Publishing photos on websites - is this true?

A

Alison

Messages
736
Name
Alison
Edit My Images
Yes
I visited a local village fete with friends and family last weekend and took some snaps, about 60 in all, just for the sake of practice. They turned out well and rather than just bin them I e-mailed a contact sheet of 12 thumbnails as an example to the lady who maintains the village website, offering to burn the rest to DVD and mail it to her at my own expense.

This is her response and I just wondered if what she says is true?

“The pictures in the montage contain a lot of children’s photos.

Unfortunately (and this reflects the sad state of affairs in this world), I can’t place photos of children under 16yrs on the website and only specific ones of adults unless we have their permission. This is because of legislation and also guidelines by the Internet Watch Foundation. I can use the ones which portray groups of people, but I would appreciate if you could send me 1 and 2 in the top row and no 1 in the second row.

I don’t know if you got people’s permission for the individual shots, in which case I could place those also. They are very good photos, however. Please let me know if you have any more.”

The photographs were all offered free of charge, I do the same at lots of similar small events and the villages/organisations concerned post my pictures of individuals in their galleries without any problem. Are they perhaps not following the letter of the law?

This isn’t a question about my rights as a photographer btw., that’s not been questioned at all. It’s the publishing issue.
 
i'd say its a load of tosh .( short answer )
 
That's what I thought too, as far as I know you only need releases/permission if you're going to be selling the photos commercially.

There's extra complications though, as there's something about if kids are on a list of protected children or something, but I can't remember what it is or what it's called!
 
I've just gone to the IWF web site and looked at their guide. The guide refers time and time again to indecent images of children. Not just images of children. Now it's up to the administrator of the web site to decide what they display and they way they interperate any guidelines they see appropriate.

I'd just walk away . It's just not worth the bother
 
hmmm....I am not sure she is correct about using the word 'legislation', that would indicate an actual law and as long as the photography was in a public place, there is no law stopping it.

However, some community, school, etc, websites may follow guidelines [guidelines, not laws] that advise not publishing pictures of minors, simply because it saves them any hassles, either from paranoid parents, or because they don't know if certain children are at risk. Lets say for example a child and a parent have been relocated to a new area to try and protect them from an abusive parent/family member or similar. If that childs picture was published on a specific villages website and the abuser saw it, would kind of give the game away a bit as to where they now live, if that makes sense.

The problem is that basically, these kind of guidelines are used to protect a very very small minority of people who are genuinely at risk, and to prevent grief from a much larger minority of people who are simply paranoid and a bit too influenced by the dramatic headlines in the Daily Mail popular tabloid press.


As for the individual adult shots, she is allowed to post them as again, taken in a public place, but again, sounds like she is adhering to guidelines that are a little excessive and unnecessary most of the time. :cuckoo:



However, as you are offering the images free, its the website loss if they are not used and probably not worth debating the issue with her tbh
 
chris321 said:
That's what I thought too, as far as I know you only need releases/permission if you're going to be selling the photos commercially.

There's extra complications though, as there's something about if kids are on a list of protected children or something, but I can't remember what it is or what it's called!
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand the reasoning for this, unless the child under a protection order/ whatever has a placard or sandwich board stating this how the devil do we know.
 
Legally what she is saying is rubbish, but if she is following some industry guidelines designed to play ultra-safe and never upset anybody, then she is probably right.

In which case, it is just her judgement call. But simply telling her it is not a matter of legislation and that she should stop being such a wimp, will probably not help much.
 
I love these stories where none photographers try to tell photographers exactly what the law is... but talk absoloute and total whatsit..

I follow guidlines from the FA for kids pictures... the main two being.. No names and no obvious poses that could easily be manipulated.. thats what it says on the FA website. But there aint no rules or laws.
 
Unfortunately as wrong as she is I doubt you'll get very far telling her that. A better tact might be to play dumb and ask her to cite the specific law/act/etc. that defines all this as you're worried too and want to make sure you're not breaking any laws.

Of course she won't be able to and with some encouragement she might be led on a journey of discovery out of the land of the tin foil hat ;)
 
Can you not set up a private gallery and give her the log in password to pass out to her trusted community.
 
TBH, I would send her the photos she was happy with and also explain that she may be misunderstanding the laws and legislation, mention that there were no actual laws covering what she mentioned and that the IWF mention indecent images. Then stress that you understand her caution and if she want any more photos after reading your email then she is welcome.

I.e. mention it gently that she may (not IS) be wrong, and you appreciate her caution and that if she decides she wants any more photos that you are fine with it. :)
 
In a nutshell...
You made a nice offer of free pics. She doesn't want to take you up on it because she's concerned about "legislation" etc.

Just walk away from it. Life's too short as it is without having to put up with any more PC hassle than absolutely necessary.
 
Its actually not a load of tosh.
The law happens to be complicated, and people complicate it even further.
Children are especially protected, so it is understandable that the person does not want to risk her job because of some pretty pictures. Which is likely because people are paranoid.
There are some fairly good resources on UK law, just google them.

