Single person in shot - ok to publish?

B

bfrost

Messages
5
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
So it’s probably a question it’s been asked before, but I understand that I have copyright to this photo. The photo is a general background but with a solitary cyclist in the foreground whose face is clear. How would this be if I posted this picture on social media? I don’t have any permission from her to show this photo. Legally, morally, wrong or no problem?
 
In the UK there is no right to privacy in a public place so it comes down to where you were at the time. If you were on public land to which you legally had access when you took the photo then you can publish. Morally its up to you.

Cross posted with @Topsy but I would add that it doesn't mater whether it's commercial or not, otherwise the paparazzi would go out of business.
 
sirch said:
In the UK there is no right to privacy in a public place so it comes down to where you were at the time. If you were on public land to which you legally had access when you took the photo then you can publish. Morally its up to you.

Cross posted with @Topsy but I would add that it doesn't mater whether it's commercial or not, otherwise the paparazzi would go out of business.
Click to expand...
I think the Papparazzi use their shots as "news" or "reporting" which doesn't require permission, however, what I meant by commercial was advertising or such like, if you want to use such photos for advertising and/or the like I am sure you need permission via a model release. Of course I could be wrong, as I said I am no expert.
 
While putting it on your own social media is harmless I suppose the cyclist might be displeased if someone downloaded it and used it for an advertising campaign or something.
How likely is that though.
I wouldn't worry if you want to post it up, as other say on a public road there's no expectation you won't be included in someone's photograph.
As a stock photo it could be sold as an 'editorial' image which has some restrictions but could be used for example to illustrate the recent boom in cycling.
 
On a similar note, if one were to make a lot of 'street' images and then publish a 'zine' (hate that word) for sale, would that be classed as commercial and would you need model release for each person in each image where they are recognisable? (sorry if this is a hijack, but it seemed to fit with the theme of the thread)
 
FlyPhot said:
On a similar note, if one were to make a lot of 'street' images and then publish a 'zine' (hate that word) for sale, would that be classed as commercial
Click to expand...
If you sell something by way of trade then it can be classed as commercial - but see below.
FlyPhot said:
and would you need model release for each person in each image where they are recognisable?
Click to expand...
Not unless you were implying something untrue about them e.g. "everyone in this picture drinks Crapulike" or "everyone in this picture has been convicted of a criminal offence".

There's always the chance that you might show a picture of a lunatic who then takes you to court on specious grounds. They might cost you a lot of time and effort before they lose the case but that's a once in a blue moon event.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you sell something by way of trade then it can be classed as commercial - but see below.

Not unless you were implying something untrue about them e.g. "everyone in this picture drinks Crapulike" or "everyone in this picture has been convicted of a criminal offence".

There's always the chance that you might show a picture of a lunatic who then takes you to court on specious grounds. They might cost you a lot of time and effort before they lose the case but that's a once in a blue moon event.
Click to expand...
cheers, interesting stuff indeed
 
FlyPhot said:
cheers, interesting stuff indeed
Click to expand...

interesting, but there is no seperate definition in the UK as to commercial and editorial photography. As pointed out a photo can be libellous, but a model release has persuasive value that the subject had prior knowledge of a photos intended use. It has no other standing in UK law
 
For the most part, your image would be considered innocuous and not subject to anything given a subject taken from a public place of a public place even if the subject is quite clear. Where I think the subject of the picture might have grounds for payment though is if you sold the image to an advertising company which then used it in TV adverts, on the side of buses, and in newspapers. I'm pretty sure that if it was me in the picture I would want a percentage of what the photographer received.
 
Last edited:
yup, in the UK and you can take and publish images of people taken in a public place.

The Zine question is interesting - quite a lot of street photographers are self publishing at the moment... So you can publish photos in a book/zine without permission from those featured in the book. If i'm honest, I'm unclear if you can use the photos to promote the book .
 
For the avoidance of doubt; any answer that contains phrases like ‘but I’m no expert’ are questionable.

