- This topic is empty.
Consent to appear
-
I was just looking at masteroftherealm’s photo in the Street section (a striking image, but this isn’t the place to say so) and it raised the spectre of ‘consent’ in my mind.
I’ve never sold photos, but I understand that stock photography resellers won’t take images with recognisable faces unless accompanied by consent disclaimers.
I tend towards a cavalier attitude when it comes to rules, but I can imagine a situation where masteroftherealm’s unwitting subject, finding herself on one of the world’s premier photography forums, gets a wee bit teed off and makes a fuss about it.
OK. I realise I’m being devil’s advocate here. I’m just wondering what the rules actually are, and should we nod to them?
(And please don’t think I’m picking on this one photo or photographer – it just happened to raise the question in my mind).
Hi Pete – have you seen this https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=967
Think it partly covers the issue – but the stock resellers policies are usually clear. The law in Ireland doesn’t seem to be or at least it’s hard to get accurate information on it.
In short, if you take a picture of a person on public property and it is used/displayed in the correct context, then it’s perfectly legal. This is how news papers, magazines, television stations do it. What you can not do is take a photo of someone and then use it in a defamatory way or out of context (i.e. take a picture of a girl in a short skirt and then publish it in an article on prostitution). If you are taking a picture of someone on private property a release should be obtained. For photographers that commercialise their work, in a lot of cases they secure a release purely as a safety measure if ever the subject decided to chase them for what ever reason, but in most cases it’s not required.
I’m guessing here, but the reason stock libraries insist on releases is that they are dealling with 100s, if not 1000s of photographers and as such 1000’s if not hundreds of 1000’s of images. The overhead involved if even a small percentage of the subjects in the images decide to chase them through the courts would be massive and as such a release is required. A good book worth reading is “The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers”.
ciaran wrote:
…….. A good book worth reading is “The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers”.
Just curious is it an Irish book or an English one, While many of the laws between the two countries are similiar some are very different
Well back in the day,RTE filmed myself and my girlfriend walking through the UCD campus,we didnt think anything of it at the time but since that anything that features UCD be it for contraception/drug abuse/fightclubs/whatever, they run the clip of us walking on by with our faces clearly seen.My mum rings up when they come on saying oh i see ur on the telly again whats it this time? the neighbours will think all sorts.
Ben 8)Phew. Glad that’s not me. If my wife saw me on telly with my girlfriend there’d be trouble.
Seriously, though, I think it’s a breach of normal good manners. I think it’s only courteous to keep the audience to a minimum if you have snapped people unawares. Perhaps I’m a bit old-fashioned, but you couldn’t blame someone for being miffed if his/her face suddenly appeared before a worldwide audience. Law doesn’t really enter into it at this level.
Jack_Ryan wrote:
ciaran wrote:
…….. A good book worth reading is “The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers”.
Just curious is it an Irish book or an English one, While many of the laws between the two countries are similiar some are very different
This book is UK law John. I do appreciate that we have different laws but it’s still a useful read and on the whole I’m sure the guides apply across both countries.
I think, that new law is already out. Photographer should not publish and display photo of a person without his/her writing permition.
Roberto wrote:
I think, that new law is already out. Photographer should not publish and display photo of a person without his/her writing permition.
Sorry to disagree with you Roberto, but you’re wrong
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/
No – there is no law governing this.
Ireland and the UK operata a common Law system which is primarily based on precedent . The current practice here in ireland with regard to consent is as Ciaran describes … as long as the image is taken in public and used or shown in the proper context you have the rights to this
Image rights are a different thing altogether – there is emerging legisalation in this area, mostly regarding poublic figures and their private lives..
Two very different areas of law.
Looraine
ciaran wrote:
Sorry to disagree with you Roberto, but you’re wrong
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/I thought that something like that exist.
I seen in few competitions’ rules that the photographer has to have writing permition of the person on the photo.Roberto wrote:
I thought that something like that exist.
I seen in few competitions’ rules that the photographer has to have writing permition of the person on the photo.Yup.. I think a lot of competiions, stock libraries etc want to cover themselves in the eventuality that someone decides to challenge the use of an image with them in it. So securing a model release is pretty standard as it eliminates all risk. Personally, if I was going down the road of commercialising any of my images, I would always have a model release signed. But the long and short of it is that you do not need a release if you are shooting an image of a person in a public place once the image is not used out of context.
The USA requires a signed form and proof of age/ID, Many stock librarires would like the opportunity to have access to the US market so they ask for this, as Ciaran says, it’s not actually a requirement, just an anti-ambulance chasing stance from the would-be publisher, passed to the stock library, passed to the photographer.
General principle, if your feet are on public ground and they are “Normally” visible from that position, you can publish. This does not give you rights to unreasonably invade privacy or defame the subject in any way. It’s basically a minefield that has yet to have a decent precedent set in a common-law court.
Si
It’s my understanding that this also depends on whether the image is destined for commercial or non-commercial use, such as editorial. So, even if a person has been photographed from a public place in a public place then if the image is to be used for commercial gain, such as advertising, a model release would be required to indicate that the subject has given their permission for the photographer to profit commercially from using the subjects likeness. So an image in a stock library will require a release while the same image used in a newspaper will not require a release.
Thorsten wrote:
It’s my understanding that this also depends on whether the image is destined for commercial or non-commercial use, such as editorial. So, even if a person has been photographed from a public place in a public place then if the image is to be used for commercial gain, such as advertising, a model release would be required to indicate that the subject has given their permission for the photographer to profit commercially from using the subjects likeness. So an image in a stock library will require a release while the same image used in a newspaper will not require a release.
Thorsten, I have to disagree again. The legal right to use/publish an image is not effected by the fact that it’s used for commercial gain or not. I think this is explained pretty well in the digital rights pamphlet I linked to. Where a realease is needed is when you use the image as part of an advert, so that persons image is endorsing a product. In this case a release is required. But if you simply want to sell an image, as long as the image is truthful and unaltered, you are free to publish it without consent. Again I go back to the example of news papers and magazines, they sell images daily without consent/release.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
