BexTait

Wasn't sure whether to post this in here or in the photography forum, but guess it'll get a better response in here.

I'm just wondering if anybody knows any legalities/in and outs of uploading a photograph of somebody without the subjects consent, especially as the subject was unaware that the photograph had even been taken?

Thanks.

Snazy

I would think it would depend on the theme of the picture and where it was taken.
High St or shopping centre of the public, no biggy. Through a neighbours window of them with a celeb in their house........ Another matter lol

Imac_Hunt

Your Mrs will never find out, go on then lets have a butchers

Devildog

photographer owns copyright, so not a problem unless used for financial gain, then release form advisable

Devildog

Of course, only the person who took the picture has that right, unless they have given that right to a third party

Sonic'

Do you know someone called Max, and work for NOTW ?

BexTait

Are there not any personal privacy issues associated with it then? The pics have been uploaded to an internet site, thus anybody can access them, and have some nudity in them.

Simon C

Then where's the link if they have norty pics!

ScoobyWon't

Are they pics of you?

Shark Man

Hmm not sure on this.

But.

After a car crash I was indirectly involved in, a press photographer showed up taking pics of the damaged cars.

When questioned, he said he asked the Police officer's permission. He was then told firmly yet politely that he did not have the vehicle's owner's permission and action would be taken if pictures were publicised without the owner's consent - which he will not have. After that he backed down and didn't take any pictures - which was ensured as we remained on scene until the car was removed.

Not sure if there was anything legal that made him bide by that, but I doubt it would have been just his conscience

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Previously I have always worked on the basis that the copyright (& therefore permission to post on the internet) has always remained with the author (which is the person who took the photo) and there is not a lot the subject can do about it as the artistic [sic] right remains with the author. However, if asked I would remove number plates upon request only.

There is only a difference if the subject comissioned the photos and in the contract specified that the subject retained copyright of the photos despite the artistic rights (acknowledged only) of the author.

There is some question over the rights of someone to take photos on private property which we as a courier company could face if we decided to take a picture of a doorway of a house to prove we had been there for instance but in general terms copyright remains with the photographer where ever taken & as such their legality of posting.

Diesel

In telly we have to get a release form for anyone that is purposely featured. Dont even mention showing kids...

It is a bl00dy lawyers nightmare having to avoid everything from kids, to punters. to brands, to logos, to shop signs, to numberplates, to any image/photo in the background etc etc - surprised we dont do everything in a studio by now!

Channel 4 made me get clearance for a tiny Thai postcard once on the wall way behind an interviewee!

D

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Association of Photographers

Copyright for Clients - from the AOP - FAQs - Who owns the copyright in the images?

That deals with copyright of comissioned photos

The internet is considered a publishing medium


The AoP have reams on copyright in hardcopy but I can't seem to find anymore online

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

There is a slight difference between copyright and right to publish however.

The photographer owns the copyright on any photograph they take unless the rights are signed away as part of a contact - whether it be with the model, client commissioning the photograph or other third party. The only exception to this is in the case of a press photographer (or other photographer) in employment - the copyright then belongs to the photographers employer.

You do not need to declare copyright (either in the form of a byline or copyright sign) it is automatic.

The issue above though is whether you have to have consent to publish any photographs you have taken of someone - this is slightly different.

GENERALLY - if the photograph is taken in a public place, and the subject is on public land, then permission is not required - the paparazzi would be out of business if they had to get every celeb to sign a model release form after they'd been photographed at 3am outside a nightclub. If the subject is on private land while the photographer is on public land, then while there is no legal reason not to take the picture it could be classed as invasion of privacy. I often take "covert" photographs, and so long as I'm on a public right of way I know I'm clear - as soon as I take a step onto private land it's a different ball game.

Press photographers often bypass this "if its in the public interest" - but thats open to interpretation.

Model release forms and consent forms, such as the ones diesel mentions are often requested to prevent any future problems, and to ensure that everyone concerned knows where they stand - I often have to get them signed for some clients, but its really just to cover their back, unless children are involved in photographs, in which case nearly always we'll have a parental consent form signed. If I'm photographing at a school, the headmaster will have ensured that its OK for me to photograph the children who are to be in the shot - but I always check.

If there is any form of commercial/financial agenda to the photographs - ie. the image is to be used to advertise something, promote an item or company for example then permission should always be obtained.

Sharkman - I've been in that situation on a number of occassions at RTA's and legally there was no reason for the photographer not to take pictures of the scene - he did not need the owners permission - the police have no right to stop you, unless, for example, its a particularly nasty, or fatal accident, and victims are likely to be in the photograph - I've been caught up in that situation as a photographer before. Common curtesity dictates that you shouldn't photograph then. Police can throw "obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties" at you if you continue to take pics after being asked to stop.

Coming back to the OP original question, if the photograph contains any nudity or they are in any sort of compromising situation and you do not have the permission of the subject, then its possible they could claim invasion of privacy, and seek damages if it could be proved that as a result of publication they have suffered stress/emotional anxiety etc - these days who knows what people will sue for !!

The fact that you are asking for advice makes me believe that it's probably not worth allowing the photograph to be published if you think they will object, or are likely to refuse you to upload the photograph if you asked before hand.

There are so many possibilities its all a bit of a minefield - I always go on my instinct (within my understanding of the law) - if its likely/possible to cause problems, then it probably will.

Hope that helps

Gareth

Boro

iTrader: (1)

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

I think that's his point !!

john_s

iTrader: (1)

This is worth a read:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

I think the key here is whether or not the subject of the photograph had a "reasonable expectation of privacy"... ie if it was taken in a public place, there might not be much can be done about it.

Diesel

Good write up Gar'

D