CopyRight and moral law

feeb said:
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 :(
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read further as that is not what the thread is about at all. :nono:
 
but i dont want to, neither will i be taking photos of children topless!!! i am not talking about in a studio situation but in a group situation, if no one has an answer for me thats fine, but please dont lump me in with someone who is blatently exploiting a child! thats not what i am about at all, i dont know how you can take that from what i have asked
 
p.s there are very real and honest reasons why i DO NOT want to read a thread about people trying to condone this sort of behaviour. None of which are your business so please stop pushing this nastyness on me :(
 
feeb, you've been given the facts, now make up your own mind. You come across as hard to please bordering on the ungrateful, and nobody is pushing any nastyness on you. That's your own invention.

You have asked questions and been given sound answers, even though you appear not to like them. Then you ask again, and are referred to what appears to be a directly relevant thread. Which you don't read, say is inappropriate, and acuse people of pushing stuff on you :shrug:
 
feeb said:
i am not talking about in a studio situation but in a group situation, if no one has an answer for me thats fine, but please dont lump me in with someone who is blatently exploiting a child! thats not what i am about at all, i dont know how you can take that from what i have asked
Click to expand...

O.K. then. The basic answer is that if these people are appearing in public and their apperance is totally acceptable then so is a photograph of them.

I don't think anyone has suggested that you are wanting to exploit a child but all of these factors are taken into account when deciding what is morally o.k. and what is not. Just pointing them out to you doesn't imply that we think that is your intent.

As HoppyUK says, you have now been given all the information you need to make up your own mind.


Steve.
 
Was in Whistler at the beginning of the year and came across Gordon Ramsey doing filming for a shot outside a restaurant, in public. I was tucked away in a corner out of sight and thought it would be fine to take a snap. Not for profit, just for "Ooo look, Gordon Ramsey" to send around friends and stuff like that.

Anyway, camera out, and instantly one of the big heavies comes rushing over shouting at me, quite rudely, about no photos.

I would have told him where to stick it, but he was big, and plus I don't know the law about public photography in Canada.

If it was the UK, I'd have been protesting though.

Morally, should I be taking a photo of someone famous in a candid manner without their permission? Sure. I have no problem with that. They are in the public eye, they know the score.

If it was just a member of public, I'd be more hesitant, but if it's just to add context to a scene I have no moral issue. If it was a kid, it's far more complex.


Copyright is simple. In the UK at least, public, private property, whatever, you have the copyright as the photographer. No one and no T&Cs on an event ticket, etc, can take that away from you.

Use is another thing. You can own the copyright, but if it's a private location you can be bound by use. Like a licence. i.e. you can't publish it. You can't sell it, etc. A public shot though, use is unlimited generally, though you can infringe on someone else's trademark (not copyright), e.g. by taking a photo of a brand name and trying to represent it as your own.

Permission to shoot is yet another thing. Doesn't take away your copyright, but in some places you may be restricted from shooting (a few sites in London for example, private property of course). If you take the shot anyway, it's still your copyright, even if you are slapped with a fine for shooting there and are told not to publish.
 
Steve Smith said:
O.K. then. The basic answer is that if these people are appearing in public and their apperance is totally acceptable then so is a photograph of them.

I don't think anyone has suggested that you are wanting to exploit a child but all of these factors are taken into account when deciding what is morally o.k. and what is not. Just pointing them out to you doesn't imply that we think that is your intent.

As HoppyUK says, you have now been given all the information you need to make up your own mind.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Thanks, i realise there are many factors involved if its a shot of a child, what confused me about the links was that they seemed to be about (quite dubious) studio work and i have no intentions of doing studio shoots with kids. Its so different if you are doing event/social photography and i wanted to see if there was anything that could trip me up - i.e the photo of a child in a group situation meaning that the photo could not be used, but then i suppose wedding photographers would not be able to take photos of families which would be weird - its hard to understand but i am getting there, thanks for everyone who has given (relevant) advice i do appreciate it, sorry if it seems i havent :)
 
deadkenny said:
Was in Whistler at the beginning of the year and came across Gordon Ramsey doing filming for a shot outside a restaurant, in public. I was tucked away in a corner out of sight and thought it would be fine to take a snap. Not for profit, just for "Ooo look, Gordon Ramsey" to send around friends and stuff like that.

Anyway, camera out, and instantly one of the big heavies comes rushing over shouting at me, quite rudely, about no photos.

I would have told him where to stick it, but he was big, and plus I don't know the law about public photography in Canada.

If it was the UK, I'd have been protesting though.

Morally, should I be taking a photo of someone famous in a candid manner without their permission? Sure. I have no problem with that. They are in the public eye, they know the score.

If it was just a member of public, I'd be more hesitant, but if it's just to add context to a scene I have no moral issue. If it was a kid, it's far more complex.


