Using photos for website?

noneforit

noneforit

Messages
1,298
Edit My Images
No
Hello

My partner and her dad have just setup a photobooth business for weddings and parties etc.

They did their first one and the clients were very happy.

Photos taken on the night by the booth were used on their website and shortly after they received a complaint from one of the guests asking for their photo to be removed from the website.

Obviously they have done this but what are the legalities regarding this?

If they made the person booking the booth sign a disclaimer to say 'photos may be used for promotional purposes'...would this be ok?

Rather new to this so any advice welcome.

Thanks
 
Hi Laurie,

Whilst I don't run a photobooth I do hold drop-in portrait sessions in several towns and villages close to where I live. EVERYONE that has a photo taken signs a form beforehand which effectively tells then that a) I own the copyright to all images, b) I am free to use images for marketting purposes in any way I see fit, c) they do not have license to reproduce any prints that they may receive from me and d) signing the form shows that they have read, understood and agreed to those terms.

I've had the odd few object to an image being used on the web but I've never removed one as a result - just pointed them to the form they signed. Fortuntely, I get enough good shots that most images don't stay on my site for very long as I like to keep it fresh so even those that have complained are usually replaced within a week or two.

I don't believe that legally the customer can force your partner to remove the images but without a contract in place it becomes a conscience issue as much as anything else.

Hope that helps :)
 
I'll second that, produce a contract for organiser to sign to say that photos may be used for advertisement.
 
Fully endorse the comments of Bristolian and ARG - foresight (and a binding contract) are wonderful things, but in your situation I'd remove the offending images in a heartbeat and hopefully make an aggreived person a happy one - excellent PR stuff for future events.
In this business problems will come to you, don't don't go looking for them.
My two penneth worth for what it's worth.
NN
 
why would you leave an image up someone objected too? Just take it down, move on without an aggrivied customer
 
Even with a signed consent form, the subject still has the right to request the removal of their image from the public domain.

Not really much you can do other than take the image down and move on. They're within their rights to take legal action if you continue to use it.
 
Hmmmm other than just not wanting to pee someone off, the only grounds they'd have for legal take down of your copyrighted work in the UK are defamatory (you've put a comment on it saying "this is one ugly mutha") or misrepresentation (you've suggested that they only look this good due to your miracle cosmetic cream or that they were a prostitute or something), even then its questionable if the action would succeed.

My own course of action would be just to take it down, I mean you have plenty more to choose from?
 
Can you quote something legal on that? Not doubting you, just interested in the subject
 
Try google, I only know as these are the rules we operate by in the military, but they're governed by civilian law. I think the only time the photographer might have a case is if the image is deemed within the public interest (like the Harry Vegas pics).
 
I don't think it applies either in the UK nor to something consensually taken.

Whether the military operates to a different set of internal protocols could quite easily be the case.
 
According to wikipedia it seems the commissioner of say a wedding has the right to not have the images displayed publicly regardless of copyright and usage rights unless they wave them.

That's the commissioner, not the subjects.

I guess you could wait then for a correctly formatted complaint or just comply.

Never knew that.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone.


As mentioned in the original post, the photos were removed without argument,

I guess we need to find out the legalities so we know how to deal with this if it happens again. It's a difficult situation because you need those photos to build the website and help advertising but not at the risk of being sued.

Even with a disclaimer signed by the person booking, I guess the guests wouldn't apply unless they all signed something.

Imagine getting people at a party to sign something before they step into a photobooth!
 
No, it sounds like you only need the bill payers consent signed away
 
Circuit Hero said:
Copyright or not, it violates basic privacy rights. Any right you have to publish an image is superceded by the subjects request to have it removed.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a right to privacy, there are some vague leanings in the HRA (right to a private and family life) but basically there's no right to privacy.

There's also a part of the copyright act that means the commissioner has a right not to have the pictures displayed publicly.

The law aside, there's nothing to be gained from displaying a picture the subject is unhappy about.
 
Phil V said:
There's no such thing as a right to privacy, there are some vague leanings in the HRA (right to a private and family life) but basically there's no right to privacy.

