- This topic is empty.
Consent to appear
-
Thanks Pete for this post.
I stopped shooting people on the street because I thought is illegal here in Ireland… :lol:ciaran wrote:
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.
No disagreement there Ciaran – we’re saying the same thing, but our respective use of terminology differs :) Let me explain –
Commercial = Advertising, Commissioned portraits, weddings.
Editorial = News, magazinesMy interpretation of commercial does not include the sale of photographic images as works of art, although I can see how that might have been misunderstood, given the fact that there is a financial benefit derived from selling a work of art.
Apologies for the confusion.
Thor, If I may offer a different distinciton. Privately commissioned work (could be a portrait, wedding, model folio etc, where they have paid you), the photographer owns the copyright, the client effectively has distribution rights. So you can’t publish them without their consent even though you own the picture. Therefore, any image that is shot legitimately, can be used for advertising but not so for Commissioned work.
Financial benefit is separate from distribution rights. The author (key word) of the work is deemed to own it. When I do portrait courses, although the students “Push” the button, I effectively author many of the shots they take. In theory, I own the copyright to them.
As I said above, if you’re standing on public ground and you’re just snapping away, you can pretty well do what you like wrt Copyright. Defamation and privacy do come into play but are separate laws. Morals and ethics are a whole new debate. :)
Si
Allinthemind wrote:
Thor, If I may offer a different distinciton. Privately commissioned work (could be a portrait, wedding, model folio etc, where they have paid you), the photographer owns the copyright, the client effectively has distribution rights. So you can’t publish them without their consent even though you own the picture. Therefore, any image that is shot legitimately, can be used for advertising but not so for Commissioned work.
Yes, we’re on the same wavelength as far as commissioned work is concerned. But are you saying that if I, for example, photograph a member of the public while they are in the process of using or consuming a particular product, that image can legitimately be used to advertise or promote that product without securing a release from the person featured in the image?
Allinthemind wrote:
Financial benefit is separate from distribution rights. The author (key word) of the work is deemed to own it. When I do portrait courses, although the students “Push” the button, I effectively author many of the shots they take. In theory, I own the copyright to them.
Aren’t copyright and model releases two entirely different issues? Except perhaps in jurisdictions where one might have copyright on their likeness (where such laws exist, there is clearly a different interpretation of the meaning of intellectual property as ones likeness surely cannot be deemed intellectual property but a physical attribute).
Allinthemind wrote:
As I said above, if you’re standing on public ground and you’re just snapping away, you can pretty well do what you like wrt Copyright. Defamation and privacy do come into play but are separate laws. Morals and ethics are a whole new debate. :)
Si
Yep – crystal clear on that too! But again, owning the copyright does not in itself infer a right on the cop[yright owner to use the image they might wish in all cases!
Aren’t we going around in circles here somewhere :?: :wink:
Thorsten wrote:
Allinthemind wrote:
Thor, If I may offer a different distinciton. Privately commissioned work (could be a portrait, wedding, model folio etc, where they have paid you), the photographer owns the copyright, the client effectively has distribution rights. So you can’t publish them without their consent even though you own the picture. Therefore, any image that is shot legitimately, can be used for advertising but not so for Commissioned work.
Yes, we’re on the same wavelength as far as commissioned work is concerned. But are you saying that if I, for example, photograph a member of the public while they are in the process of using or consuming a particular product, that image can legitimately be used to advertise or promote that product without securing a release from the person featured in the image?
If you photography an image that is already subject to copyright/trademark laws (Nikon logo) and then try and sell it, you might come unstuck, you may be in danger of defaming that trademark/brand, if the client is the owner of the trademark/brand, then chances are they’re the commissioning agent anyway.
Allinthemind wrote:
Financial benefit is separate from distribution rights. The author (key word) of the work is deemed to own it. When I do portrait courses, although the students “Push” the button, I effectively author many of the shots they take. In theory, I own the copyright to them.
Aren’t copyright and model releases two entirely different issues? Except perhaps in jurisdictions where one might have copyright on their likeness (where such laws exist, there is clearly a different interpretation of the meaning of intellectual property as ones likeness surely cannot be deemed intellectual property but a physical attribute).
Not entirely different issues no. They both relate to the rights to use the images, ownershp of the images and any future alteration to the images.
Allinthemind wrote:
As I said above, if you’re standing on public ground and you’re just snapping away, you can pretty well do what you like wrt Copyright. Defamation and privacy do come into play but are separate laws. Morals and ethics are a whole new debate. :)
Si
Yep – crystal clear on that too! But again, owning the copyright does not in itself infer a right on the cop[yright owner to use the image they might wish in all cases!
