It’s been over four years since we published version one of the UK photographers rights guide. We’re now very happy to be able to publish version 2 of the guide.
This is intended to provide a short UK guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken.
The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M is a freelance legal consultant specialising in Media Law and Intellectual Property Law. She is also a part-time law lecturer and has presented seminars on law for photographers.
The guide is a 2 page PDF, it will print out front and back of an A4 page allowing you to make leaflets to hand out. The guide is intended as an overview of the current legal situation in the UK for photographers, it is not a definitive bible of UK law.
Please do not deep link (direct link) to the PDF or rehost the guide on your website.
If you find the guide useful please link to either www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr or http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 or leave us a comment. (Comments from the old V1 guide have been kept as there is a lot of great discussion in there).
By downloading this guide you accept the fact that neither Linda Macpherson or Simon Moran accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning ! Also Neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer.
FREE Download – UK Photographers Rights v2 (right click and save as)
This guide was created for Acrobat 5 and above. If you have a problem opening the PDF, please update your copy of Acrobat Reader (it’s free to do so).
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of photographers-professional and amateur—from around the world, each holding up a white card with the words, ‘Not a crime’ or ‘I am not a terrorist’. www.not-a-crime.com
{ 841 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Thank you once again Linda, this page is and will continue to be an excellent resource for photographers. The law can seem overwhelming at times and this discussion has been very helpful indeed.
Kind regards, David.
I wonder if you can help – we have recently taken some photographs at a ‘member’s only event’ and then reproduced them in a brochure (and would like to use on the web site) and wonder if there is some kind of disclaimer that we should publish before doing this – we do not want to have to requested the permission of each individual to reproduce.
I would appreciate your opinion.
Thanks
Sandra
Hi Sarah, and sorry to be so late responding to your comment. It’s hard to say what the legal position would be without having a better idea of the content of the photos. Use in a brochure and the web site – are these marketing tools? You should obtain the written permission of individuals before using their images in this way, but this will not necessarily apply if the images show crowd scenes rather than individuals/small groups.
Thank you for sharing this useful information.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kombizz/4317154935/
I have taken a photograph of a parking place with two lorries entering.
I have been told that the photograph cannot be used because the lorries have the companies corporate logo and livery.
without my making any comments about this, can I send the photograph via e mail for comments/opinions etc.
The photograph is intended to show goods vehicles entering a lorry park, any goods vehicles!
Thanks
John
Hi John,
Sorry for my delayed response! You say that you have been told that the photo “cannot be used” but not who told you that or what it is to be used for. It might also be relevant whether or not you took the photo on private property and whether it is the owner of that property who told you that you cannot use it. If you can give me some more information, I will try my best to help (and rather more quickly this time!)
Hello Linda,
Thank you for taking the time to reply, it is appreciated no matter the delay.
I had full permission from the land owner, in fact the owners requested me to take any photographs I wished, but the objector would have harressed me no matter where it was.
I can send you the photograph if you would be so kind as to look at it.
It was the company secretary of the company who objected.
To me it was silly and I asked the company secretary to please have their legal department contact me, this was via reply to an e mail that was written to me, but this was ignored, I repeated the request but again it was ignored.
The secretary wrote to the hosting service, to the lorry park, and to me again threatening that all steps would be taken to remove the photo. For peace and quiet I eventually removed the photo but I am so sure that if what I did was wrong then no BBC or TV company would be able to take still or video shots of vehicles driving down a road in case the vehicle had a trade mark on it or company livery paint job.
Because I think its a matter of scale you would need to see the photo. I did not take a photo of the trade mark nor the truck/lorry alone it was just entering the park via the gate.
Kind regards,
John
Sorry about the spelling of harassment in my last reply.
I omitted to say the photographs are used on a website which is none profit and very loss making. NO gain from the photos, it just illustrates the facility in this case, it could have been any vehicle entering the park! Photography is my hobby, I just like it, have done since a small boy. I have no wish to break the law or even tread near doing so, I respect everyone’s space always.
John
my sister gave some photos to my now deceased father she would now like them back, how ever my other sister who now has the photos refuses to let her have them. my question is who is the rightfull owner of said photos
David, just a few thoughts:
Did your sister #1 originally take the photos? If so, doesn’t she have original negatives or images?
If she acquired them from elsewhere, did she become the legal owner?
When you say she “gave” them to your father, do you mean “gave” as in “made a present of” or “gave” as in “lent”.
If she lent them to him, they would presumably still be hers.
If she gave them to him as a present they would become his to dispose of as he wished.
I suspect it’s not clear in what way she “gave” them?
If they were clearly your father’s property (not sister #1′s property), then:
Did sister #2 ‘acquire’ them before or after your father’s death?
Did your father give or leave them to sister #2, or did she just take them.
If she acquired them after his death, I suspect it was up to the executor(s) to decide what to do with them (in the absence of any specific instructions in the Will). Were either or both sisters (or you) executors?
These are just a few issues that occur to me which may have a bearing on “who is the rightfull owner of said photos”. No clear answer, obviously.
Trevor makes some valid points.
Ownership of the prints is not necessarily connected with ownership of the copyright, of course, so I’m assuming that your sister does not have the original files or negatives to make further prints – if she does this would be the simplest way to avoid family conflict.
It all really depends on what you mean by “gave” some photos to your father. If they were only lent to him, then, as Trevor says, they still belong to her. If she actually gave them to him, as in a gift, then he was free to dispose of them as he wished, either when he was still living, or in his will, (or under the laws of intestacy if he didn’t make a will, though these would not deal with individual items of property).
If your father was given the photos as a gift by your sister and he made a specific bequest of the photos to your other sister, then the ownership will lie with your other sister. But personal effects of no monetary value often cause difficulties in the administration of estates, since they are frequently left out of a will. The executor can then make a decision about what to do with them, including giving them to any beneficiary who expresses an interest in them.
It is impossible to say where ownership lies without knowing more, sorry!
Linda
I hope you’ll excuse me asking a copyright question that is slightly different from most of the discussion on this site.
In an earlier response (7 Dec 2009) you commented:
“For photographs taken before 1 June 1957, copyright lasted for 50 years from the date the picture was taken, and some such photographs will be out of copyright now. For photographs taken after 1 June 1957 and before 31 July 1989, the 1956 Copyright Act provided that copyright in PUBLISHED photographs would expire 50 years after the date of publication.”
A particular website (happy to identify it privately) sells copies of old photographic postcards. Many of those are dated prior to 1957 (back even as far as the 1890s), and others are dated c.1960 or earlier and were presumably published around the time they were taken, i.e. at least 50y ago (OK, I know that’s an assumption!).
The footer on their website pages states:
“All photographs copyright XYZ Ltd 1999-2010 unless otherwise stated.”
and their T&Cs make a similar claim:
“All photographs … featured on the Website are the exclusive copyright property of XYZ Limited unless otherwise explicitly stated.”
“You may not copy, reproduce, … download, … or otherwise use any XYZ content in any way unless explicitly stated within these terms and conditions.”
Are they making false claims?
Is there any copyright in the digital images even if the copyright in the original photographs has long expired?
(I’m expressly asking about copyright in the photographic images rather than any copyright relating specifically to the website, etc..)
