CopyRight and moral law

F

feeb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
950
Name
Fi
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there, i have been having some really issues recently with people around me assuming they know the law of copyright, spreading false information and suggesting that selling prints of people is illegal.

without saying too much, i would love to know what peoples perceptions of this are, what do you consider legal practice?

Also what is moral in photography? is it moral to take a photo of someone with the intention of selling it either to them or to someone else?

all answers on a postcard please :) xx
 
Morality and Legality should be separate, otherwise you get lots of grey areas.

EDIT - may be not separated, but there are clear distinctions between them and one should not use one for the other.
 
Legally, most things are explained here: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Morally is another matter as morals are personal. You may legally take a picture of a stranger in the street, make a print of it and display it in a gallery and sell a copy to anyone who wants one. If you are happy doing that, then it's not a problem.

Despite media reports and endless forum threads on the subject, there are actually very few restrictions on public photography.

About the only thing you can't do with a photograph of a someone is to present it in such a way as it would be defamatory. e.g. caption it somehow implying that the subject was a criminal or person of low morals, etc.


Steve.
 
There are two factors here.

1. Copyright & patent act 1988 (basically) states "It is illegal to copy the whole or part of any image by anymeans whatsoever." This applies to any image created after that date.

2. Moral law (as far as I know) doesnt exist but what you are describing may be affected by privacy law which came in to protect (mainly) Royals and celebs. I cannot quote that so maybe worth looking into as I have heard some awful stories around the world with police involvement.
 
Do you mean moral rights? They often go hand in hand with copyright.

They cover things like an author's (artists) right to be credited, their right not to have their work manipulated, etc.

Best to get a proper legal definition though, if its important.
 
Steve Smith said:
Legally, most things are explained here: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Morally is another matter as morals are personal. You may legally take a picture of a stranger in the street, make a print of it and display it in a gallery and sell a copy to anyone who wants one. If you are happy doing that, then it's not a problem.

Despite media reports and endless forum threads on the subject, there are actually very few restrictions on public photography.

About the only thing you can't do with a photograph of a someone is to present it in such a way as it would be defamatory. e.g. caption it somehow implying that the subject was a criminal or person of low morals, etc.


Steve.
Click to expand...

^^^ Good answer from Steve on this (as usual ;) ).

Just a comment on his final paragraph re defamation. You can imply what you like, either by way of the image, it's caption or the context in which it is presented so long as it is true, and that you can prove it.

For example, Jordan falling out of a club drunk. It's okay to say she's drunk, that much is obvious. The proof is pretty much there (especially if she is holding a can of beer ;) ). But to say that she's an alcoholic, that would get you into big trouble.
 
snapzz said:
what you are describing may be affected by privacy law which came in to protect (mainly) Royals and celebs. I cannot quote that so maybe worth looking into as I have heard some awful stories around the world with police involvement.
Click to expand...

There are no UK laws which apply selectively to people depending on their social or celebratory status.

In the thirteenth century there was such a law: Scandalum Magnatum or sacandalising the mighty. It's purpose was to prevent the people from speaking out against the rich and powerful.* Not in effect now though!


* Source of information - A section written by Ian Hislop in the 'Have I Got News For You' book 1994 !!!



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
There are no UK laws which apply selectively to people depending on their social or celebratory status.

Steve.
Click to expand...

I didnt say there was. What I was refering to was the privacy law which came into being as a result of paps sneaking shots on royals & celebs. Obviously laws would not be changed if it was you me or any Tom, **** or Harry. Changing the law obviously affects all including the common man/women.

A classic example was the photo of David Beckham in his pants which had to be withdrawn as it was taken on private property. Had he been in the street then that would be a different matter.
 
The law is quite clear. It states that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

There is a section of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is incorporated into UK law), which includes a right to privacy but this mainly concerns reporting of people's private affairs. As you say, it is the same law for toilet cleaners, dustmen, celebrities and royals alike.

If someone is being persistantly bothered by paparazzi and the like, the most likely charge which could be brought is one of harassment.

Note that the Convention on Human Rights also includes an article concerning the media's freedom of expression so a balance must be made between the two.

I don't know the details of the David Beckham photo but the law states that photography from a public place is legal. That means that if Mr Celebrity is standing in his front garden, his picture can be freely taken from the street and published.