And the responses that correct people with responses about legal basis etc are probably right.

Anyway, if all you’re doing is sharing it on social media, and not in any way misrepresenting the subject fill yer boots.
 
Phil V said:
Internet forums never change do they.

A dozen answers; two of them are correct. Now how on earth would a newbie, who needs the answer know who to believe?
Click to expand...

so which ones are correct?
 
Phil V said:
Did you read my 2nd post?

I’ve just reread with your further questions, in short, the advice you got from Andrew is sound.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was rhetorical :D (y);)
 
FlyPhot said:
On a similar note, if one were to make a lot of 'street' images and then publish a 'zine' (hate that word) for sale, would that be classed as commercial and would you need model release for each person in each image where they are recognisable? (sorry if this is a hijack, but it seemed to fit with the theme of the thread)
Click to expand...
But then how do street photographers publish books with their work?
 
Mintchocs said:
But then how do street photographers publish books with their work?
Click to expand...
You're confusing two quite separate things. Publishing a magazine and selling it would (probably) be classed as carrying on a trade so far as HMRC are concerned.

If you take a picture and place it into an advertisement which implies that a person shown in the picture is endorsing the product being advertised, then there would be various ways in which you could be liable. One way might be libel, another might be invasion of privacy, there may be yet others.

But to show a picture of an actual event, without implying anything about a person shown in the picture, would only be a problem under very specific circumstances. This is where lawyers get involved because it's very seldom that a picture taken in a public place and used for artistic or editorial purposes can be successfully challenged - which doesn't stop some people trying. :(
 
boyfalldown said:
You’d have no basis to recover that though
Click to expand...

Then what is the point of a model release form? So if one can take any pictures of anyone at all, in almost any situation so long as it is on public property and then use those images for whatever purpose they want so long as they don't defame the subject of the picture then the subject has no legal recourse to stop said picture being used in a way they might not like and with absolutely no recompense? Seems a bit harsh but makes it easier for the photographer I suppose.
 
boyfalldown said:
In UK law they have no legal standing. They may have persuasive value in the event of a libel trial. Photographs in the UK can be libellous or be an invasion of privacy

In some countries model releases have a legal standing which is why some agencies insist on them
Click to expand...

I did not know that. I feel rather free now and wish I'd taken the picture I envisaged a couple of weeks ago but didn't because...well I don't know why I didn't. A girl was sitting on the pavement in Tavistock with a sign in front of her which said something along the lines of 'homeless and hungry' and at the same time was tucking into a shop-bought ham roll. Sometimes I take the shot and sometimes the subject matter makes me forget I have a camera; I wouldn't make a photo-journalist :(
 
ShinySideUp said:
I did not know that. I feel rather free now and wish I'd taken the picture I envisaged a couple of weeks ago but didn't because...well I don't know why I didn't. A girl was sitting on the pavement in Tavistock with a sign in front of her which said something along the lines of 'homeless and hungry' and at the same time was tucking into a shop-bought ham roll. Sometimes I take the shot and sometimes the subject matter makes me forget I have a camera; I wouldn't make a photo-journalist :(
Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't have taken that photo. There's something about taking photos of people who have fallen on bad times for whatever reason (and there are many reasons why this can happen) that just doesn't sit right with me. And, who is to say that some kind passer by hadn't bought and given her that roll in an act of kindness? Everyone has a story, but using those who are down on their luck as a photographic subject just doesn't sit well with me.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Then what is the point of a model release form? So if one can take any pictures of anyone at all, in almost any situation so long as it is on public property and then use those images for whatever purpose they want so long as they don't defame the subject of the picture then the subject has no legal recourse to stop said picture being used in a way they might not like and with absolutely no recompense? Seems a bit harsh but makes it easier for the photographer I suppose.
Click to expand...
Model release forms have virtually no basis in English and Welsh law (probably Scottish too).
They do make everyone feel that they’re ‘doing the right thing’ though, particularly as they are required in lots of other countries.