If appropriate in the light of your response, could any of that be overridden by their following condition?
“Your use of the Website is subject to the following terms and conditions and use by you for any purpose whatsoever of the Website shall constitute your acceptance of these terms and conditions.”
Also, some of the photographic images have their company name & logo across a corner of the images. Does this affect the copyright in the images? They claim that certain “names and logos are copyright registered trade marks” (sic), but without specifying which logos nor where any TMs are registered (and they appear not to understand, or are intentionally confusing, the distinction between copyright & TM registration!).
I would be interested in your comments. Many thanks in advance.
Hi Trevor,
If you could email me with the name of the website I would be happy to take a look. It is possible that some of these images are still in copyright, though this would mean the owner of the website is the owner of the copyright or has a licence to use the images.
Putting original photographs into digital form does not create a new copyright, since copyright subsists only in original works. UK copyright law does not have a high standard of originality, but scanning a picture does not meet it.
The condition “Your use of the Website is subject to the following terms and conditions and use by you for any purpose whatsoever of the Website shall constitute your acceptance of these terms and conditions” might mean that you became liable to be sued for breach of the condition if you downloaded and used the images, but it would not be copyright infringement, assuming the images are out of copyright.
The use of the logo would be unlikely to be sufficient to create a new work in which copyright would subsist in the whole image, but copyright may subsist in the logo. However, the company is clearly confused about intellectual proeprty rights if they use the phrase “copyright registered trademarks”!
I hope you can help me. I just finished to work on my website and the girl, we both work in a Make Over Photography Studio as photographer, that posed for me topless, changed her mind. Now I have her step-father and apparently his solicitor after me. Can they really do something to me? Do I need a “Model Release Form”? Or only if I sale or make money out the pictures? My website is to show my new passion, Jewellery Making and not photography. Please help me!!!!
Alessandra, can I just clarify what you are asking. You took photographs of a topless model for your website? (I’m assuming she is over the age of 18?) The model knew what the images were to be used for and consented to this but has now changed her mind? Is that right?
Technically, so long as she gave her consent and knew the intended use of the images when she consented, you don’t legally need the consent to be in writing. But, and it is a big but, if she now denies that she ever consented, you have no way of proving that she did. The point of a signed model release form is to protect the photographer as well as the model.
In the circumstances, your best course of action would be to remove the images of the girl and find another model, making sure you get a signed release this time.
Thanks a lot for your reply and sorry for the confusion. Yes! The girl is more the 18 years old and she gave me her approval to use the pictures for my website (even after she saw a first example of the my retouching). Unfortunately if I take away her pictures from my website, there is not much left. Please have a look: http://www.everycloudhasasilverlining.co.uk (not yet on Gooogle search)
plus a lot of the jewellery are already being sold (and those are unique pieces). I understand what you said but, sure if someone come to the photography studio, take her top off and pose for me for a very good number of pictures, is that enough to prove that I had her approval? Don’t I need the Model Release only if I sell the pictures or use them for a brochure or advertising? Is a website a form of advertising or is a portfolio of my work? Thanks a lot for you help.
AR
Hi Alessandra,
They appear to be very tasteful photos, but the fact that the girl took her top off and posed may prove that she consented to the photos being taken, but it would not show that she consented to them being used on a website.
As I said, written consent is often not legally necessary. You could show that there was consent, for example, by having witnesses who heard the person consent. But if it is your word against that of the model, it’s very difficult to prove.
Images of individuals may be regarded as personal data within the scope of the Data Protection Act. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Murray v Big Pictures it is also possible that they may be regarded as “sensitive personal data.”. That means that you have to meet certain conditions in order to use them. There are some exceptions, but although your website might not be “advertising” as such, it is promoting your work, and could not be described as publication purely for artistic purposes.
I can see from your site that the images are integral to it. If it is not possible to reshoot the pieces using another model, might it be possible to discuss this matter sensibly with the model and try to obtain some resolution? It’s hard to specifically comment without knowing the full details.
Thanks a lot for your help! I decided to retouch even more the images and to remove the model’s face. I hope that is a good compromise so that I can start to relax and move forward. It’s still horrible to realized that all this troubles are from another photographer and colleagues of mine. She also work for Ann Summer and she is the first one to take pictures of naked boys. Yes! There are horrible people around in the World. Luckily there are also GREAT people like you guys that are happy to give us your time, knowledge and patience. Thanks again!
I think this highlights the importance of photographers always getting a contract signed when they shoot for commercial reasons, especially when with a model. People change their minds, get influenced by others, etc.
You should use a contract that specifies what images are to be taken, what they can be used for, and importantly if giving images to a model, what the model can use them for. Anything like nudity should be specified and signed off on before any shoot takes place. If a model won’t sign a contract before the shoot, bin them and move on to one who will.
It’s never as much hassle as the model changing their mind after the shoot!
Hi,
First of all, thank you all for the UK Photographers’ Rights Card and the resources on this site.
I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I have been doing editorial work for a while now and I take to the streets very often and produce some street work. I was discussing my work with another photographer friend and the issue of legality of selling street photography came up. I am clear in what concerns its usage for editorial work but what if I want to sell individual prints or make a street photography book? What are the implications? Would I be in breach of any privacy laws?
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Luis
Although the laws on breach of the right to privacy are developing in such a way as to place increasing restrictions on photography, MOST street photography will not infringe a person’s right to privacy. At least, not at the present time. Images that show someone in an inherently private situation will infringe the right to privacy even if the person was in a public place.
Images of individuals will usually be regarded as personal data within the Data Protection Act, however there is a exemption where the processing of the personal data is necessary for artistic, journalistic or literary purposes. This may not necessarily give an exemption for selling art prints or publishing in a book, since the exemption only makes you exempt from a provision of the Act if that provision is incompatible with your literary or artistic purpose. The courts might decide that, while it would be incompatible to seek consent before taking the photo, you could seek consent afterwards. The courts have not yet determined these matters.
Street scenes in which a particular individual is incidental to the image as a whole, or crowd scenes, are unlikely to be regarded as personal data.
Hi
I was just wondering if the recent ruling on Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights has any impact on the police’s ability to stop and search me when taking photographs. I have been asked for my details a couple of times when out shooting in local towns such as Aberystwyth and Lampeter and have freely given my information. However, I just watched (literally) the video of the arrest of an amateur photographer for taking photos in a town square at Christmas, and read about the recent Euro Court’s ruling.
Thanks
Dan
Hi Dan,
When you were asked for your details are you sure this was connected with s.44 of the Terrorism Act? Stop and search under s.44 is restricted to areas where an authorisation is in force.
The Government has said that s.44 stop and searches are to continue pending an appeal against the ECHR decision, though the Metropolitan Police, at least, has said that the use of s.44 powers will be scaled back.
See a short film on this: Freedom to Film, http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_003.html.
Hello Linda,
It appears my comment has dissapeared without receiving an answer, so here goes again briefly this time. Is it against the law to photograph a nude model in a remote and secluded spot in the highlands of Scotland well away from tracks, paths etc where you cannot be over looked. Many photographers here do so in areas where they could be overlooked, so an answer would be much appreciated by many.
