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

boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...
I once approached a solicitor with a view to setting up a contract prior to setting up home with a girlfriend. The solicitor told us 'Don't bother, no matter what you sign now, you can still contest it later!'

Effectively what Hugh said, a promise to give away your rights isn't really worth anything in English law.
 
Perhaps more to the point, generally the problem lies much less in the taking of photographs, but far more in the publishing of them.

That's why 'you need a model release etc' so often gets quoted, because few picture agencies will handle images of people (that are clearly identifiable) without one. Though as stated, a model release has no formal legal standing, it's strong evidence of agreement.
 
I got tired of reading about 1/2 way thru, so if this is redundant I apologize.
A "model release" is not a contract at all; it's a waiver of personal rights. In some places (by state here, varies by country) the courts will not recognize a waiver of rights if it wasn't believed (at least by the waivee) to be in their benefit, so you see a lot of "for valuable consideration received" kind of stuff in the release... But in just as many places (probably more) no compensation/consideration has to be given in order for a waiver to be valid. In some instances a waiver can even be implied.

In the U.K. specifically a waiver has to be in writing and signed... I don't know of a requirement for equitable exchange... I think it could need to be called a "waiver" and not a "model release" because a model release is not formally recognized there.

That applies to images obtained legally.

If you are on private property then you must abide by the owner's terms of use. If you take a photo when there was a restriction against it then the image cannot be sold. It very likely couldn't even be displayed. It shouldn't have been taken, and it could possibly be taken from you.... But weirdly, you would still own the copyright to it. This is irregardless of any copyright/trademark considerations that may also apply. This can also apply in public spaces.

Copyright/Trademark issues which could make it illegal to sell the image can be encountered anywhere. I.e. if your photo is heavily based on a copyrighted piece then your photo could be considered a derivative work and the copyright would not belong to you.

These are (generally) civil offenses.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
In the U.K. specifically a waiver has to be in writing and signed... I don't know of a requirement for equitable exchange... I think it could need to be called a "waiver" and not a "model release" because a model release is not formally recognized there.
Click to expand...

In the UK you cannot waive/sign away or anything else a legal right. Waivers aren't actually worth the paper they are written on in the UK. So your UK specifics are just plain misleading ;)
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I once approached a solicitor with a view to setting up a contract prior to setting up home with a girlfriend. The solicitor told us 'Don't bother, no matter what you sign now, you can still contest it later!'

Effectively what Hugh said, a promise to give away your rights isn't really worth anything in English law.
Click to expand...

Seems like models wouldn't be signing "rights" away so much as agreeing for their likeness to be used to promote certain things in a certain fashion.
 
They'd be signing rights away if the photo was used in any way they didn't like.
They could agree for it to be sold as stock in a model release and later sue when the picture was used in an Anusol advert, or to illustrate an article about abortion, or to promote an unhealthy lifestyle etc. etc.

In fact, even in the good ol' US of A models have successfully sued for the use of a photo even after having signed a release. Which shows the value of the release even where they're 'demanded'.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
In the UK you cannot waive/sign away or anything else a legal right. Waivers aren't actually worth the paper they are written on in the UK. So your UK specifics are just plain misleading ;)
Click to expand...
Where in the U.K. law does it say you cannot waive a legal right? The European Court of Human Rights specifically does allow the waiver of a legal right and there are many examples of case law showing it.

This is not to say you can get a "blanket waiver." Any waiver that is not explicit in what right(s) is being waived, and for what purposes is suspect. What I have seen regarding UK law is that a waiver of rights must be in writing, explicit, well informed, and signed. Regardless of where you are, that is good practice.
It pretty much doesn't matter where you are. The waiver of privacy (i.e. the display of your likeness in an image taken for personal and domestic purposes) does not also include the waiver of the right against "defamation" (or whatever term is used for that there).

No amount of paper will eliminate the potential for being sued. One doesn't have to be "right" in order to sue. A case could be thrown out pre-trail, it could be thrown out during trail, or it could be decided in your favor (if such is the case). But you are still being sued and it's still an expensive PITA.
 
sk66 said:
Where in the U.K. law does it say you cannot waive a legal right? The European Court of Human Rights specifically does allow the waiver of a legal right and there are many examples of case law showing it.
Click to expand...


