Any circumstances where it's illegal to sell your pictures?

I

Im Bald Ok

Suspended / Banned
Messages
592
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
So, this came up in a conversation with my cycling friends and before I wanted to say anything, I wanted to be sure. Does anyone have any right to say you absolutely cannot sell a picture you've taken? Is there any circumstance where it's illegal to do so?

For example, If you are told you're not allowed to take a picture in a private place, in an art gallery, at a private event etc. If you took a picture of the Mona Lisa, would that be illegal to sell as a photo?

Another thing in the same conversation, is there such a thing as a photography licence? I know about press pass' for events such as Wimbledon and Premier league matches etc. Someone apparently asked to see a friend's photography licence! I wasn't aware there was such a thing.
 
as of art galleries etc there is t&cs put in place that you can not sell or distribute for commercial gain as far as im a ware as of private event if your in a fenced off place its there rules and t&c so same thing as of licence never heard of it unless there onabout a cbc check
 
There are a number of buildings and sites worldwide that require permission for commercial photography. You're likely to struggle to find a route to sell these. In the UK national trust properties and The Gherkin would be two examples. You may also find you're breaching copyright in some photos -where the subject is protected by copyright a diet coke can for example (as opposed to its incidental inclusion in a scene). Same would go for a group in concert.

The other situation where you may be breaching the law is if you sell a commissioned work without the subjects permission.

Press passes or liceinces may be needed for private grounds depending on the owner but there is no legal requirement.

This represents the UK, some other countries have stricter laws. Model releases aren't needed in the UK
 
Couple of things to note..

You may be confusing what you really want to ask by using the term "Illegal"

Press pass.. these are not passes to get you into events like wimbledon or premier league matches.. a press pass is a form of identification only.. not a pass to get into anything..

Licence.. these can be issued by people who have soemhow got the rights to media at events. such as premier league games... they would issue a licence for you to photo football.. you would use a press pass to show you are that person.. or an id card the licence supplier gives you..

I ahve a press pass.. its probably the most secure photo id ..there is a police number on the back of the card.. when you get a pres pass you also get a password.. anyone queries who you are and they can call the police number and you tell them the password and the police confirm who you are.. this and its a photo id

I ahve or have had licences to photogrpah all league football.. a different licence for non league football.. a licence to shoot pro basketball.. superleague rugby and.. hmm thats it i think

PS there isnt any such thing as a catch all photogrpahers licence..
 
Last edited:
Want a press pass? Make your own...

http://bighugelabs.com/badge.php

Absolutely no legal standing at all, but might just cut out aggro from some **** who says that you've no right to be photographing somewhere in the public domain.
 
mickledore said:
Want a press pass? Make your own...

http://bighugelabs.com/badge.php

Absolutely no legal standing at all, but might just cut out aggro from some **** who says that you've no right to be photographing somewhere in the public domain.
Click to expand...

poorest advice I ahve seen on theres forums for a long time :(
 
boyfalldown said:
There are a number of buildings and sites worldwide that require permission for commercial photography. You're likely to struggle to find a route to sell these. In the UK national trust properties and The Gherkin would be two examples. You may also find you're breaching copyright in some photos -where the subject is protected by copyright a diet coke can for example (as opposed to its incidental inclusion in a scene). Same would go for a group in concert.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Exactly the answer I was looking for.

@hoochy1 Thank you.
@KIPAX Yes, I was confusing myself. Thanks for the info i wasn't aware of, which was most of your post! :D
 
Im Bald Ok said:
So, this came up in a conversation with my cycling friends and before I wanted to say anything, I wanted to be sure. Does anyone have any right to say you absolutely cannot sell a picture you've taken? Is there any circumstance where it's illegal to do so?
Click to expand...

Depends how accurate I'm being about the wording of your question...

Since 2000, it has been illegal to take photographs for commercial purposes ("in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment") in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square in London without prior written authorisation from the Mayor's Office.

Now, that applies to the act and intent of taking the photographs, not their subsequent sale itself, which was the subject of your question. However, you could find yourself in a corner if they decided to pursue it. I think there's a fine of up to £200 if you're in breach.

Edit: GLA Page on the topic

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/arts-culture/trafalgar-square/managing-trafalgar-square
 
boyfalldown said:
This represents the UK, some other countries have stricter laws. Model releases aren't needed in the UK
Click to expand...

As I understand it the trouble you can get into is more with misrepresentation. So photo's taken and sold with standard processing as art prints would be ok but photo's altered greatly and/or used to create the impression the person in them endorses something(a product, political view etc) would need a model release with the correct wording.
 
Moreorless said:
As I understand it the trouble you can get into is more with misrepresentation. So photo's taken and sold with standard processing as art prints would be ok but photo's altered greatly and/or used to create the impression the person in them endorses something(a product, political view etc) would need a model release with the correct wording.
Click to expand...