Steve.
 
thank you everyone, its very cool to know that SOME photographers out there have actually bothered to learn what is legal practise and what is not.

I ran into someone this weekend (actually two people, intially with the irrator, and then again a few days later when a loud South African T****R who decided to argue with me in the street) who were trying to suggest that there was such thing as 3 way copyright, that if you took a photo it belonged equally to the model, the person who has paid for the photo and the photographer.

This is another photographer who has actually told models i know that this is legal fact, i.e if you have a photo taken of you, you legally own it. When i question where she had learnt this information, she had no reference but assured me that it was 'fact'

I told her i had recently studying copyright law, and that i had never come accross '3 way copyright law' or anything of the sort, she proceeded to tell me it was 'against moral copyright' for you to sell a picture that you had taken of somebody.

She attempted to argue with me, claimed that she had friends who had also done courses and things, to which i informed her that law is NOT subjective and rather than taking advice from anyone, perhaps she should read the law herself as we have nothing to discuss, law is law and its is unchanged.

when i suggested she stopped informing people of the law, she got angry and i walked away.

it just got to me, how can you be attempting to make a living from your art, if you arent even prepared to discover the legalities of it?

she seemed to think my business method was immoral which i found ill-found and un-just.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't know the details of the David Beckham photo but the law states that photography from a public place is legal. That means that if Mr Celebrity is standing in his front garden, his picture can be freely taken from the street and published.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Beckham was stood in his pants scratching his golden whatsits on a hotel balcony. He was photographed by a Big Pictures shooter and the image was sold for £1000's. The next day it had to be withdrawn as the photographer was stood on private (think it was the hotels) property.

There are other instances that have enforced this mainly with royals who obviously are the biggest moaners.
 
snapzz said:
Beckham was stood in his pants scratching his golden whatsits on a hotel balcony. He was photographed by a Big Pictures shooter and the image was sold for £1000's. The next day it had to be withdrawn as the photographer was stood on private (think it was the hotels) property.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detail.

I would argue with the point that the image had to be withdrawn. I imagine it was withdrawn to avoid the hassle of a lengthy legal battle.

Even if the photograph was taken from a position on private property and even if the owner of that property had expressly banned photography (unlikely in a hotel) the copyright of the image still belongs to the photographer.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Thanks for the detail.

I would argue with the point that the image had to be withdrawn. I imagine it was withdrawn to avoid the hassle of a lengthy legal battle.

Even if the photograph was taken from a position on private property and even if the owner of that property had expressly banned photography (unlikely in a hotel) the copyright of the image still belongs to the photographer.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I agree with Steve, from what info has been posted here, that the photo of Beckham probably didn't break any clear cut laws.

But there is a point for debate here. If you photograph somebody while you are in a public place, and they are also in a public place, you're in the clear. If you are in a public place and they are on private property, it gets less clear.

For example, if you snapped them mowing the front lawn from over the road, then no problem. But if you climbed a tree round the back, and used a long lens to snoop through the bedroom window, that would be unreasonable and an invasion of privacy.
 
Okies, so are their ever disputes? i mean, can a model take you to court for taking a photograph of them and then selling it to say an ad campaign or whatever???
 
feeb said:
Okies, so are their ever disputes? i mean, can a model take you to court for taking a photograph of them and then selling it to say an ad campaign or whatever???
Click to expand...

There is nothing explicitly illegal in doing that, but advertsing is tricky because it tends to imply that the person has some relationship with a product, which is probably untrue. And there's obviously money invloved, which tends to get people excited for other reasons.

Most likley something like this would go to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has no legal power whatsoever, but takes a view on these things and would advise that the ad is withdrawn with a slapped wrist. The advertsiing industry is very sensitive to this sort of thing and usually complies.

The paparazzi do similar things all the time - photographing famous people and selling them to the highest bidder for commercial gain. They, or rather whoever publishes the images, walk a thin tightrope in lots of ways, but we all know that they get away with some very dodgy stuff from both a legal and moral point of view.

People often make some distinction between editorial and commercial use, but the law recognises no such difference in principle.

I think the bottom line in this is that the law, strictly speaking, allows considerable freedoms. But the moral view, and that of public opinion, is much more strict. It is also a moveable feast, and standards change, and juries change their opinions all the time.