Gosh - you do talk some rot don't you? You have had some full and useful discussion of model releases in the UK and still you come out with this. The ECHR does nothing of the sort, and in the UK you may wish to start with the UTCCR (1999), amongst others.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
The ECHR does nothing of the sort, and in the UK you may wish to start with the UTCCR (1999), amongst others.
Click to expand...
You mean you can't waive the right to a trial? And you can't agree to "hold harmless" (waive your right to legal recourse)? Or any number of "waiver of legal right"? It doesn't specifically say "these rights may be waived," but waivers are recognized. The court has made rulings specifically stating that the right to waive a legal right is implicit.

The UTCCR you referenced simply reiterates what I have said.
The waiver has to be specific as to what right and for what purpose, i.e. "individually negotiated."
And it has to be reasonably in favor of the one waiving the right, i.e. not causing "a significant imbalance."

Can you provide a single ruling or law that contradicts that? If you can, I'll shut up and apologize....

And FWIW, I didn't call it a model release, I called it a waiver...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
You mean you can't waive the right to a trial? And you can't agree to "hold harmless" (waive your right to legal recourse)? Or any number of "waiver of legal right"? It doesn't specifically say "these rights may be waived," but the waivers are recognized. The court has made rulings specifically stating that the right to waive a legal right is implicit.

The UTCCR you referenced simply reiterates what I have said.
The waiver has to be specific as to what right and for what purpose, i.e. "individually negotiated."
And it has to be reasonably in favor of the one waiving the right, i.e. not causing "a significant imbalance."

Can you provide a single ruling or law that contradicts that? If you can, I'll shut up and apologize....
Click to expand...

Reference one of those rulings please?, and generally yeah, shutting up and apologising would be good. Waivers/release/whatever you wish to call them have only the value discussed at length here. As said, bvy numerous people. And incendently the UTCCR says anything that waives a legal right will be automatically discarded
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Where in the U.K. law does it say you cannot waive a legal right? The European Court of Human Rights specifically does allow the waiver of a legal right and there are many examples of case law showing it.

This is not to say you can get a "blanket waiver." Any waiver that is not explicit in what right(s) is being waived, and for what purposes is suspect. What I have seen regarding UK law is that a waiver of rights must be in writing, explicit, well informed, and signed. Regardless of where you are, that is good practice.
It pretty much doesn't matter where you are. The waiver of privacy (i.e. the display of your likeness in an image taken for personal and domestic purposes) does not also include the waiver of the right against "defamation" (or whatever term is used for that there).

No amount of paper will eliminate the potential for being sued. One doesn't have to be "right" in order to sue. A case could be thrown out pre-trail, it could be thrown out during trail, or it could be decided in your favor (if such is the case). But you are still being sued and it's still an expensive PITA.
Click to expand...
And has a total of 9/10 of 4/5 of sod all to do with the point in hand! which is that if a model signs a release then changes her mind! the release is worthless. So the point of the release?

No matter how explicitly you waive your rights, you're free to change your mind. That's the point, it's the only point worthy of note and trawling the internet to find examples of where people can waive rights is a bit pointless. Because having waived them, you can still change your mind.
 
boyfalldown said:
Reference one of those rulings please?
Click to expand...
Here... 139 results, or you can search for waiver and get a hundred or so different results. And you can search here and get several hundred additional results. Most of them talk about waiving the right to representation, a court trial, or the right to prosecute; but there's other rights in there as well, and they are all "legal rights." One of the results that can be found is a practical guide to admissibility criteria where it discusses the nature of a right. A quote from that section:
"Article 6 (right to trial, i.e. the case would be heard) applies to proceedings involving civil party complaints from the moment the complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner." (the waiving of a right is the waiving of "the right to reparation" should that right be "violated" in a manner that was waived)

Here's a UK law firm explaining some of the considerations of a legal waiver.

I don't see anywhere in the UTCCR (1999) that says anything that waives a legal right will be automatically discarded... where is that?
It does say any such waiver has to be explicit and of some reasonable benefit to the individual signing it. So no generic "blanket waivers;" and no "model release" from someone you just walked up to and asked to sign would be recognized as valid.

One of the principles of a right is that it's yours to control as you see fit, and that includes the waiving of that right. There are instances where the law explicitly says you cannot waive a particular right because it cannot be in your favor to do so. And there are laws limiting "how" a right can be waived (sold/transferred/assigned/etc) to prevent someone from doing something stupid (i.e. you cannot get a liability waiver to protect you in the event you are negligent).