In short, there’s nothing wrong with using a model release where you feel it’s appropriate but don’t confuse it with anything legal.

Edit - just read on, I’m not deleting it though, as it took too long to write:)
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
I did not know that. I feel rather free now and wish I'd taken the picture I envisaged a couple of weeks ago but didn't because...well I don't know why I didn't. A girl was sitting on the pavement in Tavistock with a sign in front of her which said something along the lines of 'homeless and hungry' and at the same time was tucking into a shop-bought ham roll. Sometimes I take the shot and sometimes the subject matter makes me forget I have a camera; I wouldn't make a photo-journalist :(
Click to expand...
I saw that girl as well but she was eating a hot Pasty. I didn't take a photo as I'm not into street but I did think it was odd. Perhaps in each case some kind passer by gave her food instead of money.
 
Last edited:
Not everything is as it seems, and not everyone is honest. In the past I've seen people begging and then getting into a car and driving away. Another occasion being out with our children bought food for someone only to have them refuse and get angry because they wanted money. My expectation is that beggars are not what they seem.
 
Topsy said:
Perhaps in each case some kind passer by gave her food instead of money.
Click to expand...


I usually offer a pasty or sarnie rather than cash. It's about a 50/50 chance that I'll get told they only want cash and they don't get that from me.
 
boyfalldown said:
Last time I checked the RPS didn’t have any legislative power in the uk.
Click to expand...
Alas, I haven't the time to provide you with remedial reading classes but if you get someone to read to you what I wrote, you might actually understand it and be able to make a sensible comment. :rolleyes:

As I made entirely clear: a model release is a civil contract and can only be enforced by the civil legal system.
 
Last edited:
Model Releases are pretty much only useful as a record that a shoot actually took place, where, when, for how much, who was present and that no coercion was involved regarding shooting levels (in the case of nudity being involved). A Usage Agreement on the other hand - which is an entirely separate document and the wording of which should never form part of your Model Release paperwork - is an entirely different thing. It governs who can use the images, where, when, for how long and how any financial compensation is to be allocated.
And since legislation differs from country to country, there's no 'one size fits all' when it comes to either document.
I had to get mine drawn up, translated and notarised by lawyers in three different countries when I was working with models, at no small expense. Unless you're working commercially, it's often better to do without them entirely. If a person agrees to be photographed by a photographer - in a studio or on location - they can't really claim they didn't know what was going on and object to seeing the images online at some future date. This has been tested in court, both in the US and EU. I myself have tested this here in Germany - a model's parents objected to seeing her images appearing on a Model/Photography site and she subsequently contacted first me, then the site owners, demanding they be removed. Even without a release, I'm not obliged to do so since I have the email chain where she agreed to the shooting and the levels involved.

Regarding 'street photography' of strangers, in general terms, there's no expectation of privacy in public places, so you're fine for non-commercial work - sharing on social media doesn't count as 'publishing' in the accepted sense, in than no financial transaction takes place. France has slightly different laws regarding 'privacy' - you can shoot someone walking in the street without permission, but not sitting at a street cafe for example, so it's often better to simply ask. If asking beforehand risks spoiling the spontaneity of the image, ask afterwards. It's really not difficult.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Alas, I haven't the time to provide you with remedial reading classes but if you get someone to read to you what I wrote, you might actually understand it and be able to make a sensible comment. :rolleyes:

Sorry for whatever is wrong in your life you need to make childish insults to strangers on the web. I hope it works out for you. You carry on if it makes you feel better for a few minutes old man
Click to expand...
 
Topsy said:
So long as you took the photo from public land and the subject was on public land there should be no issues providing you are not using the shot commercially. This is my understanding of the rules but I stress I am no expert.
Click to expand...
Thisnis what I've heard also. But your own value's may over ride it and that is also alright. I don't take very many photo's with stranger's in them but if I do I ask first. Out and around in the public I don't think I legally need to but just a matter of my own feelings. Doesn't hurt to ask.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top