Copyright is simple. In the UK at least, public, private property, whatever, you have the copyright as the photographer. No one and no T&Cs on an event ticket, etc, can take that away from you.

Use is another thing. You can own the copyright, but if it's a private location you can be bound by use. Like a licence. i.e. you can't publish it. You can't sell it, etc. A public shot though, use is unlimited generally, though you can infringe on someone else's trademark (not copyright), e.g. by taking a photo of a brand name and trying to represent it as your own.

Permission to shoot is yet another thing. Doesn't take away your copyright, but in some places you may be restricted from shooting (a few sites in London for example, private property of course). If you take the shot anyway, it's still your copyright, even if you are slapped with a fine for shooting there and are told not to publish.
Click to expand...

Not sure about all of that DK.

One of the big exceptions to copyright is that if you are taking pictures during permanent employment, copyright belongs to your employer. This can also extend to photos taken outside work if they have some connection to work, which in practice is often the case. Eg if you take the family out to a work related event, and gain privileged access as a result, copyright might well be in question if put to the test, at least of some of the images. This is a common area of dispute.

And on permission to shoot, if you are invading somebody's privacy, it is illegal to take photographs. Nothing to do with copyright, and anything you subsequently do with them may subsequently make you liable to other offences. I think you would also be liable to have images seized and destroyed.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not sure about all of that DK.

One of the big exceptions to copyright is that if you are taking pictures during permanent employment, copyright belongs to your employer. This can also extend to photos taken outside work if they have some connection to work, which in practice is often the case. Eg if you take the family out to a work related event, and gain privileged access as a result, copyright might well be in question if put to the test, at least of some of the images. This is a common area of dispute.

And on permission to shoot, if you are invading somebody's privacy, it is illegal to take photographs. Nothing to do with copyright, and anything you subsequently do with them may subsequently make you liable to other offences. I think you would also be liable to have images seized and destroyed.
Click to expand...
Not too sure on the employment side. As a Software contractor as part of my day job, I sign IP agreements which states the work I do is the client's IP. Essentially everything is marked as their copyright also, but I do wonder if that's really legally true. Is IP the same as copyright? In Photography isn't there the option of having copyright yourself (e.g. as a freelancer) but the client retains IP for a finite, or maybe indefinite period, such that they have exclusive use ?

However, what I should have qualified is that if you are taking a photo as an individual, not under employment or contract, then the copyright is generally yours.

Invasion of privacy, yes, kind of. If you intrude on someone's property etc. I'm not too sure on the privacy laws but I get the impression in the UK the law would more likely prosecute on trespass rather than invasion of privacy. In public however there is really no such thing as privacy I think. No matter how much a lot of people argue otherwise. If you don't want people seeing you or taking your photo, you don't go out in public basically.

The Google Street View situation is interesting here. Arguments have been regarding invasion of privacy but that's been largely dismissed by most legal authorities. With the exception of where their cameras have managed to snap someone in their private property (but even then, I'm not sure UK law even stops you taking a photo of private property from public property ?).

Anyway, Google have obligingly provided the option to remove photos if you disagree with their inclusion. A bit too readily in my opinion as anyone can complain about any of them and they'll take the whole photo down with no question. Kind of annoying if you want to see what a particular building looks like in London and then find it's a black picture because someone complained they were in the photo somewhere (in public).
 
deadkenny said:
Not too sure on the employment side. As a Software contractor as part of my day job, I sign IP agreements which states the work I do is the client's IP. Essentially everything is marked as their copyright also, but I do wonder if that's really legally true. Is IP the same as copyright? In Photography isn't there the option of having copyright yourself (e.g. as a freelancer) but the client retains IP for a finite, or maybe indefinite period, such that they have exclusive use ?
However, what I should have qualified is that if you are taking a photo as an individual, not under employment or contract, then the copyright is generally yours.

Invasion of privacy, yes, kind of. If you intrude on someone's property etc. I'm not too sure on the privacy laws but I get the impression in the UK the law would more likely prosecute on trespass rather than invasion of privacy. In public however there is really no such thing as privacy I think. No matter how much a lot of people argue otherwise. If you don't want people seeing you or taking your photo, you don't go out in public basically.

The Google Street View situation is interesting here. Arguments have been regarding invasion of privacy but that's been largely dismissed by most legal authorities. With the exception of where their cameras have managed to snap someone in their private property (but even then, I'm not sure UK law even stops you taking a photo of private property from public property ?).

Anyway, Google have obligingly provided the option to remove photos if you disagree with their inclusion. A bit too readily in my opinion as anyone can complain about any of them and they'll take the whole photo down with no question. Kind of annoying if you want to see what a particular building looks like in London and then find it's a black picture because someone complained they were in the photo somewhere (in public).
Click to expand...