John
In theory you might commit an offence by having a nude photo shoot in the Highlands. Though only if you were seen by someone else, when, if they were offended or alarmed by it, you and/or your model could potentially be charged with public indecency or breach of the peace. Presumably, if you can get there then there is a possibility that some hillwalker or other person might stumble across your shoot. The same would apply to nude bathing.
No, photo studios do not need a special licence, since anyone present at a photoshoot with nude adult models has presumably consented to being there, and could not therefore claim to be offended or alarmed. (The same rule applies to, e.g. sex shows and films that contain nudity or what the censors describe as “scenes of a sexual nature”.) Studios wouldn’t normally allow unauthorised people to wander in and out of any shoot, nude or not, so the issue simply doesn’t arise.
Note that the offence is not “being naked”, but of causing offence, distress or alarm to others. And what you describe would not come within the offence of “sexual exposure” as set out in the recent Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. But it could still be one of the common law offences described above.
Richard Woods’s article “Photography under threat: The shooting party’s over” was published today in The Sunday Times magazine, you can read it on the Times Online website.
Possible good news ?
UK minister aims to reassure photographers
Look at these films which were carried out by volunteers for the charity worldWrite. They address the issues faced with public filming or photographing with the police and the battle to film freely without suspision.
http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_004.html
http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_003.html
Let me know your thoughts!
Hi,
What an excellent resource for photographers! And what I found even better was the fact you take the time to reply to your comments with good measured advice!
The reason I’m here is that I am looking for some advise in this area. This may be slightly different to the usual advice as my question is about how to stop an image being used and distributed! It’s a long story and hopefully I’ll list the main points below.
My partner was at a music event last year where she was injured and had to receive medical attention. Whilst being examined/treated in the medical facility a photographer took photos of her and details. Due to her being in severe pain she was not aware of the photos being taken, nor did she give her details.
She only became aware of the existence of these images several months later when seeing them on a very reputable & popular website. This for many reasons has caused her a great deal of distress.
After some research I found the photographs are available via Getty images and although no release for commercial use is cited it appears they are available for ‘editorial’ use. The photo details on Getty also detail her name and the ‘condition’ she was being treated for.
We both feel that this is a major breach of privacy and whilst under going medical treatment in a medical facility a person should not be subjected to intrusion on a very private time by a press photographer.
The event tickets may (and probably do) include a clause that ticket holders give consent for photographs being taken. Though surely there are some boundaries to the acceptability of photographing inside medical facilites of patients without their consent.
In conclusion, I’d like to ask if you have any advice on getting these images removed from the offending sites and getty images as well as requiring the photographer to ‘delete’ these images.
I’d like to end by saying I am very much in favour of freedom of press/photgraphy/speech, but I feel the boundary on privacy has been very much crossed in this case.
I’d like to thank you in advice for reading my question and any advice or guidance you may be able to give.
R.
Have you tried asking the photographer or the website to remove the image? It’s the first step. Just explain politely why you’d like them removed.
It’s very hard to say with the information you’ve given if there’s a ‘breach of privacy’. The location of the event, the tickets conditions of entry, the event organisers ‘agreement’ for press, the uniqueness of your partners name, how recognisable they are in the images, the ‘condition’ itself, where the photographer was stood, if the treatment was visible to the public, etc. would likely all come into play.
For legal advise you’d really need to talk to a lawyer and explain the full details.
Thanks for the very prompt response. Just to answer a couple of the points you raise…
I’m contacting the event holder to find out what permissions were granted to photographers and what permissions were accepted by ticket holders.
The medical facility where the examination took place may not have been as secure as a hospital, but couldn’t be classed as a public area. It may well be argued whether it was a public area, though the picture shows my partner on a treatment/examination couch being examined by a doctor in a makeshift cubicle. One should be able to expect a reasonable amount of privacy in such a place.
Having communicated with a member of the facilities staff they believe that patient confidentially has also been breached on this occasion. Just the photo would be considered as such, but along with the name and injury being stated even more so. I am awaiting speaking to the director of the service in regard to any policy they may have and to find out if any permission for the photographer to be in the area taking pictures was given.
As for Uniqueness of my partners name, well I’d say 100% unique. When googled you have to get to page 10+ to find another with her name, and that is a .com search not a UK one.
I have contacted Getty Images in regard to this along with the online magazine and am awaiting a response. I just hope I don’t get a ‘canned’ auto-response as I was only able to use online contact forms! I have also contacted the photographer requesting cooperation in removing them from agency sites and detailing any usage of these images. I would hope all parties will have a response in the next few days.
Meanwhile, I do accept that professional legal advice is needed and will be sought at the first instance on Monday.
Thanks again for your response
I agree with Simon that the first course of action should be to ask the administrator of the website to remove the image.
I’m assuming this was a UK event, as the situation varies from one jurisdiction to another. Otherwise, the key issue, I think, depends on the scope of the entry terms and conditions. Ticket conditions would normally include an agreement to be filmed or photographed, but the scope of this can vary. Glastonbury tickets, for example, have a term stating that the ticket holder consents to being filmed or photographed for public broadcasts and for any CD/DVD as part of the audience, and by CCTV for security purposes. Arguably, being photographed while receiving treatment in …what?…the first aid tent?…would not come within the scope of this. But it would come within the scope of a condition that consented to being photographed or filmed while present at the event.
There could be Data Protection implications here, particularly if your partner’s name is given in conjunction with the images. And also possible breach of confidence, as there is an argument that one has a reasonable expectation of privacy while receiving medical treatment (even if this was in a public place – shades of Campbell v MGN).
But if consent can be implied from agreement to the terms and conditions of the event, then neither the Data Protection Act nor the law relating to breach of confidence (which is the way the courts determine “breach of privacy” in the UK) would have any application.
Incidentally, I feel that the uniqueness of the name is not an issue (sorry Simon), where the name is attached to an image of the person from which they can be recognised.
I should add, since I’ve said it often enough before, that the Data Protection Act has an exemption where the processing of personal data is for journalistic purposes, but this applies only where data controller reasonably believes that publication would be in the public interest and that, in all the circumstances, to comply with the rules of the Act would be incompatible with the journalistic purposes. While publication of the image might fit with these criteria, I cannot see a public interest in the publication of the name, though it’s hard to say without knowing the full details.
“Possible good news ?”
Hardly. These politicians don’t lie very often, only when their lips move. Under this government, a country that once was the freest in the world has become a police state. Very recently, a middle-aged man was subjected to brutal treatment by Thames Valley Police in a quiet Oxfordshire town for taking innocuous photographs in a major street. The concept of common sense seems to have disappeared from this country.
I have various ideas for photographs I want to take in Oxford. I wonder whether I should wear formal and expensively clothes – a good-quality jacket and a tie so as to look as much like a ‘respectable’ person as possible – or a shabby jacket with a jumper underneath (or no jacket?), to look like a college lecturer.
John
Photographer since the age of 10, formerly professional photographer and photography lecturer
Linda,
Surely patient confidentiality is a provision in English law?
Regards,
John
Doctor-patient confidentiality forms part of the General Medical Council’s guidance for good practice. Failure to follow the guidance can lead to a doctor being removed from the register. There is also a common law duty of confidentiality when information is disclosed to another person in circumstances where it would be reasonable to expect the information to be held in confidence (I mentioned breach of confidence above). The Data Protection Act also applies, since it is concerned with personal data and sensitive personal data, the latter including information about a person’s mental or physical health or condition.