If you could not sell, assign, transfer, or otherwise "waive" a right you (almost) couldn't "legally" sell a photograph, but of course you can. And the UK law even says you can waive your rights using the term "waived."

A right that is explicitly/legally waived (meeting the previously noted requirements) is binding and cannot be retracted. You can't just "change your mind" unless a) such verbiage allowing a change/limiting the waiver is incorporated or b) the waiver is for a minor in which case the individual who's rights were waived can retract the waiver upon reaching legal age....
I could find you UK specific legal references for that as well, but I'm not going to; it's not my problem.

I'm not saying that it's a good idea to tell a client to stuff it because they signed a waiver, that's a business decision. And anything can be challenged...

I'm also not saying you need a waiver/"model release" in most cases. Even over here, where everyone gets them for everything, you don't typically *need* one.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Here... 139 results, or you can search for waiver and get a hundred or so different results. And you can search here and get several hundred additional results. Most of them talk about waiving the right to representation, a court trial, or the right to prosecute; but there's other rights in there as well, and they are all "legal rights." One of the results that can be found is a practical guide to admissibility criteria where it discusses the nature of a right. A quote from that section:
"Article 6 (right to trial, i.e. the case would be heard) applies to proceedings involving civil party complaints from the moment the complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner." (the waiving of a right is the waiving of "the right to reparation" should that right be "violated" in a manner that was waived)

Here's a UK law firm explaining some of the considerations of a legal waiver.

I don't see anywhere in the UTCCR (1999) that says anything that waives a legal right will be automatically discarded... where is that?
It does say any such waiver has to be explicit and of some reasonable benefit to the individual signing it. So no generic "blanket waivers;" and no "model release" from someone you just walked up to and asked to sign would be recognized as valid.

One of the principles of a right is that it's yours to control as you see fit, and that includes the waiving of that right. There are instances where the law explicitly says you cannot waive a particular right because it cannot be in your favor to do so. And there are laws limiting "how" a right can be waived (sold/transferred/assigned/etc) to prevent someone from doing something stupid (i.e. you cannot get a liability waiver to protect you in the event you are negligent).

If you could not sell, assign, transfer, or otherwise "waive" a right you (almost) couldn't "legally" sell a photograph, but of course you can. And the UK law even says you can waive your rights using the term "waived."

A right that is explicitly/legally waived (meeting the previously noted requirements) is binding and cannot be retracted. You can't just "change your mind" unless a) such verbiage allowing a change/limiting the waiver is incorporated or b) the waiver is for a minor in which case the individual who's rights were waived can retract the waiver upon reaching legal age....
I could find you UK specific legal references for that as well, but I'm not going to; it's not my problem.

I'm not saying that it's a good idea to tell a client to stuff it because they signed a waiver, that's a business decision. And anything can be challenged...

I'm also not saying you need a waiver/"model release" in most cases. Even over here, where everyone gets them for everything, you don't typically *need* one.
Click to expand...


with the greatest of respect you're talking out of your fundament as you so often do. You evidently have no clue about the ECHR or the convention on human rights. Nor what its purpose is. You also seem to wish to derail this thread so much its a joke. If it wasn't so sad I'd be laughing. Grow up. The point still stands despite all your bringing irrelevant stuff in - A model release, or a waiver of any kind is only of persuasive value in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Ok, then you go ahead and sign waivers willy-nilly, don't get waivers when you should, and don't worry about them being "correct;" because they're not binding and only of "persuasive value."
I would actually say an "improper waiver" isn't even of persuasive value (i.e. you take a picture of someone in public and get them to sign a waiver w/o benefit to them). In fact it would probably be disallowed as being "unfair contract terms" and could portray the photographer as being intentionally manipulative/abusive of their rights.
If you were correct there would be almost zero point to any contract. And professional agencies, models, and photographers wouldn't worry about getting/signing waivers/model releases as much as they do...when they need them.
I didn't bring up "model releases," you did. I wasn't "derailing the thread."

I'm done... it's not my problem...
 
Archy said:
There is no law in the UK that prevents you from taking photographs of anything or anyone you can easily see from a public space. Neither is there a law prohibiting you from selling such photographs.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
If that is wrong there would be no newspaper photographs - ever. It is not wrong.


http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/page6/page6.html


http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

"If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely)."
 