There's also a part of the copyright act that means the commissioner has a right not to have the pictures displayed publicly.
Click to expand...


Sorry Phil, but you are wrong about the first part. I'll explain that in a sec.

There are basically two areas of law that come in to play here.

The easiest to deal with is Sect 85, CDPA 1988, which (in simplistic terms) gives the right of privacy to anyone commissioning a photograph for private and domestic purposes.

Commissioning effectively means arranging the photograph in advance for payment. So weddings and paid for portrait sessions would count, but TFP/CD, event photography, mobile studios and photo booths wouldn't.

Published means to display in public. So that includes shop windows, websites, blogs and forums.

Properly worded written contracts allowing for publication will negate this right.

The more complex area is governed by Art 8 (balanced by Art 10a) of the HRA 1988 in conjunction with the DPA and Art 10b of the HRA.

Basically under law you have the right to privacy. That means that you have the right not to have photographs of you published which have been taken in a situation where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There's numerous amount of case law to support this, but the leading case is Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004).

Most situations that the average non press photographer encounters won't be affected by this, but there is one offshoot that may come into play.

Following HRA 1998, the DPA 1998 was enacted to protect an individual's private data. This does affect photographers where a photograph identifying an individual is accompanied by data recording their name or any other personal information; ie jigsaw ID. Therefore if you publish photos of John and Mary from such-and-such you are subject to the DPA.

Written consent will countermand most of these rights, but in the case of the DPA a reasonable timescale of retention should be included in the contract.

The media is exempt from the DPA clauses.

The part about the DPA has only recently been developed in case law, following a case against the MPS regarding data retention (photographs and DNA). The ruling didn't differentiate between data retained for policing purposes and general purposes and this affects everyone.
 
Circuit Hero said:
Copyright or not, it violates basic privacy rights. Any right you have to publish an image is superceded by the subjects request to have it removed.
Click to expand...

Circuit Hero said:
Try google, I only know as these are the rules we operate by in the military, but they're governed by civilian law. I think the only time the photographer might have a case is if the image is deemed within the public interest (like the Harry Vegas pics).
Click to expand...

Thats MoD policy, not law!

Have a chat with someone in MoD Media when you grab them next.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion, I am a full-time photographer primarily covering events with on-site printing and use contact sheets to display every image taken and as a result I have amassed hundreds of them; using your knowledge as displayed above, do you know how I should treat my contact prints? Do they have to be shredded or is the waste paper recycling bin sufficient (none have deliberate identifying marks such as date, location or names although a few might have a sign visible in the background that might identify the location/date/event? Thanks

As for the OPs question, use a contract that the organiser signs (it's up to them to ensure guests are aware you will be taking photographs (might not always be obvious) and if any children are present that are subject to a child protection order that you're informed. If anyone asks not to be photographed or for it not to go on-line then abide by their wishes - it doesn't cost you anything and you might just get something out of in return.
 
Circuit Hero said:
Even with a signed consent form, the subject still has the right to request the removal of their image from the public domain.

Not really much you can do other than take the image down and move on. They're within their rights to take legal action if you continue to use it.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Sorry Phil, but you are wrong about the first part. I'll explain that in a sec.

There are basically two areas of law that come in to play here.

The easiest to deal with is Sect 85, CDPA 1988, which (in simplistic terms) gives the right of privacy to anyone commissioning a photograph for private and domestic purposes.

Commissioning effectively means arranging the photograph in advance for payment. So weddings and paid for portrait sessions would count, but TFP/CD, event photography, mobile studios and photo booths wouldn't.

Published means to display in public. So that includes shop windows, websites, blogs and forums.

Properly worded written contracts allowing for publication will negate this right.

The more complex area is governed by Art 8 (balanced by Art 10a) of the HRA 1988 in conjunction with the DPA and Art 10b of the HRA.

Basically under law you have the right to privacy. That means that you have the right not to have photographs of you published which have been taken in a situation where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There's numerous amount of case law to support this, but the leading case is Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004).