I think street photography is very interesting but a lot of people dont like it. By law taking a picture of someone on the street is not a problem, and from what I know it is only a clear offence if you publish a photo that is degrading to the person.
If you harass someone, continuously shoot them and disturb them can be a crime or an offence but will depend on a judges interpretation of the situation.

My view on this is that if celebrities don't have these right, nobody else should have them. If people want to keep seeing celebs drunk, nude or wearing swaticas then they should put up with it too.
 
edumad said:
Its actually not a load of tosh.
The law happens to be complicated, .
Click to expand...

sorry but it is a load of tosh.. can you show me any law that contradicts the advice given in this thread ? sorry but you cant..
 
edumad said:
Its actually not a load of tosh.
The law happens to be complicated, and people complicate it even further.
Children are especially protected, so it is understandable that the person does not want to risk her job because of some pretty pictures. Which is likely because people are paranoid.
There are some fairly good resources on UK law, just google them.

I think street photography is very interesting but a lot of people dont like it. By law taking a picture of someone on the street is not a problem, and from what I know it is only a clear offence if you publish a photo that is degrading to the person.
If you harass someone, continuously shoot them and disturb them can be a crime or an offence but will depend on a judges interpretation of the situation.

My view on this is that if celebrities don't have these right, nobody else should have them. If people want to keep seeing celebs drunk, nude or wearing swaticas then they should put up with it too.
Click to expand...

Sorry to correct but you can use the picture if it's taken in a public place degrading or otherwise anywhere you want, unless it is used in an advertising context, then you would require the permission of the person in the image, and then again if it's a general street view for example with loads of people in you will be fine.
 
Put me down for some tosh too and I'll have a side of baloney ;)
 
Edtog said:
Sorry to correct but you can use the picture if it's taken in a public place degrading or otherwise anywhere you want, unless it is used in an advertising context, then you would require the permission of the person in the image, and then again if it's a general street view for example with loads of people in you will be fine.
Click to expand...

You can only use a derogatory picture if it is a true depiction - that is the critical part. And you must be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt if needs be. That's why newpapers are very careful in headlines and captions. Eg recently, they don't say Jordan was drunk, which they perhaps cannot prove (without a witness statement, unlikely) they say she 'looked the worse for wear' and so on.

And I'm not sure about the advertising caveat. If you get a snap of a famous footballer swigging Lucozade in the street, what is to stop them using it in advertising?

You would never catch anyone sensible/famous doing it of course, and Lucozade would never want to use it, but why couldn't they? The law makes no distinction between advertising and editorial and I could imagine seeing such a picture editorially without any problem.
 
Images used in adverstising are a civil matter, not against the "law" as such but likely to invite unwanted action, more so the greater the "status" of the subject involved.
 
Edtog said:
Sorry to correct but you can use the picture if it's taken in a public place degrading or otherwise anywhere you want, unless it is used in an advertising context, then you would require the permission of the person in the image, and then again if it's a general street view for example with loads of people in you will be fine.
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more. The only thing I'd add is photo's are subject to libel laws (while we're talking degrading) so if you took a photo of a supermodel walkiing past the Priory in such away as it looks like she's leaving it with the Caption 'Supermodel leaves Priory' then it would possibly be libel. If you took a photo of the same model throwing up drunk then its fine, no matter how degrading.

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
If you took a photo of the same model throwing up drunk then its fine, no matter how degrading.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a case in Scotland where a photo of a drunk "nobody" was ruled against on the grounds of reasonable expectation of privacy?
 
edumad said:
and from what I know it is only a clear offence if you publish a photo that is degrading to the person.
Click to expand...

If just publishing a photo is degrading to the subject then that can only be due to the actions or location of the subject. i.e. drunk in the gutter outside a nightclub. Therefore it is a true representation and may be published.

The potential for trouble arises if the way you present it is defammatory and untrue. i.e. if you present it with a defammatory caption or composited into another image to make it out of context.


Steve.
 
Pxl8 is right, there was a case of that, and I believe the 'model' won the case.
 
pxl8 said:
Wasn't there a case in Scotland where a photo of a drunk "nobody" was ruled against on the grounds of reasonable expectation of privacy?
Click to expand...

not sure - I din't hear of it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen :). I know there were a couple of drunks throwing up in google streetview that they removed - along with the guy leaving a sex shop :D but they were voluntery removals by Google.

Hugh
 
pxl8 said:
Images used in adverstising are a civil matter, not against the "law" as such but likely to invite unwanted action, more so the greater the "status" of the subject involved.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's it. Important distinction.

Nothing illegal using a picture of say Reynaldo swigging Lucozade in the street, but if used in a commercial advertising context, that is clearly exploiting his name and status and therfore taking unfair advanatge if you don't have some kind of agreement.