Last edited:
The "wrong" would relate to the use of the images and for what purpose...
The main issue being commercial use vs editorial use... If you are "in public" anything you do is subject to editorial (newspaper) type publication. Commercial use is a finer line...
And just because it is "public" doesn't necessarily give you the "right" to photograph...
You can "sell" anything someone is willing to purchase, but that doesn't also equate to them being able to actually use the image as they desire/intend.

Many want to think "their laws" are different...but if it's a modern country abiding by the Bourne Convention the laws are very similar...the only question is "where" in the reg's the laws applies. There are fine points that differ... but that's fairly irrelevant if you don't understand/cover the basics.
 
Clearly in the UK there is no law preventing you from using your photograph taken from the public highway for personal, public or commercial use. Finer points are covered in the links I gave above as well as the link below. However much sk66 wishes to contend the lawful use of your photographs in the UK, this is how it stands.


http://www.photographymonthly.com/M...ption-Offers/Street-Photography-Peter-Jenkins
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
And if it is wrong, please point out which law relates to this.


Steve.
Click to expand...

It is illegal (in some circumstances) to photograph and/or publish without consent various military installations and other areas that are key to national security - the act pertaining would be the anti terrorism legislation.

It is also illegal to photograph from a public place in a way that consitutes stalking or harrasment - i.e if I repeatedly stood on the pavent outside of your house taking pictures through the gap in your curtains, or followed your wife and kids arround taking photos - the relevant acts would be the harrasment and stalking laws

thirdly it is illegal to obstruct any highway or footpath , in a manner that denies passage to other users - so if your photography does so you can be moved on and arrested if you refuse to move

Also with regard to selling and publishing the shots , if from a public place you have photographed something or someone where they had a reasonable expectaion of privacy, if you sell or publish although not a matter for criminal law (unless you do it repeatedly) you can expect to get sued (vis various high profile cases with hello and such)
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
..,
Many want to think "their laws" are different...but if it's a modern country abiding by the Bourne Convention the laws are very similar...the only question is "where" in the reg's the laws applies. There are fine points that differ... but that's fairly irrelevant if you don't understand/cover the basics.
Click to expand...
That'd be the Berne convention, which is only pertinent to copyright and has little to do with most points of contention in this thread.

Interestingly your country isn't a full signatory to the convention, as they wanted to hang onto some previous behaviours which don't fit with the convention. Whereas we are full signatories. This is causing increasing problems due to the international nature of IP where US courts are siding with IP criminals who can breach copyright and get away with it because the original artist hadn't lodged their work with the US copyright office. (Miles off topic now)
 
Im Bald Ok said:
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?.
Click to expand...


Nothing before the 1920's has copyright, So I believe if you took a picture of the mona lisa you could sell it, however I believe there is also a law/legislation/rule whatever that if you make a copy of an existing artwork it has the same protection as the original, i.e. I can't take a photo of a recently made painting and claim my own copyright to it. This means other people could use your picture of the Mona Lisa as they wish. This only applies if it is a direct copy of the painting, i.e. if you took a picture of something/someone and it was in the background the copyright would be yours.
 
if you took it in a private place though without the landowners consent you'd be committing an act of trespass (even if you had the right to be there) so in uk law although it wouldn't be illegal per se because trespass is a civil matter, the art gallery could probably sue if they were so minded.

Also bear in mind that French law may be different , so you might not actually be able to take a photo in the louvre without committing a public order offence
 
Archy said:
If that is wrong there would be no newspaper photographs - ever. It is not wrong.


http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/page6/page6.html


http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

"If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely)."
Click to expand...

You say it isn't wrong, then post a quote proving it's wrong.
 
Archy said:
I refuse to be drawn into whatever game it is that you are playing. The facts are in the 3 links I gave - consider those the quotes.
Click to expand...

I think the point he is making is that you said

Archy said:
There is no law in the UK that prevents you from taking photographs of anything or anyone you can easily see from a public space. Neither is there a law prohibiting you from selling such photographs.
Click to expand...

he said that was wrong, you said it wasn't and in support of your argument post a link which among other things says


You need permission to take pictures in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square if they are for commercial purposes (the permission is expensive). There are also some military sites where photography is banned, but these are well signed.
Click to expand...

thus confirming that there is in fact law in the uk which prohibits you taking a picture of somethings you can see from a public place , and indeed from selling them ... QED your original post was indeed incorrect

neatly hoisted on your own petard there.
 
The OP originally asked about the legality of selling photographs. Most 'advice' here concerns the taking of them, not the selling and any legal concerns would be with use, not sale of them.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top