copyright

B

billozz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
236
Name
bill
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all just wondered, if i take a pic of someone with their permission, can i then use that pic as i wish or do i need some sort of release.
some time ago i took some pics at my local photography group ( volunteer models) and would like to use some of the ics on website i am having built, problem is i am no longer in contact with the models, so can i just use them?
thanks
Bill
 
•
This is the trickiest part of the business… and there 's only one way out: a
model release. With that, given all the conditions are stipulated and signed,
you can do anything as stipulated in the release. Without, you may enjoy for
yourself the shots you took.

Unless you get a post factum release stipulating all that should be and pro-
perly signed. If you don't, you might just put yourself in a precarious position.
 
Last edited:
A model release is not legally required in the UK

What were the conditions set out at the time of the shoot that you all agreed to at the time? I would refer to that in the first instance.

But in general terms the copyright of the images you took belongs to you, unless you assigned that copyright to someone else, and as such you can use them for your website
 
Release not needed in UK as such, so you can use for your site, release would come into effect if you where looking to sell, as although not needed in UK with the Internet overseas sales would be an issue. So as far as for your site, not an issue at all.

Also would not be a copyright issue as such, more a usage issue for overseas markets.
 
thanks so much, i was a little worried reading the 1st few replies, wouldnt have been the end of the world but i like the images and think they would look good and promote my site very well, thank goodness for uk rules eh.
Happy New Year
 
Isn't the interwebs a great source of information.:thinking:

Yes you'll be fine, as above there's no requirement in UK law for a model release.

Except...
You might need one to sell your work abroad for any reason at all
You might need one if you're attaching a particular message to an image, for instance attaching an image of someone to illustrate an article re bed wetting could result in being sued.
You definitely need a release to use any photograph that you were commissioned to shoot, it's covered in the copyright act, so you need to cover it in the contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Digisatman said:
No.

You would need a signed waiver
Click to expand...


no you wouldn't........ But in some cases yes you would if say an agency your selling it to required one.

But for your own use.. pretty much no..
 
KIPAX said:
no you wouldn't........ But in some cases yes you would if say an agency your selling it to required one.

But for your own use.. pretty much no..
Click to expand...

Until you get a letter asking you to take it down from your website or remove from promotion material which they have the right to do if you have No signed form.
 
Last edited:
Digisatman said:
Until you get a letter asking you to take it down from your website or remove from promotion material which they have the right to do if you have No signed form.
Click to expand...
They have a right to ask. :)

There's no legal foundation for them to force us to do so though, so let's not confuse the law with people's rights to be offended.
 
But would it not make sense to cover yourself, at the beginning than wait for somebody to complain in turn bringing bad press with it.

An IPad (or other device) with an electronic form which can be signed there an then, can be stored forever without taking up any room paper wise :-)
Which in turn stops any problematic situation. :-)
 
Digisatman said:
But would it not make sense to cover yourself, at the beginning than wait for somebody to complain in turn bringing bad press with it.

An IPad (or other device) with an electronic form which can be signed there an then, can be stored forever without taking up any room paper wise :)
Which in turn stops any problematic situation. :)
Click to expand...
But that's just crap, covering your arse when it's not required means misinformation leading to people believing that something is 'right'.

There's no basis in UK law for a model release, and that's the answer to the OP's question. Anything else is just clouding the waters, it's a black and white issue that lots of uninformed people have been trying to make grey for as long as I've been taking pictures (which is long enough to have included a rewriting of copyright law, but without changing the necessity for a model release).

So let's help the OP by sticking to the facts, it's a simple enough concept.
 
Digisatman said:
This is a good read

http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml
Click to expand...
An American website?

A face palm doesn't seem to be quite enough at this point.

Please stop. It's this kind of misinformation that leads people to think they can argue the toss after the fact. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a point of law.

It's straightforward for the OP: Can he legally use images he shot a couple of years go, on his website?
The answer is Yes. It's not maybe, or well it depends, or you should have got a release, it's quite simple, and it's YES HE CAN!
 
Digisatman said:
Until you get a letter asking you to take it down from your website or remove from promotion material which they have the right to do if you have No signed form.
Click to expand...


