above I'd take any picture down on polite request. Its only the nice thing to do.

But since they are claiming rights, you should politely tell them they don't have right to anything in this case :p

Also can underage (what ever that might be...) sign or agree to things? I was under 18 when I joined Uni, I had to get my mum to sign everything!
 
Last edited:
Furtim said:
I might be tempted as they were effectively working to provide the event that you covered to offer them something better than full price - same with other performers, but then it's not my business and I'd be crap at making money :)
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
This would have been my starting point, I'd also generally take down any images I'm requested to.

But as the snotty little s*** has come over all junior lawyer I'd tell em to stick it.
Click to expand...
~

I think you both might have misunderstood what is happening here. To my mind they are using a park run to advertise their own theatre production of Alice in Wonderland; a completely separate event.
If anything they should be paying extra as they are4 likely to use the image for promotion.

What would I do? I'd ignore them!

You aren't going to win a legal argument and they are unlikely to pay after that argument. They're after a freebie.

Would I take the images down? God no.
If we capitulate every time some scrote decides they don't want their image visible, we are sending out entirely the wrong message about photography.
If it were slightly embarrassing I might consider it. But this? No chance.
 
DemiLion said:
~

I think you both might have misunderstood what is happening here. To my mind they are using a park run to advertise their own theatre production of Alice in Wonderland; a completely separate event.
If anything they should be paying extra as they are4 likely to use the image for promotion.

What would I do? I'd ignore them!

You aren't going to win a legal argument and they are unlikely to pay after that argument. They're after a freebie.

Would I take the images down? God no.
If we capitulate every time some scrote decides they don't want their image visible, we are sending out entirely the wrong message about photography.
If it were slightly embarrassing I might consider it. But this? No chance.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but...
I dont see anything about a park run.
And there's a link to the photographers site at the side of the Wonderland post.
 
@Tim Wood I can't add much value to your question, other than I'd not give them a copy and I'd take them down if I was requested to. I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of keeping them up - life's too short and I doubt I'd make money from them... Also, not sure why the images are 'censored' in your attachment, but the link to the online gallery is also in that post, and the 'uncensored' images are visible...
 
Ignore them..

If someone comes to me with a request to remove an image then I will.. even if they are being rude.. But these people are asking for a copy and then when it's not free they suddenly talk about it being taken down.. So they think it's ok for you to publish it if they get a free copy? haha

You have explained how they get a copy.. any more contact with them will just be an argument..
 
DemiLion said:
~

I think you both might have misunderstood what is happening here. To my mind they are using a park run to advertise their own theatre production of Alice in Wonderland; a completely separate event.
If anything they should be paying extra as they are4 likely to use the image for promotion.

What would I do? I'd ignore them!

You aren't going to win a legal argument and they are unlikely to pay after that argument. They're after a freebie.

Would I take the images down? God no.
If we capitulate every time some scrote decides they don't want their image visible, we are sending out entirely the wrong message about photography.
If it were slightly embarrassing I might consider it. But this? No chance.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they're scrotes? Their messages on the whole were polite, they may not be correct about their rights but that doesn't make them scrotes.

Just because you are allowed to photograph something in law doesn't always mean you should. Whilst I understand they were at a public event and he was the official photographer, but if your displaying images on a public website, that clearly identify someone, especially a minor, and you are asked to remove them then I'm not sure why you wouldn't. Well I would but thats another matter. I'm not saying its wrong to display images of people who are identifiable, but if they are uncomfortable with that and they request that they be removed, then I think that is the right thing to do.
 
jakeblu said:
What makes you think they're scrotes? Their messages on the whole were polite, they may not be correct about their rights but that doesn't make them scrotes.

Just because you are allowed to photograph something in law doesn't always mean you should. Whilst I understand they were at a public event and he was the official photographer, but if your displaying images on a public website, that clearly identify someone, especially a minor, and you are asked to remove them then I'm not sure why you wouldn't. Well I would but thats another matter. I'm not saying its wrong to display images of people who are identifiable, but if they are uncomfortable with that and they request that they be removed, then I think that is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


they are happy for them to be there if they can have a free copy.. .. I think your missing that bit ? :)
 
jakeblu said:
What makes you think they're scrotes? Their messages on the whole were polite, they may not be correct about their rights but that doesn't make them scrotes.

