Reply With QuoteI'm not sure why this is news: copyright has always been belonged to the photographer. It doesn't matter if the subject is a tree or a person or a watch.
I just stumbled across this item, it's madness, you take a picture of my face (which I own) then publish it somewhere, I tweet or instagram it, and you sue me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47128788
I'm not sure why this is news: copyright has always been belonged to the photographer. It doesn't matter if the subject is a tree or a person or a watch.
Just a question shouldn’t a photographer have your permission to take your picture?Originally Posted by Mr Pointy
Not in a public place
I was thinking the same. Or why would they blur faces out on certain programmes.
Friend of mine, thoroughly respectable older bloke and keen photographer, was hassled by the Police when someone complained he was taking photographs including them, in the town centre. I've no idea what the strictly correct legal position is.
I know that, that is why I said the world is going mad, surely the laws should be changed, clearly they are outdated and not keeping pace with technology. hopefully someone with the resources will sue a photographer for taking a picture of them without express permission, or maybe there is a business opportunity here, start an agency copyrighting people faces.
Well the issue is that the police have no interest in the actual law in these situations & believe that they have they right to tell photographers what to do. Your friend made the mistake of being respectable & with little or no experience of interacting with the police & hence was an easy target. If he had, for instance, being a member of the travelling community, the police wouldn't have gone near him.
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...-the-law-96304
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photog...-shooting.html
http://www.paulreynolds.com/articles...0The%20Law.pdf
Image rights are already protected. Try selling a T Shirt with a Kardashian's face on it & you can be sued.
Interesting links. Thanks! I think you are right about the Police. Little wonder they don't command much respect these days - what with that and the various stories about them contacting people about ""non-crime" hate tweets, etc..
If you're somewhere that gives you no reasonable expectations of privacy (e.g. a park) then anyone can take your photo without issue. Some public places will have rules regarding taking photos, like shopping malls that are privately owned and the owner sets the rules.
Hardly their choice though... something gets reported, they have to act on it. Blame the legislative.
Well, it's also unlawful to break into someone's van & steal £4000 woth of tools but you won't get the police coming round to see you about that. If you're lucky you might get a crime reference over the phone but no-one will be doing any investigating, unlike if you post something sufficiently abusive on Facebook. You can even find the stolen tools being sold on Gumtree & the police won't be interested.
The fact your face is in a photo is immaterial. Effectively it's about the photographer's work rather than the content.
Not meaning to divert the thread but these are specifically "Non-crimes":
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-arent-crimes/
Humberside Police tell man to 'check his thinking' George Orwell currently doing 6,000rpm:
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...merick-2468385
But it’s wrong, provided you have not committed a crime, a photographer should need your permission to publish pictures of you, it’s hardly a painting or sculpture that has taken a long time to produce and at best would be a likeness.
I agree, but that's not how the law currently works.
Aren't these two statements at odds?
Good point. I think photos taken in a public space (which most paparazzi shots are) do not fall foul of this though.
In the context of someone photographing it in a public place you don't 'own' your face. However if the photographer is going to use that image for commercial gain (e.g. selling it to someone else) then they should obtain the subject's documented permission (by use of a model release form), otherwise should their client publish it they then run the risk of legal liability.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
That's the lizard people. We aren't allowed to see them.
Public place : you can photograph anything or anyone you like. The photograph is the property of the photographer. Permission is not required from anyone in the photograph for any use whatsoever.
Release forms are used to verify anyone in the photo will relinquish any future attempts to limit use of the photograph. Its not really a requirement though and is normally employed by larger media groups only just to avoid any tedious nonsense later .
In a private space its down to the policy of the owners. You can still shoot photos into a private space from any public space.
I have been on many film shoots where the general public are kept back behind a barrier from a public area that has been secured for shooting . As they have permission the film crew can treat that area like a private space so therefor nobody in it can take photographs without permission.
At the barrier however the general public can snap away as much as they like.
On a few occasions ( usually when its my unit and I’m essentially directing it) I’ve had to intervene to warn overzealous security guards to stop harassing the general public for taking snaps. They are perfectly entitled to do it, no matter who’s mug the capture.
You don’t need model release forms for public images, look at street photography where the photographer captures moments often using a random stranger as the core subject, you wouldn’t go chasing them down the street asking them to sign a form!
Throw into this all the mobile phone images that probably capture you unintentionally in the background or go a step further and worry about how many times you have been captured on CCTV, where do you stop??
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
See how it's done...worth a watch, IMO.
BBC link...Don McCullin Looking for England
That probably wouldn't take off, her selling point seems to be that huge BIG FAT ar$e of hers.
Editorial use (newspapers etc.) is protected under UK law, commercial use (t-shirts, etc.) isn't.
A Pap taking a photo for the sun - fine (within certain limits) , the celeb then using that photo on twitter, arguably to promote their 'brand' without permission from the photographer, not fine.
It's a weird one but basically if you are on private property and don;t intend to use the photo to make money beyond the news media then you're OK.
I've never been one to get caught up in the cult of celebrity so I couldn't give fig for it all and as far as i'm concerned the paps and celebs can sue each other into the poor house for all i care. I would however take umbrage at being verbally abused or reported to the police for taking pictures of my kids enjoying themselves at a public park, which is what the law intends to prevent.
Posting Permissions