None of these are absolute, in that there are circumstances where there is legal duty to disclose information. And all can be waived by consent (and for certain other reasons).
So yes, it is provided for by law (and by ethical rules) but not by a single neat provision, as such.
Linda, thank you so much for sharing your time and expertise, this site has become an invaluable resource for us and has assisted us greatly in answering many of our clients’ queries. I would very much appreciate some advice as regards using our photographs for art-prints and post cards. I have always been under the impression that a photographer can mostly use and sell their work as they wish (eg artistic or editorial expression) only requiring consent if the person or item in the photograph may be used to endorse or advertise a business or service. My question is, are we permitted to print images from both our street/event work and from our commissioned sittings to sell as fine art prints and postcards (often where people or items are the main subject of the image)? Examples might be creative imagery of pets, cars, or baby portraiture. Does the subject of the photograph, or the owner of the pet or object, or the parent of the baby, have the right to influence whether we can sell our work in this way? I have noted that a person may raise a moral objection to their likeness being displayed if the work has been commissioned by them and this is confusing me when it comes to artistic sale of the pictures. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Lin
Lin, the “moral objection” you refer to comes within copyright legislation. (s.85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) A person who commissions a photograph or film for private or domestic purposes (this would include, for example, wedding photos and most portrait sittings) has certain privacy rights. These rights are the right not to have the work issued to the public or exhibited or shown in public, or included in a broadcast. The right can be waived. So, yes, although you hold the copyright in images you have taken for commissioned sittings, assuming these were commissioned for private/domestic purposes you would need consent before selling these as fine art prints or postcards. (And it would probably be easier to get that consent in advance, at the time of the sitting, than to try to obtain it afterwards.) This would also include images of pets or objects, such as cars, where the image was commissioned for private purposes.
Non-commissioned images of pets and objects could normally be used for art-prints and postcards, though not for advertising or marketing if they were the identifiable possessions of another person.
Non-commissioned images of people are more problematic. Images of groups of people are not likely to cause difficulty. Images of an identifiable individual might be, since they may be regarded as personal data under the Data Protection Act and such data must be “processed” in accordance with the Act. This does not mean such images can’t be used. There is an exception for data processed for “artistic purposes” though this is subject to conditions. See the Information Commissioner’s Office website for more information: http://www.ico.gov.uk
Linda, thank you very, very much for your time in helping us all to better understand the many confusing legalities surrounding our work. I am very grateful indeed for the response and I have learned so much from this fantastic site.
Dear Linda,
Once again, thank you for taking your time to answer my question. I was just wondering now, if it is ok to post this answer at the Amateur Photographer forum, since it may be of interest to some of the members of the forum.
Thanks,
Luis Rubim
Hi I wondering if you could give me some advice.
I am an amateur photographer and I take photographs of jewellery for my sisters online shop and today by chance we found another online jewellery shop using my images. The items of jewellery in photographs are my sisters own designs which they are now obviously copying.
It seems to be an american site although it says they have an office in the uk.
To add insult to injury in their Terms & Conditions it states as follows:
Artist Copyrights: All digital images contained in this website are under license by Lapis Lazuli World and are available to any person for the express purpose of viewing the website. No image or portion of any image may be reused without the express written consent of Lapis Lazuli World and the individual artist. All physical artworks are owned solely by the individual artists and are subject to United States and international copyright laws. No artwork may be reproduced or replicated in part or in its totality without the express written consent of Lapis Lazuli World and the individual artist.
My sister and I couldn’t believe it and don’t know what we can do about it and Icertainly haven’t given my permission for anyone other than my sister to use my images.
Please help. What should we do? Is there anything we can do? If so is it going to cost lots of money?
Regards
Zoe Willams
Zoe, if you are certain that they are your images, then this is an infringement of your copyright, obviously. If the company has also appropriated your sister’s designs, these too may be protected by copyright.
Technically, you could sue for copyright infringement, but this is a US-based company and this can lead to difficulties with jurisdiction. Generally, a legal action would probably have to be brought in the USA (specifically in Florida). Questions of jurisdiction can be complex, and there may be arguments for founding jurisdiction in the UK, but any judgment would still need to be enforced by the courts in the defendant’s jurisdiction. So it can be complicated and, yes, expensive.
In the first instance, I would advise contacting the company and stating your complaint – inform them that they are using your images without your consent and thereby infringing your copyright. The company has a UK office, though it is not registered here, and the address and telephone number are on the web site. If you have no success with that, you could contact the company’s internet service provider. Neither of these measures will cost you anything except your time, and they would normally be the first steps anyway.
Hello again.
Thank you for your reply to my question. I did manage to contact the the company in question and asked them to remove my images. There response was denial but they removed one of them and edited the other by cutting and pasting a different clasp on the image. Unbelievable. I have the original images with all the meta data and there is no doubt in my mind that they are my pictures.
I did some research into there company and found this http://www.sueferguson.co.uk/bohemia-style-uk.html, it list numerous complaints about this and its affiliated companies. They are obviously rip off merchants and don’t care about the law. I have tried contacting Google but have not had a response.
There are no offices in this country (phone number doesn’t work, mail returned unopened), the person I did have contact with was in Chile. The Florida offices also seem to be bogus. So it seems there not really a lot I can do as I don’t have the resources to take it any further down the legal route. It just a shame that these unscrupulous people can get away with what they like.
I thought about watermarking my images but found that it spoilt them especially for the purpose of selling jewellery as you don’t want to obscure any details of the piece and if you don’t obscure it it would easy to remove. I read about invisible water marking that only shows up if you try and copy the image but didn’t really understand it. Would you be able to shed any light on this subject?
Thanks again.
Regards.
Zoe Williams
I was wondering if I could ask for some guidance, a friend took some pictures at a private event she was invited to, without asking me she put the pictures on her website. she is a uk resident, but has moved to Canada and the website is hosted in Canada. She’s refusing to remove the pictures – is there anything I can do, that you know of? Thank you in advance.
Mia, it is impossible to advise on this without knowing more about the nature of the event (was it one where people might have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example), the nature of the photographs and the manner of their publication (Are they accompanied by other personal information?).
But even if what your friend has done is actionable in the UK, the fact that she is resident in Canada and the site is hosted there can pose all kinds of legal and practical problems. Something may be legally possible, but not practical for most people. There are all kinds of issues of jurisdiction, enforcement and applicable law when activities take place across borders.
You could try contacting the company that hosts the website. Some ISPs will remove material if they feel there is a possibility that it might lead to potential liability for them.
Hi linda i am just a learner and i love street scenes at all hours morning noon and night i have i think taken some preety good shots some in york of a beutiful young girl crossing the bridge and brushing her hair and as she did she notised me and smiled i got a few shots of her and one in particular is lovely have i the right to have it published. i am a great fan of henri cartier-bresson and do i have the right to take photographs of people in the streets shoppers-tourists-street cleaners-workers-shop assistants-bakers-butchers and so on
Hi Robert,
You have the right to take photographs of people in a public street, but whether you have the right to publish them depends on a number of factors. It has to be said that the era of Cartier-Bresson is long gone and we live in an age where people regard themselves as having much more control over the use of their image. This is supported to some degree by the law, and court decisions of recent years have found some photographs taken in public places to infringe the right to privacy of the subject. So, it really is advisable to get consent, (written consent if possible) before using photographs of people, expecially if the photograph is of an identifiable individual rather than a group of people.