Just because you are allowed to photograph something in law doesn't always mean you should. Whilst I understand they were at a public event and he was the official photographer, but if your displaying images on a public website, that clearly identify someone, especially a minor, and you are asked to remove them then I'm not sure why you wouldn't. Well I would but thats another matter. I'm not saying its wrong to display images of people who are identifiable, but if they are uncomfortable with that and they request that they be removed, then I think that is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Except this isn't really about them being uncomfortable with the images being online. They've just got the s***s because they can't have the originals for free.
 
Hi all - Thank you for your contributions! (Please no fighting!) I will go back to the person and remove the images. I find their approach completely wrong but in the world of social media, the last thing I want is hassle. Thank you again!
 
Tim Wood said:
Hi all - Thank you for your contributions! (Please no fighting!) I will go back to the person and remove the images. I find their approach completely wrong but in the world of social media, the last thing I want is hassle. Thank you again!
Click to expand...
Let us know what you say and their response. We will all likely be in this position at some stage.
 
KIPAX said:
they are happy for them to be there if they can have a free copy.. .. I think your missing that bit ? :)
Click to expand...
No, I didn't miss that bit, it was clear in their message. I think form my first post in this thread I made it clear what I thought about that.
ecoleman said:
Except this isn't really about them being uncomfortable with the images being online. They've just got the s***s because they can't have the originals for free.
Click to expand...
Thats how it looks yes, I don't dispute that, I had said earlier they could go whistle. My post about displaying images was more general.
 
DemiLion said:
~

I think you both might have misunderstood what is happening here. To my mind they are using a park run to advertise their own theatre production of Alice in Wonderland; a completely separate event.
If anything they should be paying extra as they are4 likely to use the image for promotion.

What would I do? I'd ignore them!

You aren't going to win a legal argument and they are unlikely to pay after that argument. They're after a freebie.

Would I take the images down? God no.
If we capitulate every time some scrote decides they don't want their image visible, we are sending out entirely the wrong message about photography.
If it were slightly embarrassing I might consider it. But this? No chance.
Click to expand...

Mark sums things up nicely
 
Tim Wood said:
Hi all - Thank you for your contributions! (Please no fighting!) I will go back to the person and remove the images. I find their approach completely wrong but in the world of social media, the last thing I want is hassle. Thank you again!
Click to expand...

Careful all those other underage people do not ask you to take their pictures down as well or you could end up with not many to display and sell.
 
Keith W said:
Careful all those other underage people do not ask you to take their pictures down as well or you could end up with not many to display and sell.
Click to expand...

I agree. You were asked to photograph an event, which you did. Removing the images just makes it look as if you were in the wrong and she (underage girl) was right.

Know it all school kid (1) - (0) Bad p**** photographer.
 
On the one hand - life's too short - on the other, as she claims she knows the law, as her to quote it - full chapter and verse.
 
Phil V said:
I could be wrong but...
I dont see anything about a park run.
And there's a link to the photographers site at the side of the Wonderland post.
Click to expand...


No, you aren't wrong, I am. I misread the circumstances of the shoot and came to the wrong assessment.

Having said that, event details aside, my thoughts stand.
 
Tim Wood said:
Hi all - Thank you for your contributions! (Please no fighting!) I will go back to the person and remove the images. I find their approach completely wrong but in the world of social media, the last thing I want is hassle. Thank you again!
Click to expand...

Big error IMO. You are opening yourself to abuse from anyone else who wants the same deal (free images).
 
Delete the email/message and get on with your daily life.

Can I have a photograph for free? No then you can't use it either?
Tell the kid to do one.
 
andyscott said:
Delete the email/message and get on with your daily life.

Can I have a photograph for free? No then you can't use it either?
Tell the kid to do one.
Click to expand...

Step back and look at that again...

Tell the kid to do one.

Kid FFS.
 
Furtim said:
Yeah because we never tried it on when we were kids eh!
Click to expand...

If I'd tried it on when I was a kid, I'd have found out when I'd gone too far. :)

This kid went too far ;)

That's life.

The outcome is good all round: the photographer should lose nothing, and the kid gets a valuable life lesson :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top