With the exceptions above (and others) :)
Aren’t we going around in circles here somewhere :?: :wink:
Hehe, nah, not circles just clarifying a few points as per my understanding :) is this the bit where I put in a disclaimer? hehe
Si
Hi Guys,very interesting debate up there on the legalities,kinds went over my head though :? Anyways since ye guys seem to be the people in the know could you help me with this question pls- i was recently commisioned to design and poduce a brochure of a new housing estate here in the south east,however the buildings were no where near completed so i had to use imagery from the local area. As i got a lot of landscapes and the like into it i decided to take a few of (1) An Abbey (2) A very popular Golf Club, my idea was to give the aire of relaxtion and History. When i frst paid to get into the abbey i asked the girl can i take some images to be used for the publication,see looked at me puzzled and could not give a satisfactory answer so i persued and eventually got permission to shoot,then ontothe golf club where i was told that under no circumstances was i to shoot any of part of area of the club,now i can understand the reason why but later on in the week i recieved a letter from a state dept asking me to withdraw the images as the cannot be relaesed unless passed by a board and there would if passed be an association fee for every image relaeased,like a royalty of such.
Too much hassle in my eyes so just used other images,would have thought with 180,000 brochures they would have appreciated the extra free bit of Advertising and boost to the local area. Granted i know nothing about the legalities of the above so maybe these laws exist for that particular reason.
Ben 8)ben wrote:
i recieved a letter from a state dept asking me to withdraw the images as the cannot be relaesed unless passed by a board and there would if passed be an association fee for every image relaeased,like a royalty of such.
I would imagine the best place to find out about this would be to contact whoever sent you the letter in the first place and ask them to explain for your information.
L
ben wrote:
Granted i know nothing about the legalities of the above so maybe these laws exist for that particular reason.
The laws exist for many different reasons – too many to go into here. The best advice I can give is if in doubt, seek legal professional advice. The best you can hope to achieve on the forum here (or any forum) is peoples interpretation of the law. You should never take any opinions on the legal aspects of photography here as being factual, not even if provided by a lawyer, because even they may not be in full possesion of all of the facts which may be related to the issue in question.
Does anyone have links for standard release forms ?
I know there’s also an issue around taking pictures of kids. If they’re going to be published/posted in public, or are to be sold you must have written consent from their parent or guardian.
Might be overkill, but if was i was submitting people shots to istockphoto (and I dont) you’d have to use this
formhttp://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf
You might be able to use the wording. If anyone else come up with a generic one, I can share it out from the site
here for all to use.Thanks
Marklahinch_lass wrote:
Does anyone have links for standard release forms ?
I know there’s also an issue around taking pictures of kids. If they’re going to be published/posted in public, or are to be sold you must have written consent from their parent or guardian.
If you wish to mail me I can send you my own one and you can re-jig it as you wish. Its on MS Publisher and
has been ok’d from a legel standpointInteresting thread this, especially as I was harassed recently while taking photos in a public park in Belfast. I had been walking with my two dogs and as always had my camera with me. As I returned to my car there was a group of young athletes practicing over hurdles on a nearby track. Still standing in the carpark, I started to take a few action shots of them jumping over the hurdles. I was approached by a man who inquired why I was taking photos. I explained that I was my hobby, but he insisted that I could not take photos of the athletes.
I pointed out that I was in a public place and was lawfully entitled to photograph whatever or whoever I wished. He said that he represented the Sports Council N.I. and that they had a policy on photographing young athletes. I said that I would be happy to read it if he could give me a copy, but as I was in a public place, photographing activities in a public place, I intended to carry on regardless.
At this point he called another man saying “back me up here, tell this bloke he can’t take pictures”. The second chap really did’nt seem all that interested but said that I could’nt take pictures before wandering off.
I explained to the first bloke that I really did not care what he thought about my right to photograph, I was going to continue. He threatened to take my camera but I pointed out that a blow from a heavy metal monopod which I was carrying would probably shatter his jaw and he reconsidered. I said that if he was unhappy then he should call the police. He said that he would, and I replied that I had no issue with that whatsoever.
He wandered off with his mobile phone, supposedly calling the police. I continued photographing for about a further 40 minutes but the police must have been very busy as they never appeared.
Ahhhh. The Belfast way. I’m damn proud of you for standing your ground.
I once threatened to use my tripod in anger at the Giant’s Causeway. These people had a huge alsatian that was off its leash. I politely told them that if it came near my kids I’d whack it with my Manfrotto. An unpleasant discussion ensued, but they put it on a leash.
Moral: Never go unarmed when photographing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