Sorry but thats just plain wrong.. they dont have any such right
 
@Phil V
Alan Capel is head of content at Alamy, a photo agency based in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, that has a sales office in Brooklyn, New York. - See more at: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml#sthash.ET8LKgCd.dpuf

@KIPAX
It is illegal to Harass another person & taking photographs could amount to Harassment / privacy & can fall under article 8 of the Human rights act. If one wanted to pursue

That's also the LAW

Just Saying :)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Further Reading Press Complaints Commission www.pcc.org.uk
Editorial Photographers UK www.epuk.org
Photographers Rights in the UK www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Association of police authorities www.apa.police.uk
Crown Prosecution Service www.cps.gov.uk
Office of Public Sector Information law www.opsi.gov.uk
UK Statute Law database www.statutelaw.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
Digisatman said:
@Phil V

@KIPAX
It is illegal to Harass another person & taking photographs could amount to Harassment / privacy & can fall under article 8 of the Human rights act. If one wanted to pursue

That's also the LAW

Just Saying :)
Click to expand...

That he has permission for?

What a load of nonesense, stretching the law massively there, will no real case and therefore no idea about conviction let alone legal costs
 
He had permission at the time verbally but that can be withdrawn at anytime, if written in contract no recourse :-).
 
The op mentioned that it was a photography group (club?) ~ were the models organised officially and as such was there an agreement and he as a member constrained by any such agreement??
 
Digisatman said:
He had permission at the time verbally but that can be withdrawn at anytime, if written in contract no recourse :).
Click to expand...


Sorry but everything you've said legally so far has been utter balls.

To display the images on his own website no form of permission or consent would be required. At all.
 
Digisatman said:
He had permission at the time verbally but that can be withdrawn at anytime, if written in contract no recourse :).
Click to expand...
I think you'll find... Again UK law, contracts are overthrown on a regular basis.

Indeed that's half the point for our frustration with 'just sign an agreement anyway, what harm can it do?'.

Because you've given the subject of the image the impression that you need their consent, which can lead them t o believe they can remove their consent. We've seen it happen. Imagine trying to explain to a model, that although she signed to say she agreed to something, she can't renegotiate because in law, she has no control anyway.

It's better for us all to stick with the law and sing from the same hymn sheet.

I now have to explain to potential customers that they don't get 'copyright' of their images simply because other moronic arse holes tell them incorrectly that they get a disc of images with full copyright. Whilst I know I'm completely correct, the poor customer doesn't understand that and sees it as a 'difference of opinion' . :banghead:
 
Digisatman said:
@Phil V
Alan Capel is head of content at Alamy, a photo agency based in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, that has a sales office in Brooklyn, New York. - See more at: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml#sthash.ET8LKgCd.dpuf

@KIPAX
It is illegal to Harass another person & taking photographs could amount to Harassment / privacy & can fall under article 8 of the Human rights act. If one wanted to pursue

That's also the LAW

Just Saying :)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Further Reading Press Complaints Commission www.pcc.org.uk
Editorial Photographers UK www.epuk.org
Photographers Rights in the UK www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Association of police authorities www.apa.police.uk
Crown Prosecution Service www.cps.gov.uk
Office of Public Sector Information law www.opsi.gov.uk
UK Statute Law database www.statutelaw.gov.uk
Click to expand...


:sleep:
 
Digisatman said:
@Phil V
Alan Capel is head of content at Alamy, a photo agency based in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, that has a sales office in Brooklyn, New York. - See more at: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml#sthash.ET8LKgCd.dpuf

@KIPAX
It is illegal to Harass another person & taking photographs could amount to Harassment / privacy & can fall under article 8 of the Human rights act. If one wanted to pursue

That's also the LAW

Just Saying :)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Further Reading Press Complaints Commission www.pcc.org.uk
Editorial Photographers UK www.epuk.org
Photographers Rights in the UK www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Association of police authorities www.apa.police.uk
Crown Prosecution Service www.cps.gov.uk
Office of Public Sector Information law www.opsi.gov.uk
UK Statute Law database www.statutelaw.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Firstly, your quoting an article on stock photography, and with us specialists where the laws are different. With stock photography you will be selling the images so it's best to get a model release as you do t know where the images will be sold.