Most situations that the average non press photographer encounters won't be affected by this, but there is one offshoot that may come into play.

Following HRA 1998, the DPA 1998 was enacted to protect an individual's private data. This does affect photographers where a photograph identifying an individual is accompanied by data recording their name or any other personal information; ie jigsaw ID. Therefore if you publish photos of John and Mary from such-and-such you are subject to the DPA.

Written consent will countermand most of these rights, but in the case of the DPA a reasonable timescale of retention should be included in the contract.

The media is exempt from the DPA clauses.

The part about the DPA has only recently been developed in case law, following a case against the MPS regarding data retention (photographs and DNA). The ruling didn't differentiate between data retained for policing purposes and general purposes and this affects everyone.
Click to expand...
Whoa Mark:)
So you cut out my mention of S 85 of the CDPA so you could quote it back at me??

Then used a vastly complex answer regarding rights to privacy which are from my reading miles away from what's being discussed, and also covered by most photographers and mentioned above by many (bold to make it easy).

My point re. a 'right to privacy' was as a direct response to someone who quoted it as if there was some umbrella right in UK law, which as we all know there isn't (not when you're in public).

When you stand at a public event and pose and grin at a camera, you're not in a great position to expect 'privacy' regarding that photo - we're not taking about long lens peeping tom's we're talking about event photographers.
 
Phil V said:
Whoa Mark:)
So you cut out my mention of S 85 of the CDPA so you could quote it back at me??

Then used a vastly complex answer regarding rights to privacy which are from my reading miles away from what's being discussed, and also covered by most photographers and mentioned above by many (bold to make it easy).

My point re. a 'right to privacy' was as a direct response to someone who quoted it as if there was some umbrella right in UK law, which as we all know there isn't (not when you're in public).

When you stand at a public event and pose and grin at a camera, you're not in a great position to expect 'privacy' regarding that photo - we're not taking about long lens peeping tom's we're talking about event photographers.
Click to expand...

I'm not having a go Phil, just using your post as a lead in! :)

I was commenting on the fact that you said there is no such thing as a right to privacy under UK law. There is, quite a strong one, and it's important that people understand that it exists.

Obviously if someone is posing in front of you, then they have no expectation, but there are several cases where someone might reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy even when in public. Praying in a place of worship or receiving medical attention in a Med tent or the back of an ambulance would be good examples.

HTH :)
 
Circuit Hero said:
Even with a signed consent form, the subject still has the right to request the removal of their image from the public domain.

Not really much you can do other than take the image down and move on. They're within their rights to take legal action if you continue to use it.
Click to expand...

EOS_JD said:
Correct.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not really.

They have the right to request the removal of an image and the right to sue for it's removal, but they don't have the right to actually have it removed. That would be the equivalent of altering a contract after the event.

Whether you choose to keep displaying a photograph that the subject objects to is another matter. Unless it's very valuable to you I would suspect that it doesn't make good business sense!
 
Wilko58 said:
DemiLion, I am a full-time photographer primarily covering events with on-site printing and use contact sheets to display every image taken and as a result I have amassed hundreds of them; using your knowledge as displayed above, do you know how I should treat my contact prints? Do they have to be shredded or is the waste paper recycling bin sufficient (none have deliberate identifying marks such as date, location or names although a few might have a sign visible in the background that might identify the location/date/event? Thanks
Click to expand...

If you're asking about DPA regs regarding data disposal, it's not an area that I know about.

However, based on what you've said, I would be surprised if the sheets were covered by or subject to the DPA because there's no personal data involved apart from people's faces.

Having said that I'd take them to a central recycling plant rather than chuck them in the bin outside my front door.
 
Cheers DemiLion. That was what I was thinking; I've too much to shred but wasn't keen on just putting them in the waste paper recycling. I'll see if I can find a cheap commercial shredding facility.
 
They would always remove them if requested by the guest, there is no question of that.

I guess we can just use them on the website and remove if we get any complaints.

A friend of theirs who is has another photobooth and is also a wedding photographer makes the organiser sign a disclaimer.

Thanks everyone, it appears there is no clear cut answer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top