No - a model release has no legal standing in the UK. It may have persuasive value if a mater ever came infront of a judge. Thats all.
 
boyfalldown said:
You may also find you're breaching copyright in some photos -where the subject is protected by copyright a diet coke can for example (as opposed to its incidental inclusion in a scene).
Click to expand...

That would be a trademark in this case. The general advice is to clone out all big label brand names from your photos, unless it is clearly editorial.

However one interesting point to note is that the customer would be primarily liable for any infringements, unless the your contract with the client or agency transfers the responsibility. Another reason why I love to sell direct (but still paying very close attention to legality)
 
boyfalldown said:
No - a model release has no legal standing in the UK. It may have persuasive value if a mater ever came infront of a judge. Thats all.
Click to expand...

model release is simply a written and signed the contract between the artist and the model. As such it has full legal weight like any other b2b document. So if they agree to certain use in return for reward there is really not much they can do.
 
daugirdas said:
That would be a trademark in this case. The general advice is to clone out all big label brand names from your photos, unless it is clearly editorial.
Click to expand...

debatable,no matter how often you put it in bold. A quick description

Coca-Cola owns copyright in the design of its bottles, the design of its logos, its advertising, and generally anything it creates that can be considered an original work requiring creative effort. For example, the famous Coca-Cola logo and script design is an original artistic creation that is protected by copyright law. In other words, the right to copy the logos and script design is limited by copyright law.
Click to expand...
 
daugirdas said:
model release is simply a written and signed the contract between the artist and the model. As such it has full legal weight like any other b2b document. So if they agree to certain use in return for reward there is really not much they can do.
Click to expand...


I suggest you look a little further into contract law. A model release has no standing, other then that I described above, in the UK. Its not necessarily a B2B document either by any means. Why do you think it is
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
debatable,no matter how often you put it in bold. A quick description
Click to expand...

It is copyrighted as well, but trademark protection is stronger, easier to enforce, and makes much harder to defend a case
 
daugirdas said:
It is copyrighted as well, but trademark protection is stronger, easier to enforce, and makes much harder to defend a case
Click to expand...


source for that please? something that says trademarks are easier to enforce then copyright please. So for all your comments, it was just pedantry on your part. The major point being that you couldn't sell a photo of a can of coke for whatever reason. You just thought you'd be pedantic on the reason and didn't add anything
 
Last edited:
Im Bald Ok said:
What about selling a photograph of someone inside Richmond Park?
http://www.royalparks.org.uk/business/filming
Click to expand...
I sent an email to see what they'd say - 'I have taken a bunch of images of multiple different people in Richmond Park. Do I need to seek permission before I sell them?'

I received - 'Many thanks for your e-mail. You would need to seek permission from the people you took the photographs of then seek permission from us before you sold any images.

Kind Regards,
Joe Bloggs | Filming Officer | 0987654321'

This can't be right?
 
In the original post, there's a reference to the Mona Lisa. AFAIAA, that particular painting is in France and the laws there are quite different to those here in the UK.
 
Im Bald Ok said:
I sent an email to see what they'd say - 'I have taken a bunch of images of multiple different people in Richmond Park. Do I need to seek permission before I sell them?'

I received - 'Many thanks for your e-mail. You would need to seek permission from the people you took the photographs of then seek permission from us before you sold any images.

Kind Regards,
Joe Bloggs | Filming Officer | 0987654321'

This can't be right?
Click to expand...

it doesn't sounds right. But the royal parks are hot on commercial photography. They've even chased up a friend of mine based on her blog
 
boyfalldown said:
I suggest you look a little further into contract law. A model release has no standing, other then that I described above, in the UK. Its not necessarily a B2B document either by any means. Why do you think it is
Click to expand...

Are you thinking only of criminal law? (the OP does start the confusion by using the term "illegal").

A properly worded model release is a contract entered into by the photographer and the model, as such it's enforceable through the civil courts in the event of a dispute. It's not a required contract in the UK, although you'd be foolish if you pursued a career as a professional photographer and didn't enter into contracts with your models when shooting commercial work.
 
Alastair said:
Are you thinking only of criminal law? (the OP does start the confusion by using the term "illegal").

A properly worded model release is a contract entered into by the photographer and the model, as such it's enforceable through the civil courts in the event of a dispute. It's not a required contract in the UK, although you'd be foolish if you pursued a career as a professional photographer and didn't enter into contracts with your models when shooting commercial work.
Click to expand...


No. I'm not :)

While I agree you'd be foolish not to have them in place, they only have persuasive value in a uk court.Purely on the basis you cannot sign away your rights in the uk. A model could still sue successfully , for defamation, with a model release. The persuasion bit comes in cause you can show the model understood how the images would be used
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
While I agree you'd be foolish not to have them in place, they only have persuasive value in a uk court.Purely on the basis you cannot sign away your rights in the uk. A model could still sue successfully , for defamation, with a model release. The persuasion bit comes in cause you can show the model understood how the images would be used
Click to expand...