Dear Linda,
I may be stuffed with this one.
In 2007 I worked on a charity calendar in aid of the local hospice. The idea was to produce 12 high level photos of local landmarks, sites, activities etc.
The National Trust gave permission for me to access Frensham Little Pond (a few miles South of Farnham in Surrey) to work on a photo for the calendar. They made no charge for this but I did have to sign an agreement. The agreement states the usage for the resultant photo, that being the calendar.
In the course of the day I created a panorama of the pond. It turned out to be unusable for the calendar due to the dimensions, nevertheless it is quite a nice photo. It is in the Panorama section of my gallery page.
A number of local people over the last couple of years have wanted large canvas prints but when I asked the NT if I could makes sales of the photo they said no. I know land owners can restrict photography. Setting aside the issue of whether the NT should be allowed to so dogmatically restrict sales of photos, given that they were conceived to hold property for the people, is there any way I can approach this which would allow me to sell prints?
I offered to pay the NT a share of the profits but they said no.
I DID sign the agreement. I have no problem with that and if at the end of the day it is just tough then so be it. Afterall, I impose my Terms and Conditions !
The agreement clarifies that the Copyright is mine but I am guessing that I still need their consent to sell prints.
Is my only option to ask them again, they last said no in early 2008.
Regards
Matthew
Hi Matthew,
I’m afraid you probably are “stuffed” as you put it. The NT has imposed restrictions for some time on photography for commercial gain and they have recently become more pro-active in enforcing that. I’m guessing that they gave permission for the original shoot because the images were going to be used for a good cause – hence the agreement setting out the permitted usage. Because you have that signed agreement, you could be sued for breach of contract if you sell prints. The NT are an independent charity and, though their remit is to hold property “for everyone” they are still legally landowners with the right to restrict what people do on their properties.
So, sorry, your only recourse is to ask them again, though perhaps they would be more willing to consent if you negotiated with them over a share of the profits on sales, or payment of a fee.
Dear Linda,
Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated. I pretty much new you were going to say what you did, I suppose I was hoping you may have have known of a case of a similar nature with a better outcome.
I signed the agreement. It was a job. I don’t really have a beef with the situation except that I think the NT are unreasonable. Apart from anything else, I offered payment, they said no, yet in the next breath they want to raise money.
I will approach it again and ask but I don’t hold out much hope.
Kind Regards
Matthew
Hi Linda Macpherson,
I am writing an article about street photographer for Capture magazine in Australia and I was wondering if I could email you a few questions about the recent legislation – just for some quotes, although your handout explains it very well.
Cheers, Emily Jones
Sure, Emily. I will certainly help if I can.
Linda
Hi Linda,
My final-final draft is due Friday and these are some questions I really wanted to ask a lawyer!
Do you represent photographers often or the people who are photographed suing?
How has UK law changed due to terrorism and child protection?
Focus: issues that occur prior to copyright, for instance do I have a right to take this photo and what can I legally do with it after I take it? Publishing? Commercial gain = advertsing?
Do gallery showings with people prominent in the photo qualify or only fashion shots?
What about copyrighted buildings? They cannot be photographed?
What qualifies as commercial purposes? Publications? Websites?
Intellectual property becomes property of the owner after they take the pictures, does this mean if someone tells you that you cannot take photos after you already have you can keep them and not be forced to erase them?
Can photographers post photos of subjects online without permission, no commercial gain just part of the portfolio how do captions hurt or help?
Child photography ask parent’s permission to even take a photo in the UK? Do you think Australia will be more lenient or just as strict in the future with child photography in public?
Thank you Linda!
That’s a lot of questions, Emily, and some of them don’t have short and easy answers! Trying to keep it brief, and not necessarily in the right order.
UK law does not say, as such, that one always needs the permission of parents to take a photograph of a child. It has just become commonsense, because the fear of paedophiles with cameras is such that a photographer who doesn’t ask may find himself/herself under suspicion, investigated by the police or even subjected to violence. There are, however, laws regarding paid child models and laws concerning indecent images of children.I have no idea how the law might develop in Australia, but you could ask Andrew Nemeth, who has written a similar article to this concerning photography law in Australia. There is a link to it near the top of this page.
Anti-terrorism laws have created difficulties for photographers, who have often found themselves under suspicion and subjected to stop and search procedures when taking photographs of landmarks, etc, in areas where s.44 authorisations are in place. (See the Terrorism Act 2000, s.s. 43, 44, 57 and 57A). With child protection, it is more perception and interpretation of existing law that has changed in recent years, rather than the law itself.
Buildings, that’s an easy one. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act creates an exception whereby it is not an infringement of copyright to make a photograph or film that includes/contains a building that otherwise would be subject to copyright protection. The building owner can stop you, of course, if you are on their property. And if the eventual use of the image implied a connection that did not exist between the user of the image and the company that owned the building, that might be regarded as passing-off or misrepresentation.
You can only be made to erase/delete images if ordered by a court in the context of a legal action. The police may in some circumstances be able to seize your camera/memory card/film as evidence. They do not have the power to destroy the images or make you destroy them.
“Commercial gain” is a tricky one, since, if you sell an image in any way, you are using it commercially, and that is what property owners are usually trying to restrict when they say that they don’t allow photography for commercial purposes. They basically mean that they don’t allow it if you are going to make money out of it.
But there is no short and simple answer to your remaining questions. We have laws relating to Data Protection and we have laws relating to rights to privacy. There is some overlap between them, but each has its own rules and its own exceptions. Displaying images of people online, for example, might be caught by one of these sets of laws, or both of them, or neither, depending on the subject matter and context of the image and the subject-matter and context of the web site. Captions can make a difference, and so can any subject matter displayed next to the image. They can turn an innocent image into a defamatory one, for example. In short, there are few laws that prevent you taking an image in a public street, but what you are legally entitled to do with the image afterwards depends on a whole host of factors.
I hope this helps.
Linda
The NT may be within their legal rights, but they are acting more and more in recent years as feudal landlords. They are GIVEN those properties by individuals, after all, to hold in trust as custodians for the nation as a whole.
I know what I would do if they still refused? write a letter to the local paper, or even try to get a journalist interested. I know several people who are getting more and nore fed up with the NT’s arrogant attitude.
One example recently: at an NT property I visited, you are allowed to photograph outside but not the items on display inside. I took a photo OF THE OUTSIDE scene through a window, from the inside, and was harrangued most snottily by a self-important busybody who was too thick to understand the difference between photographing the items indoords, and photographing the outdoors from indoors. I just turned my back on her and walked away, leaving the silly so-and-so open-mouthed.
Frensham ponds are wonderful. I photographed them many years ago (I used to teach photography at what was then WSCAD in Farnham).