Sorry if this is a bit complicated, but if you take photos at work or at any work related event or situation, you should read this. The employment thing is important, because it does mean that your permanent employer can, and often does, claim the rights to a lot of stuff people normally think they personally own. I gave an example in a post above. The whole thing can flip on a single word of definition, and here that word is permanent.

There are lots of ways of defining that word too, but a quick and simple test is if your employer pays your income tax and NI on your behalf, then they also own rights to pretty much anything you do in work, and quite a lot of related work outside of it. I think that DK may be referring to a freelance contractor, which is not the same as a permanent employee. Freelance contracts are often full of references to copyright and intellectual property for the simple reason that in law this automatically lies with the author if they are freelance, and the conrtact will reassign the necessary rights to the one that is paying the bill. This stuff doesn't appear in employment contracts for most permanent workers as the law automatically assigns copyright to the employer, so it is then up to you to get the rights to your personal photography removed from that catch-all position if there is a danger of overlap (which there very often is!).

If you are in any doubt about the rights to your photos as an employee, then you should draft a simple note and ask to have it attached to your work file. Mostly this will just get slipped in without a problem and you're sorted, but if it does throw up a problem, best to know before rather than after.

Copyright is not the same as Intellectual Property, it is part of IP.

Trespass is not an offence in itself. If you walk on any private property without permission that is trespass. But so what; what harm or damage did you do? The old sign 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' is frankly an empty threat. Prosecuted for what? You could be removed however, but not necessarily charged with anything just for being there.
 
deadkenny said:
Was in Whistler at the beginning of the year and came across Gordon Ramsey doing filming for a shot outside a restaurant, in public. I was tucked away in a corner out of sight and thought it would be fine to take a snap. Not for profit, just for "Ooo look, Gordon Ramsey" to send around friends and stuff like that.

Anyway, camera out, and instantly one of the big heavies comes rushing over shouting at me, quite rudely, about no photos.

I would have told him where to stick it, but he was big, and plus I don't know the law about public photography in Canada.

If it was the UK, I'd have been protesting though.

Morally, should I be taking a photo of someone famous in a candid manner without their permission? Sure. I have no problem with that. They are in the public eye, they know the score.

If it was just a member of public, I'd be more hesitant, but if it's just to add context to a scene I have no moral issue. If it was a kid, it's far more complex.

Copyright is simple. In the UK at least, public, private property, whatever, you have the copyright as the photographer. No one and no T&Cs on an event ticket, etc, can take that away from you.

Use is another thing. You can own the copyright, but if it's a private location you can be bound by use. Like a licence. i.e. you can't publish it. You can't sell it, etc. A public shot though, use is unlimited generally, though you can infringe on someone else's trademark (not copyright), e.g. by taking a photo of a brand name and trying to represent it as your own.

Permission to shoot is yet another thing. Doesn't take away your copyright, but in some places you may be restricted from shooting (a few sites in London for example, private property of course). If you take the shot anyway, it's still your copyright, even if you are slapped with a fine for shooting there and are told not to publish.
Click to expand...

Hi i have just brought a green backdrop and I want to use people body's like:
Beefeaters , Mp's football stars change there faces for my customers Faces instead . I would be selling the new Photo to them.
We're would I stand on copyright or brand and logo ?
As the photo would be take by my camera then using photoshop to change it .

What's the Law on this ? Can anyone help.
Cheers
Fridayboy
 
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...

the law for taking (normal pictures) of children is no different to that for adults
 
snapzz said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no privacy law - new or old.
It was never legal to photograph someone on private property with a long lens, there have been some cases highlighting the problem which is maybe what you're thinking of.

Many photographers fear that there'll be a change in law following Leveson, but I doubt very much that it'll make a serious difference to most.

OOPS never realised it was such an old thread.
 
Last edited:
Fridayboy said:
Hi i have just brought a green backdrop and I want to use people body's like:
Beefeaters , Mp's football stars change there faces for my customers Faces instead . I would be selling the new Photo to them.
We're would I stand on copyright or brand and logo ?
As the photo would be take by my camera then using photoshop to change it .

What's the Law on this ? Can anyone help.
Cheers
Fridayboy
Click to expand...

ignoring the thread necromancy the answer to your question will basically depend on where the donor photos (ie those you edit to include peoples faces) come from.

if you take the donor photos in a public place - or in a private place with permission - then you're sorted

if on the otherhand (as seems likely) someone else took the donor photos then we are into the law relating to derivative works which is complex, but in very simple terms , if you are just changing a face then chances are good you'll be violating the original togs copyright.

that said as ever the only good legal advice that can be given on a forum is, if in doubt, talk to a lawyer !
 
Epic thread revival or what :)

Quite an interesting thread, despite the OP getting a bit mardy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top