The law is one thing, but do we really need laws to tell us what is right and what is not? Of course, sometimes that's necessary, but in standards of everyday normal living, if you do something that exploits another person, then either don't do it or come to some arrangement with them. That's what a Model Release Form is about, and as always with these things, money, or some other exchange of a 'consideration' works wonders.
 
but thats just the thing isnt it, morals differ from one human to the next, i would find it very uncomfortable selling images of celebrities why i had aqquired by chasing them through towns and stalking methods. i am however completely comfortable taking my camera to festivals, snapping pictures all day and then offering those pictures for sale on my website - even though they are of people, i think its nice people can buy prints to remind them of their day... Does that sound immoral to you?

I totally agree Model release forms are the way forward if you are shooting an ad campaign and know thats what you want to do, but surely if you took a photo and then a few years later it was spotted and bought for an ad, that would be fine?

i just wonder how a company can banish an ad for showing a model if no contract is in place, seems like that is actually Against the law as it stands...
 
but thats just the thing isnt it, morals differ from one human to the next, i would find it very uncomfortable selling images of celebrities why i had aqquired by chasing them through towns and stalking methods. i am however completely comfortable taking my camera to festivals, snapping pictures all day and then offering those pictures for sale on my website - even though they are of people, i think its nice people can buy prints to remind them of their day... Does that sound immoral to you?

I totally agree Model release forms are the way forward if you are shooting an ad campaign and know thats what you want to do, but surely if you took a photo and then a few years later it was spotted and bought for an ad, that would be fine?

i just wonder how a company can banish an ad for showing a model if no contract is in place, seems like that is actually Against the law as it stands...
 
feeb said:
i just wonder how a company can banish an ad for showing a model if no contract is in place, seems like that is actually Against the law as it stands...
Click to expand...

If you are still refering to the Beckham case (and even if you are not actually). In cases like this where someone thinks an image of themselves should be removed, their first step would be to get a lawyer to issue a cease and decist letter.

Mr Beckham can afford to hire better lawyers than most people so I think in this case, whoever was involved with the ad. decided it would be easier to just remove it rather than to argue it in court. That does not imply that it was in any way illegal.


Steve.
 
HoppyUK said:
I agree with Steve, from what info has been posted here, that the photo of Beckham probably didn't break any clear cut laws.

But there is a point for debate here. If you photograph somebody while you are in a public place, and they are also in a public place, you're in the clear. If you are in a public place and they are on private property, it gets less clear.

For example, if you snapped them mowing the front lawn from over the road, then no problem. But if you climbed a tree round the back, and used a long lens to snoop through the bedroom window, that would be unreasonable and an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

I was a clear case of both Beckham and the photographer where on the same private property. It was some time now ago maybe it was withdrawn due to legal or "potential" legal infringement but was definately withdrawn.
 
Sorry hit the submit button accidently.

If you ever see a re-run of paparazzi on Sky which is about Big Pictures I think it was mentioned on there. The issue of it being withdrawn was definately because the photographer was on the same private land as Beckham. Had he been standing in the street then wasnt a problem.
 
actually i was thinking less about Mr Beckham and more about MY (as the OPs) original problem and wether i would suffer any comeback from my actions... i can see however that that this thread has turned from a personal issue into one regarding pop stars and balconies which is a bit sad really, i came here for some advice - thanks anyway :(
 
nice to know one man can ruin a game of football AND a thread i suppose :(
 
feeb said:
i came here for some advice - thanks anyway :(
Click to expand...

In that case my advice is:

If you are personally happy about selling these pictures as you stated in your original post then you should.

Legally, you are well within your rights so long as the conditions fall within the photography in public places rules as detailed in the PDF I linked to earlier.

The thread only wandered over into 'celebratory' territory as they are the high profile cases you hear about. The law is the same whatever the subject's status though so it is still relevant to your question and hopefully helpful as an illustration.



Steve.
 
yeah i understand it as an example, but this thread wasnt about beckham scratching his balls or it would have been named as such - thanks for the advice, i dont feel i am doing anything wrong so i think i will just carry on as planned :) xx
 
yeah, its just hard when people tell you that you are being immoral and infact breaking the law when your not - very hard :(
 
feeb said:
yeah, its just hard when people tell you that you are being immoral and infact breaking the law when your not - very hard :(
Click to expand...

Breaking the law and being immoral are not the same thing. That's the point that is being made here.