Cheers,
John
Linda,
Great job, I will returning to the UK after two years in Atlanta and two in Singapore, and I better get used (again) to the “you will filmed fifty times a day by CCTVs, but damned if you take a picture” approach. Here in Singapore it does not matter where I am, there are always a dozen chapes with big DSLRs (and sometimes Lomos) taking pictures of everything, including the food they have at the restaurant. In the US… well, in Atlanta I was asked why I was taking a picture of a magnificent building in midtown (“Because it’s magnificent, sir!”), and in other occasions I was given wary looks when I took pictures of dams, bridges and anything vaguely remarkable. I was lucky none of the wary bystanders were Jack Bauer-style proactive … but I understand the fear.
Now, a question on law and sports photography: can the subject of a photo taken during a sports event claim that the photographer has no right of taking that picture, on grounds of privacy violation?
Background information: as an amateur sport photographer, in the last few months I have taken plenty of pictures of triathlon, fencing, sailing, football (soccer). These competitions were photographed without having an official assignment, without having to pay a ticket (and therefore without a recorded entry in the event venue), and in public places (with the exception of the fencing competition). For instance, I recently followed a triathlon competitions which took place in a public park (the run), on a public road (the cycling segment) and in the Singapore Strait (the swim). I have contacted several participants offering them free copies (for non-commercial use) of pictures in which they appear. I have so far received replies ranging from the thankful to the enthusiastic, but I wonder if any of my subjects might actually complain feeling that their privacy has been violated.
Based on common sense, I believe somebody’s expectation of privacy should be considerably lowered, when this person dons his/her sports gear and takes part in a sports event on public land. Your comments, please.
A further ramification: what if I take pictures in the above described scenario, and then find somebody – a sports magazine, a sports gear shop – interested in publishing one of my pictures in exchange of money? Would the subject of the image have any right to claim a share of the money I receive?
Thanks
Claudio, expectations of privacy do depend to a great extent on circumstances. We haven’t (yet!) reached the stage where everyone has an absolute right not to be photographed without their consent. And yes, if someone is taking part in a public event in a public place, they would generally not have the right to complain that their privacy had been invaded by them being photographed.
The images could be published in a sports magazine, and the subject would not have the right to claim part of any payment you receive. The sports gear shop may be different, depending on whether the image is simply used for display (as a kind of artistic print) or used in advertising material. There could be potential problems in the use of an image of a person for the purposes of advertising or marketing without their consent. Though the liability would really fall on the end user – the shop in this case. Again, you are effectively licensing the copyright in your image, and the subject could not claim a share of your payment.
Hi,
I came accross this website some time ago and I really appreciate the work you are doing here. I hope someone can help me with my questions about photographing architecture in the UK. I’ve been searching the internet, looking for books and articles for a while now but still things are not entirely clear to me.
I have the right to photograph a building from a public space, right? But do I have the right to use it anyway I like because I own the copyright (i.e. on a website, in a calendar or leaflet from which I will be making money) without having a release?
Is publishing it on my website not for sale but only as a part of the portfolio is comercial use, does it require property release?
And finally are the answers for the above questions are the same for ‘ordinary’ building and a well recognized architectural master piece?
I am a bit confued and don’t want to get in trouble because of a photo…
Aslo recently had a situation where I was on a street and a shoping centre was underneath it and next to that street and some security guards came to me and told me that I’m not allowed to take any pictures there (there were no signs). Wasn’t that a public space (anyone can access it at any time even if the shopping centre is closed)?
Cheers,
Seb
Seb, it’s hard to know the position with the shopping centre as some apparently public streets around buildings, to which the public have access, are actually privately owned. In that case, the owners have the right to prevent photography if they want to. So you would have to determine whether the place in question is in fact a public highway. If it is, the security guard cannot stop you taking pictures there.
You can publish a photograph of a building taken from a public space. The only use you would have to be careful of is use in advertising or marketing, which might imply a connection between the owners of the building and the product being advertised.
Linda,
thanks a lot for your response. I guess it’s always best to have the release when in doubt. Thanks again for help.
Hi Linda,
Thanks for your sharing about “public space”. Yes, we have to be careful of advertising & marketing use. Your advice remind us to think another side about the “connection between the owners of the building and the product”. It will cause some trouble.
Once, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate it.
The MPP Users’ Club is a single make specialist group for those owning, using or collecting cameras and photographic products manufactured by the now closed British firm Micro Precision Products Ltd.
I linked our site to the V1 edition of the Photographers Rights and have now updated the link to V2. Also, I edit the group’s quarterly magazine and have again noted the updated version in the latest edition (April 2010).
We have a number of members who do not have internet access so thought it might be useful, specially for them, to have a printed loose leaf copy of the guide included in a future edition. I would value your permission to do this.
Many thanks,
David Gosden (Webmaster, http://www.mppusers.com)
Please can you advise me. I am in the process of writing children’s books which feature a lot of day to day things ie post box, street, trees and flowers, houses etc. I will be altering the photos to fit what I need so a house may be smaller or have different windows etc. Presumably I need a release to use a photo of someone’s house but what about the post box or flowers and trees in someone’s garden? Thankyou for any help that you can give me.
Regards,
Glynis
Glynis, you don’t necessarily need a release even to use a photograph of someone’s house for the purposes you describe. In the UK, at least, no-one owns the image rights to their property. (Use in advertising is subject to some different rules.) If the image was used in a way that implied something defamatory about the occupants of a recognisable house, then you could be in legal difficulty. If you can obtain a release, however, you will be covered and it is always wise where possible to get one.
No problems with the post boxes, trees or flowers.
Hi Linda,
Could you advise on Scottish Law? I was taking video footage of a Parking Attendant putting a Penalty Charge Notice on my vehicle, the attendant said her Human Rights were being breached, “I” advised her to contact the Police. Police arrived and asked me if I was going to delete the images, I said no next thing I was being charged with “breach of the peace” and “resisting arrest”. Funny because I actually hadn’t moved from the spot on which I was standing on, when the Police Officer lunged for my camera. The Police Officer confiscated the camera. I made a formal complaint but the Inspector that is investigating the complaint stated that “it is illegal to film people in public places” and by doing so you can “put them in a state of alarm & distress (breach of the peace)”, my camera was consficated because it formed evidence for the breach of the peace charge. I am earnestly trying to find some Scottish Statute or Case Law where it clearly sets out that filming/photographing people in public places with/without theie consent is not illegal. I am based in Glasgow. If you can help me Linda it would be greatly appreciated.
The short answer to your question is that there is no Statute or case law that clearly sets out that filming or photography of people in public places is not illegal. It’s just, well, not illegal. In general terms, the law does not have to state that certain behaviours are not illegal, because one presumes that conduct is legal unless the law says that it isn’t. Nor is there some specific criminal offence of “breaching Article 8 of the Human Rights Act” which I assume that the Parking Attendant was referring to when she said her human rights were being breached.
In Scotland, that basically leaves us with the issue of breach of the peace. Breach of the Peace had become something of a catch-all offence here, but the definition of what constitutes breach of the peace was narrowed somewhat by the appeal in Smith v Donnelly (if you are interested, you can read that judgment here: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2001/121.html )
In essence, the court said that breach of the peace was conduct that would be genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person. That said, there have been some fairly recent cases where people have been convicted of breach of the peace in circumstances that only tenuously fit that description, this one is particularly relevant:
http://secretscotland.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/disturbing-fine-issued-in-edinburgh-court/ (but note that, although the article doesn’t mention the fact, the accused pled guilty and so the issues were not examined by the court).