But if you specified in the contract how the images were to be used that situation would never develop. I did mention the phrase "properly worded", although I realise that most of the time on this forum someone asking about releases will generally get pointed to some vague piece of paper they can download and print.
 
Alastair said:
But if you specified in the contract how the images were to be used that situation would never develop. I did mention the phrase "properly worded", although I realise that most of the time on this forum someone asking about releases will generally get pointed to some vague piece of paper they can download and print.
Click to expand...


I agree with and understand what you are saying. But at the end of the day you still can't get over the issue of signing rights away. No matter how well worded it can only every be (very) persuasive in the uk
 
Further contact from the film officer at the royal parks.

'Hi Jason,

Many thanks for your e-mail.
We do not allow any vox-pops filming within the Royal Parks, so to release images of people who you have taken images of without permission would not be possible.

You mention that you have this permission. However, you require a license from the Royal Parks if you wish to use your images in a commercial way. If the images are for your own personal use then you do not require a license and a fee will not be charged.'

Hmm.
 
Removed. Warning given for Rude / Impolite / Inappropriate Post or Behaviour
...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im Bald Ok said:
I'm just trying to understand the rules..
Click to expand...

Basically without paying them a fee (varies by park and also what you want to do) you ain't allowed to conduct any commercial photography in the parks. You may find it very hard to find a route to sell your images. Its not unknown for them to follow up blog entries and check licences were obtained for portrait shoots
 
An
Im Bald Ok said:
I'm just trying to understand the rules.
Click to expand...

It's really not that difficult. You can't sell photographs taken on private property, if the terms and conditions of entry prohibit commercial photography without permission, unless you're prepared to risk civil proceedings. The same applies to commissioned work if this forms part of the contract between you and the client.
 
Thanks Hugh and Martyn.

Alastair, my first contact with the royal park was after I started this thread, I did so to find out their official response. Maybe it came across like I wanted to, but I do not and have never wanted to sell any photo taken inside any royal park. I simply wanted to know the rules/laws about photography. Funny that on a photography forum! I simply meandered off from my loose question to something that was local to me.
 
The Official Secrets Act creates places that are prohibited. You can't photograph them without risk of imprisonment.
 
Im Bald Ok said:
I sent an email to see what they'd say - 'I have taken a bunch of images of multiple different people in Richmond Park. Do I need to seek permission before I sell them?'

I received - 'Many thanks for your e-mail. You would need to seek permission from the people you took the photographs of then seek permission from us before you sold any images.

Kind Regards,
Joe Bloggs | Filming Officer | 0987654321'

This can't be right?
Click to expand...
Im Bald Ok said:
Further contact from the film officer at the royal parks.

'Hi Jason,

Many thanks for your e-mail.
We do not allow any vox-pops filming within the Royal Parks, so to release images of people who you have taken images of without permission would not be possible.

You mention that you have this permission. However, you require a license from the Royal Parks if you wish to use your images in a commercial way. If the images are for your own personal use then you do not require a license and a fee will not be charged.'

Hmm.
Click to expand...

Im Bald Ok said:
Are you aware of what trolling means? You seem to be doing a good job.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it is. It has nothing to do with goats and bridges, but everything to do with trailing bait to get someone to bite.

For example, inventing a fictitious photo shoot and emailing Royal Parks for a response to something that hasn't happened. Your initial question was deliberately aimed at encouraging a poor response, when you specifically asked about gaining permission from the subjects - which is something that Royal Parks would not be qualified to answer in any case. You have received well considered and accurate responses from Royal Parks.

You had already linked to the Royal Parks guidance on the subject, which is quite clearly written.
 
It wasn't deliberately aimed at encouraging a poor response. It states clearly on their site that I need to seek permission from them before any images are sold. I emailed asking if I needed permission to sell the images. I didn't specify permission from who. They responded with an answer that said I needed permission from both the subject and the royal parks.

Conflicting information from this forum led me to believe you don't need permission from the model. Hence my post.
 
daugirdas said:
model release is simply a written and signed the contract between the artist and the model. As such it has full legal weight like any other b2b document. So if they agree to certain use in return for reward there is really not much they can do.
Click to expand...

Indeed, basically just a contract that states what the image may or may not be used for.
 
Moreorless said:
Indeed, basically just a contract that states what the image may or may not be used for.
Click to expand...


indeed, but what so many people seem to miss is you can't sign away your legal rights in UK contracts. So they model can still sue you. It doesn't protect you in anything other then a persuasive way
 
I recall as a child reading the signs on the fences on Portsdown Hill (overlooking pompey) prohibiting photography of the military establishment iirc ASWE but now Qinetic.
 
It comes down to:

1. In most circumstances you must seek permission before selling images from restricted property.

2. While it is decent to check with people before you sell images of them, there are very few situations where it is a legal requirement to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top