The law is the same for all of us; moral standards are much more subjective. Just because the law says it's okay, doesn't actually make it okay in a lot of people's eyes. You have to make an individual decision, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
 
actually Copyright law contains 'Moral Law' i.e where a photographer has a moral right to have his name published along with his photo... Yes morals differ between person to person, but copyright still contains moral law, regardless of what your individual morals are. Both kinds of morals were in question here, morals outside and inside of the law
 
One thing that hasn't been covered on this thread is model releases (although I believe it is covered in the photographers law PDF previously linked), you shouldn't be selling an image of an identifiable person for commercial usage without a model release, signed by the model stating that you can do this. However, if you are selling the image for editorial usage that is fine.
 
please could you link to some sort of evidence of that? i dont disbelieve you but i would like some sort of documentation of this 'model release' element of the law... i can understand why model release forms are a good thing to have if you are using a studio or something like that, but what about if you just take a beautiful photo of someone and a company decides to buy it? Or you decide to sell prints of it? Does the law state you need a model release form for this? Or would there be repecussions where the law is not on your side?
 
hang on, do you mean the bit that talks about a person who uses their image as work? is that what you mean by an identifiable person?
 
feeb said:
please could you link to some sort of evidence of that? i dont disbelieve you but i would like some sort of documentation of this 'model release' element of the law... i can understand why model release forms are a good thing to have if you are using a studio or something like that, but what about if you just take a beautiful photo of someone and a company decides to buy it? Or you decide to sell prints of it? Does the law state you need a model release form for this? Or would there be repecussions where the law is not on your side?
Click to expand...

A Model Release Form has no legal status as such; it is just evidence. But if one has been signed, openly, honestly and fairly (that is the main potential loophole, or something along those lines) then it is hard for anyone to complain too much.

The Moral Law you are referring to, and have outlined, is something quite different to the wider moral principles being discussed.

If you are seeking a legal right to publish a person's image simply because you don't have their specific permission, then in most situations you probably have it. But the context and circumstances vary so much then it is possible to fall foul of all sorts of other offences. It's just that Copyright will not be one of them. You have to follow your own moral compass and judgement on that one.

Publishers are very wary of this, which is why they usually request a Model Release, not as a permission, but as an insurance policy.

The bottom line is that if you don't upset anyone, for example by defaming them unfairly, or exploiting them unreasonably, or just generally taking advantage for your personal gain (financial or otherwise) at their expense, then regardless of the legal position, you need to question the moral situation.

When people get upset - rightly or wrongly, for legal reasons or not - just an exchange of solicitor's letters telling them to bu99er off will cost a few hundred quid. This is why publishers like Alamay require certain safeguards, and why clients will always select an image supported by a Model Release over one without. It's not a legal requirement, it's just good business practise and common sense.

And it can be very difficult to predict when folks are going to be upset. For example, I am aware of a photo of an attractive Asian girl that was widely published. She was at a public car event with her boyfriend, smiling at the camera, having fun. I guess she had no idea it would end up in a major magazine. She had not signed a Model Release.

But her father saw it and was not best pleased. He claimed it had ruined her arranged marriage to another man, brought huge shame on the family etc etc. I think the family's distress was genuine and even though I don't subscribe to their point of view, that was not the issue: harm had been done. Regrettably for the father, absolutely no laws had been broken either, so that was that. However, the magazine's policy of publishing photos without a Model Release was tightened up after that, not for fear of legal consequences, but because they didn't want to upset anybody for whatever reason.
 
good example there of how things work thank you - anyone know what the law is on photographic minors?? finding it hard to find a link :)
 
i dont want to do a shot with kids (particularly not in a sexual manner) but if i have say, a group photo at a festival that also contains children, does the law state i cannot sell that image without proper consent?
 
If you're interested in the legalities around photography then have a listen to the PhotoLegal podcast - they're pretty clear on what your rights are, when you need to be careful of property, model releases etc. Worth a listen.
 
feeb said:
i dont want to do a shot with kids (particularly not in a sexual manner) but if i have say, a group photo at a festival that also contains children, does the law state i cannot sell that image without proper consent?
Click to expand...

Feeb, haver you read the thread I posed a link to above, and the links in it?
 
i read through the first couple of pages and it was about some person wishing to get a 17yr old topless and take photos of them... excuse me for not wishing to read further :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top