So, it is NOT illegal to film people in public places. There are circumstances in which it may amount to a breach of the peace, but the fact that someone is merely irritated by being filmed is probably not sufficient – note what the court said in Smith v Donnelly: conduct that would be genuinely alarming and disturbing to any reasonable person.
You have actually been charged, you say? I assume this happened only recently? It will still be up to the Fiscal whether the case proceeds to court.
Hi Linda,
I thank you very much for your time, assistance and guidance regarding this matter. I came across a Home Office site which stated “the public are entitled to film/photograph in public places, even if that includes the Police or Police scenarious.” It then goes onto to say Chief Constables should have policies in place regarding filming in public places. I have requested to the Chief Constable that he supplies me with a copy of the forces policy.
I thank you for providing me with this link http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2001/121.html, I have already passed a copy of the content onto my Solicitor, the link certainly has very valueable reference cases for my Solicitor. Looks like the case will be going to court, I checked with P.F. office and they have confirmed that I have a date by which I have to provide a plea, I am still awaiting that paperwork. Linda thank you again for this very valueable information and I shall keep you informed of any developments. Regards, Ian
Updated Metropolitan Police photography advice – some additions re s.43, 44 and 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
I have just been commissioned for the first time to photograph a public sporting event this coming summer in Scotland. I will be getting a flat fee for the day plus I will be getting commission shared with the organisers of the event for any print sales that are generated through an online printing site. How do I stand regarding permissions from the competitors and spectators if these photos will be available for anyone to get printed off. The idea is to have the web address of the photos I have taken printed on the organisers programs so that anyone wishing to get prints can order direct from the online printing site. Some of the competitors will be minors so I am particularly wary of this aspect. Do I have to get individual model release forms signed ( which will not be practical ) or as this is a public event will this not be nescessary?
I have a similar question to Robert. We’re building a marketing tool which uses crowd images at sporting events. We’re aware we’re not allowed to show the action on the pitch as various TV channels and stock houses will own the rights to that (which in itself is not a problem), but where do we stand on showing the faces of people in the crowd as they have paid to attend? (They end up being used in marketing materials if in a shot from any stock house anyway.)
TIA – Seb
Linda – happy to come to a commercial agreement on this advice as it’s for business purposes.
Seb, at major sporting events at least, spectators have agreed to be photographed and filmed as part of the conditions of entry. The possible uses to which the images can be put is usually pretty widely drawn, since Clubs often use them in their own marketing. Note that stock houses will usually have a distinction between editorial and commercial stock – crowd scenes showing indentifiable faces would not normally be licensed for commercial/marketing use. However, as I said, consent to this may be implied from the terms and conditions of entry and these may vary from one event to another. There is also an issue, if you are taking the photographs, of whether your permission to take them extends to using them for marketing purposes.
Under the CAP Code, use of crowd scenes in marketing may not require the written consent of the people concerned in the way an image of an individual would. But images used this way must be used with care, since an implication that the subject was endorsing a product, or a use that might be regarded as defamatory, could leave you open to legal action.
thanks so much – very helpful
Just to clarify, Robert…you have been commissioned by the organisers of the event; in effect, you are the “official” photographer for the event? The onus really is on the event organisers here, since it simple for them to make it clear to entrants and spectators that they are liable to be photographed at the event and that images will be offered for sale on a web site. There are no privacy issues involved here, since this is a public event. There may be data protection issues however, but the extent of this is not yet very clear in that it has not been determined by the courts. Assuming that the images may constitute personal data, the organisers who commissioned you would be regarded as the data controller in this instance and they are responsible for obtaining any necessary consents, perhaps as part of the terms and conditions of entry. Consent is not always necessary for processing personal data, but where the images are to be placed on a website that is visible worldwide, obtaining it is the safest course. (The law is not different when it comes to photographing children in circumstances like these, but any consent would have to be given by the parent(s) if the child was under the age of 16.
In short, I do not think any potential data protection problems are your problems, though they may be the organisers’ problems.
Hi Linda,
There was a competition recently on a local radio station, where a man would wander a city taking pictures as clues to where he was.
He seemed to do this using a cameraphone and the pictures would be put online for people to track him down.
One of these photos was taken of me at work at a clothing shop… it was done secretly and I obviously didn’t give consent as I wasn’t aware of it til after.
Is it illegal for them to do this?
The pictures were found here: http://www.realradionorthwest.co.uk/competitions-offers/the-100000-real-radio-renegade/mab6k1qp/promo-photos/
Please let me know what I can do!
Kevin
Kevin, it’s hard to say. I can’t actually see the photos as the link doesn’t work (at least, it doesn’t any more). It depends on a number of circumstances – was the photographer inside or outside the shop, how identifiable were you in the images, etc. In theory it could be a breach of your right to privacy, though this is difficult to say as you were working in a place to which the public had access. There may be data protection implications which have not been fully considered by a court as yet, this too is difficult to say.
So, it isn’t illegal as such, but there may be legal implications.
Hi – wonder if you can help? A few months back, I took some pictures of a restaurant, against a fabulous sunset – the pics turned out really well, and at the urging of friends, I sent copies of them to the owner of the chain – I just said that I wondered if he was interested in them, thinking nothing ventured, nothing gained. He replied asking me for assurances that I wouldn’t use the pictures for any ‘commercial gain’ because if I did, it was his policy to apply a charge for them. I can’t see how these pictures would be of any particular interest to anyone else, but if they were, and I sold one or any of them, would I have to pay a ‘charge’? How on earth does this impact on anyone taking ‘urban landscapes’ that include images of any business?
Thank you for taking the time to read this
Sue
Hi Sue. In short, no, he doesn’t have the right to charge you for taking pictures from a public place that include his business premises. Problems might arise if the images show the name of his business and they were used commercially in a way that falsely suggested a connection with his business. Advertising or marketing use, in other words, is problematic. Otherwise, you can take images of buildngs if you want to, as long as you are not trespassing on the owner’s land. You can also sell them as postcards or prints or whatever.
Thank you so much Linda – that clears that up nicely for me. I am just embarking on a degree course in photography, and I know that students sometimes have exhibitions of their photographs, and that the pictures can be sold if the student wishes – its great to have a clearer idea of exactly where I stand legally on this.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.
Sue
Hi Linda – I hope you can help. I’m a contemporary children’s photographer who has been approached by a company who supplies cards to the major card distributors (hallmark/clinton/tesco/asda etc) to produce a ‘card collection’ using 12 of my images. They have expressed exclusivity if possible for all 12 cards in the collection and a 5 year usage across cards and maybe extended products. I understand that if I sell them exclusively then I still retain copyright but cannot reproduce the images on anything else. The collection will also be printed with royalties. I just want to make sure that I quote the correct price per image and have looked at Getty for ideas. I also want to make sure that I’m covered legally and have a sound contract in place. I’d be grateful if you could offer any advice as a starting point please. I know you can’t offer pricing advice but if I know where to look then I should get a better idea.
I hope you can help. Thanks Cecilia
Hi Cecilia,
As you say, I cannot advise on pricing, but looking at Getty, and possibly Alamy, hould give you some guidance. The NUJ publishes all kinds of suggested rates, but not for items like this. The company will also probably have a pretty firm idea of the rates it expects to pay. Likewise, the company will also, I’m sure, have its own standard licence contract. Read it carefully before agreeing!