But (and not wanting to argue the point unduly - unusual, I know :D ) what in principle is the difference between using that image in advertising to sell Lucozade, and using it editorially to sell magazines/newspapers? I think it is that one is deemed to be okay by historical president and something nonsensical like being in the public interest, and the other is just bare faced taking the mick :shrug:
 
I think "technically" editorial isn't a selling tool, it's reporting events. But I live in a place called Theory, everything works here :lol:
 
Thanks all for taking the time to reply :)

I thoroughly respect this lady’s right to post (or not post) whatever she likes on the website she manages. It’s a shame though as a lot of folk at the fete wanted to give me their e-mail addresses so that I could send them “their” photos. There’s no way I’d remember who wanted what which is why people were looking forward to seeing them on the website.

I’m certainly not going argue and will send her the photos she requested. Funnily enough “no 1 in row 2” is a shot of a middle-aged man kicking a football. Now is he her hubby or might she just be perving a complete stranger? Regarded in light of the supposed legislation she cites I think that’s a perfectly valid question – though not one I’ll be asking!

Her interpretation of what I now know to be guidelines really is silly though. Just as an example, on the contact sheet I e-mailed there’s a shot of two mature gentlemen manning the hotdog stand, quite clearly posing for the camera and enjoying having their pic taken. It’s blindingly obvious that they’ve given permission :cuckoo:

pxl8 said:
Unfortunately as wrong as she is I doubt you'll get very far telling her that. A better tact might be to play dumb and ask her to cite the specific law/act/etc. that defines all this as you're worried too and want to make sure you're not breaking any laws.

Of course she won't be able to and with some encouragement she might be led on a journey of discovery out of the land of the tin foil hat ;)
Click to expand...

Amp34 said:
TBH, I would send her the photos she was happy with and also explain that she may be misunderstanding the laws and legislation, mention that there were no actual laws covering what she mentioned and that the IWF mention indecent images. Then stress that you understand her caution and if she want any more photos after reading your email then she is welcome.

I.e. mention it gently that she may (not IS) be wrong, and you appreciate her caution and that if she decides she wants any more photos that you are fine with it. :)
Click to expand...

That’s a brilliant suggestion, gently steering the PC brigade towards the realm of sanity. Heck, if the idea spreads we might even be allowed to have fun!

PerfectSpeed said:
Can you not set up a private gallery and give her the log in password to pass out to her trusted community.
Click to expand...

Perfect. All I have to do at any event then is to hand out the address and tell folks to look there for their pics. Can you point me in the direction of a good free gallery site please?
 
Alison said:
...there’s a shot of two mature gentlemen manning the hotdog stand, quite clearly posing for the camera and enjoying having their pic taken. It’s blindingly obvious that they’ve given permission
Click to expand...

What if the caption said "These two enjoy munching on their meaty sausage!" and was printed in Gay Pride's "Wrinkly Queens" section. ;)
 
pxl8 said:
What if the caption said "These two enjoy munching on their meaty sausage!" and was printed in Gay Pride's "Wrinkly Queens" section. ;)
Click to expand...

Hahaha :lol: That's brilliant ^^^ :D

Good point too. But the editor's problem, not Alison's, which is where this thread started come to think of it. Some time ago ;)
 
pxl8 said:
What if the caption said "These two enjoy munching on their meaty sausage!" and was printed in Gay Pride's "Wrinkly Queens" section. ;)
Click to expand...

^^^ Priceless! :lol:

I imagine they would find it hilarious – they were real sports and great fun. Mme Chapeau de Tinfoil on the other hand would probably wet her pants and see legal action heading her way.

HoppyUK said:
Hahaha :lol: That's brilliant ^^^ :D

Good point too. But the editor's problem, not Alison's, which is where this thread started come to think of it. Some time ago ;)
Click to expand...

A serious question in respect of Hoppy’s post, would the individual who initially posted the photo on their website be in legal poo for this or would it be the person who lifted it then posted it on the Gay Pride site with the caption? :shrug:
 
It's the publisher who is likely to get into trouble.
 
The publisher would depend, in the case of a paper/magazine it would be the company that "published" it.
 
pxl8 said:
The publisher would depend, in the case of a paper/magazine it would be the company that "published" it.
Click to expand...

Moot point. It is actually the Editor who is legally responsible and, if it came to it, would go to prison. I was reminded of this fact, being an ex-editor, by our company solicitors when I was sued for a rather serious libel. By a quite famous photographer as it happens. Fortunately, I was right, and could prove it :thumbs: In practise, it is usually the publishing company that picks up the tab.

I also believe that things have changed a bit recently, even if the letter of the law has not, in regard to the internet. It is unreasonable to expect website publishers of forums such as this to be able to 'edit' everything that is posted, but they are expected to behave very properly and monitor traffic rigorously. I think that, in practise, much of the burden of responsiblity falls back to the poster with various disclaimers in the T&Cs we all sign up to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top