Who owns the image?

[londonbackpackr]

Hi All

Today I have had a conversation about photographs and who actual owns the photograph/image.

I was out at the weekend taking pictures, some of these pictures have people in them and as far as I'm aware, I own the rights to the photograph/image but I can't sell the photographs unless I have a model release for the people in the pictures.

Can anyone clarify if I have this correct or not.

Thanks

LBP

 

[KIPAX]

Hi All

Today I have had a conversation about photographs and who actual owns the photograph/image.

I was out at the weekend taking pictures, some of these pictures have people in them and as far as I'm aware, I own the rights to the photograph/image but I can't sell the photographs unless I have a model release for the people in the pictures.

Can anyone clarify if I have this correct or not.

Thanks

LBP

yes its your pictures and you can do what you want with it. sell it publish it do what ya like. no model release required.

 

[hollis_f]

Yup, you can do virtually anything you like. The only restriction you'll encounter is if you were wanting to sell it for use commercially for advertising. The company will almost certainly want model releases.

 

[KIPAX]

Yup, you can do virtually anything you like. The only restriction you'll encounter is if you were wanting to sell it for use commercially for advertising. The company will almost certainly want model releases.

they might.. they might not... the actual facts are you dont need a model release..

 

[londonbackpackr]

Thanks for the quick replies

As these were random people and I'm never going to see them again, does that mean that IF one on the pictures was wanting to be used commercially I wouldn't be able to as there is no was to get a model release?

 

[KIPAX]

Thanks for the quick replies

As these were random people and I'm never going to see them again, does that mean that IF one on the pictures was wanting to be used commercially I wouldn't be able to as there is no was to get a model release?

yes unless the publisher asks for a model release.. theres no law that says you need one in the uk but publishers like anyone else can make up there own rules and may want a model release anyway.. thats the sticky point... technically/leagally you dont need one.. but as frank quite rightly points out... you probably will be asked for for using commercialy..

dont mistake commercial use with selling the picture.. you can do that no problem

 

[Rowee]

yes unless the publisher asks for a model release.. theres no law that says you need one in the uk but publishers like anyone else can make up there own rules and may want a model release anyway.. thats the sticky point... technically/leagally you dont need one.. but as frank quite rightly points out... you probably will be asked for for using commercialy..

dont mistake commercial use with selling the picture.. you can do that no problem

Is there no rules for whether or not the person in the image is recognisable? or is that myth?

does invasion of privacy not come into play at all?
I didnt think it was as simple as, you can sell them with no model release?

 

[simonblue]

Is there no rules for whether or not the person in the image is recognisable? or is that myth?

does invasion of privacy not come into play at all?
I didnt think it was as simple as, you can sell them with no model release?

No it does not,but what you would have to be carful about is if you,altered the photo say in Photoshop,that made the person seem or doing something that they were not doing

 

[HoppyUK]

Is there no rules for whether or not the person in the image is recognisable? or is that myth?

does invasion of privacy not come into play at all?
I didnt think it was as simple as, you can sell them with no model release?

If the photographer is in a public place, you can photograph what you like. And that might include recognisable people on private property, so long as you didn't go to 'unreasonable' lengths to snap them, like climb a tree or use a massive lens or other method clearly intended to breach normal expectations of privacy.

There are very few exceptions to this, including children. Bread and butter for the paps.

What you are allowed to do with them is also pretty liberal, in theory, but you must not misrepresent people, like suggest they are doing something they're not (even if it's only implied by the context of publication) or exploit them unfairly or unreasonably - like make money at their expense.

Very grey area, so while in theory you can do what you like, in practise it's quite difficult which is why model releases tend to be needed if you want to sell an image on the open market. In today's litigious society, if there's a sniff of money to be had, people will try take you to task even if they have no realistic claim, but since it's quite expensive even to just send them a solictor's letter telling them to sod off, that's cost and hassle publishers can do without. So given that there's usually no shortage of images to chose from with model releases, the ones without simply get passed over.