Just to confirm, are you saying that you will get a royalty on sales as well as a fee? If so, the rate per image will be lower than if you were being paid only for the licence to use the image.
Be aware that you will need releases for this use, unless it was anticipated in your terms and conditions. Also, although you retain copyright, if the images were commissioned for private use, you will need the consent of the person who commissioned them.
Hello, Thank you for your reply. Yes I will get royalties on sales as well as the fee per image. When you say ‘releases’ do you mean model releases? Some of the images will be from commissioned jobs, do I need to offer these clients payment for using the images or just get their consent? Thank you for your help.
You don’t need to offer payment, you simply need consent. In other words, the person who commissioned the images does not have the right to demand a payment, but they do have the right to refuse consent, so you may find they will not consent without some form of payment.
This is technically a separate issue from that of obtaining a release, but in practice, in your business, the person who commissioned the photo is likely to be the same person who could consent for the use on behalf of a child, so the same consent would serve for both. A written consent, by means of a signed form, is the safest for everyone.
Hi Linda
I wrote to ref model relaese form over two weeks ago but haven heard from you.
Hello Linda
I have just read your article re. Copyright and wondered whether you could clarify something for me?
My husband has his own business offering wedding, portrait photography etc. it is a reasonably new company so from time to time to ease things financially he shoots weddings for another company. He is expected to turn up and shoot the wedding for a pre agreed length of time and then supply the images unedited to the company. He then invoices the company for his services – the company doesn’t pay any NI and he adds the details of any monies recieved in this manner to his self-assessment tax return. When he met with the company owner he was told that they would have no problem with him using the images for his own promotional purposes as long as he did not offer them for re-sale. He hasn’t signed any terms and conditions and does not have a contract. He also provides all of has own equpiment. He has been working on this basis for the last 18 months – this week he has received an email saying that they have now included in the operating instructions a clause stating that he is only able to use the images if the clients agree which is understandable but even then he must use their edited version of the images and not any that he has applied his own edits to.
Is he classed as employed or freelance – and what bearing does this have on copyright/usage of images?
Thanks
Nicola
Generally he would be classed as a freelance in the circumstances you describe. I assume that the company is not obliged to give him a certain amount of work and he is not under an obligation to accept it (i.e. he could refuse if he was otherwise engaged that day)?
If he is a freelance, then copyright belongs to him unless there is an agreement to the contrary and this would normally allow him to use the images as he wished. However, the company can also give work on the terms and conditions it wishes, so if they say he can only use the images as they have edited them, then in essence he will not obtain work from them unless he agrees to that, unless they can come to some alternative agreement. If this is a new condition, though, it cannot be retrospectively applied to images he has shot for them in the past.
I would also suggest that he ask for a written notice of their terms and conditions or operating instructions if he hasn’t already been given this. It may be difficult to prove something was said or not said in the event of dispute, but it is much more difficult to argue with written terms .
Thanks Linda for taking the time to respond. Yes you’re assumptions in your 1st para are correct. I agree that moving forward they will need to come to a mutual agreement regarding using edited images or the working relationship will cease.
This is a new condition – I note your comment that it cannot be applied retrospectively to images shot in the past. The company have now supplied a list of weddings where the client purportedly hasn’t given permission for the images to be used – my husband has used images from one of the weddings in a sample album and other printed materials – the wedding was shot 7 months ago are the company able to retrospectively say that these images should be not be used? Or did they have a duty to advise my husband at the time of the wedding of the client’s wishes that there images should not be used?
Many thanks
Nicola
The use of images where the clients have not given their consent raises a separate issue. Under s.85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, where a photograph has been commissioned for private or domestic purposes the person who commissioned it has the right not to have the photograph issued to the public, exhibited or shown in public or included in a broadcast. This right may be waived by consent.
In effect, it is the law, and not just the company’s terms and conditions, that requires the consent of the client to any publication of the images. It isn’t clear from what you say whether the client simply hasn’t given permission or actually refused permission for the images to be used. If the former, then it may still be possible to obtain consent.
Hi Linda,
I am in a tough situation with a previous employer. I am a photographer and have been shooting weddings for wedding photography company as freelance work. I have never signed a contract with them nor do I have any written agreement. If I am being hired by that company to shoot weddings, are the images still my intellectual property? Now that I have decided to stop working with them they are telling me I am unable to use any images shot for them in my portfolio or website. Is this true?
Thanks for your help!
Katherine
Hi Katherine,
It really all depends on what you agreed, whether this was in writing or not. (Though it can be difficult to prove if you don’t have anything in writing.) The situation is similar to that in Nicola’s post, directly above. If you are freelance and not an employee, then unless something has been agreed to the contrary, the copyright in the images is yours. If you were an employee, then copyright is your employer’s unless you made an agreement to the contrary.
Assuming you have the copyright, then part of my response to the post above is relevant here: Under s.85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, where a photograph has been commissioned for private or domestic purposes the person who commissioned it has the right not to have the photograph issued to the public, exhibited or shown in public or included in a broadcast. This right may be waived by consent.
In other words, even if you own the copyright, you need the consent of the client to publish the images.
I was wondering how i stand in english law, as to uploading photo’s to a Shutterfly.com share site, that includes pictures of public events, buildings, and people in scene shots, and photographing people/artists creating or going about their business, in public view, although on their property next to a public thoroughfare, as Shutterfly allow members of a Share site to order prints through them of these photo’s!!!.
Laurence, I’m having some problems accessing the Shutterfly site at the moment to see exactly what the site allows. If you are talking about creating a share site to share images with your family and friends, this is unlikely to create any legal issues, even if they can order prints of the images.
Many thanks for the document on the legal side, I shall keep a copy in my camera bag. Having returned to England three years ago I am getting back into photography with my 1966 Minolta SRT 101.
If I run into problems it should be very useful.
Many thanks again, Mick Kemsley. Norwich.
hi
when we was on holiday in blackpool.while we was having our meal a phototgrapher came round taking photos as we were eating i said i didnt want mine taking but he took it, when i told him had said no he said he didnt hear me and then wiped of the photo from his camera.this was a public dinning room in a hotel is it not against the law to take photos while people are eating in public.hope you can help.
p.s he was selling the photos the day after and i must say they were very good photos and maybe should have not kicked up a fuss.just wanted to know if there is a law against it.
Hello Yvonne,
No, it isn’t illegal to take photos while people are eating in public, though this was in a hotel dining room and therefore private property and not a public place. Presumably the hotel management had given him permission (perhaps for a fee), to take photos there. He was obviously prepared to delete photos when someone objected as you did.
Hi I wonder if anyone can help.I was today trying to photograph in my local cemetary lots of historic things here war memorials to shipping disaster memorials a victorian cemetary but I was told to stop photographing as it was not allowed under the Data Protection Act and that the information on Gravestones was private.
I did not make an issue of it and left but wish to get clarification on this matter for future reference plus I am not sure the person was correct to use his powers in this way.
I dont know all I do know is this is a public place and I am surprised at this ban
← Previous Comments
{ 39 trackbacks }