Secondly, you're quoting harresment laws which aren't anything to do with so done willingly modelling for a camera club. The correct advice has already been given, a model release is not needed to put them onto a personal website in the uk
 
Digisatman said:
@Phil V
Alan Capel is head of content at Alamy, a photo agency based in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, that has a sales office in Brooklyn, New York. - See more at: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml#sthash.ET8LKgCd.dpuf

@KIPAX
It is illegal to Harass another person & taking photographs could amount to Harassment / privacy & can fall under article 8 of the Human rights act. If one wanted to pursue

That's also the LAW

Just Saying :)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Further Reading Press Complaints Commission www.pcc.org.uk
Editorial Photographers UK www.epuk.org
Photographers Rights in the UK www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Association of police authorities www.apa.police.uk
Crown Prosecution Service www.cps.gov.uk
Office of Public Sector Information law www.opsi.gov.uk
UK Statute Law database www.statutelaw.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Just one simple quote from a UK specific website would do.
This list starts with a dead organisation. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here.

Just show me the bit of the copyright act that says what you think it should.

I gave the exceptions up front on UK law in my opening post, which most of us who actually sell work are fully aware of.

You however used an American term which straight away created a question mark you have so far failed to remove. Stop reading international websites, go to the UK law and see if you can find what you 'know' is there. Because unfortunately, I can't prove a negative, I can't show you where the law says something isn't required, because that's not generally how the law is written. However, if the copyright act says I need a model release (in the scenario set by the OP) it'd be easy for you to find surely.

So come back with the paragraph from the law to prove your point. :)
 
Digisatman said:
@Phil V

Post 16 http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Written by Linda Macpherson freelance legal consultant and lecturer UK

The point I'm making is it is normally best to get written permission before hand :)
Click to expand...
A: that's not UK law
B: And furthermore this is what it says 'Failure to obtain a signed model release will certainly impair the commercial use of an image, because many photo libraries, stock agencies and the like will not accept an image of a recognisable person without a release.'

Which we have all agreed, because stock agencies need to know they are free to publish anywhere in the world.

So if that's the best you can do, you've just effectively agreed with the rest of us, and your answer to the OP's question is 'Yes you're fine to put the images on your website without written consent'.:)

The OP may have been 'best to get written permission before hand' if he was asking about selling his images as stock, but that wasn't his point, his question was simply about using the images in his portfolio. :)
 
A release/waiver would only be *required* if the website use of the images was "commercial." Commercial in the sense that it portrays the model(s) as advertisement/advocation of service by the model(s) (possibly even if only by association). This is true in both the U.S. and U.K. (and every other country AFAIK).

Inclusion of the images on a website as part of a portfolio introduces no release/waiver requirements. And you do not need their permission/approval (but ignoring a takedown request could be very bad for business). There are a couple of potential limitations to this, particularly in the U.K., but they do not apply in this scenario.

Using one of the images as "branding" for your website (i.e. banner/BG/etc) could introduce a "grey area" as to whether the image was being used for advertising (commercial) and insinuates advocacy. The more "stand alone" the image use is, the more inclined I would be to get a release/waiver.
 
sk66 said:
A release/waiver would only be *required* if the website use of the images was "commercial." Commercial in the sense that it portrays the model(s) as advertisement/advocation of service by the model(s) (possibly even if only by association). This is true in both the U.S. and U.K. (and every other country AFAIK).
Click to expand...

Not true in the UK at all. Over here a release has persuasive value before a court only. There is no legal "requirement" at all.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Not true in the UK at all. Over here a release has persuasive value before a court only. There is no legal "requirement" at all.
Click to expand...
If you put it in those terms, a release is never "required." In all cases a release only serves to prove(persuade) to a court(client) that you have consent to said use.

The release/waiver "requirement" arises due to violating an individual's personal rights (defamation, embarrassment, etc). In the US it also includes using a person's likeness for commercial gain (advertisement). And in the UK it also includes the use of images taken for "private and domestic purposes."

I suppose my "error" is that in the U.K. the association/advocation/advertisement would also have to be with something that is potentially "embarrassing"/etc.
 
sk66 said:
A release/waiver would only be *required* if the website use of the images was "commercial." Commercial in the sense that it portrays the model(s) as advertisement/advocation of service by the model(s) (possibly even if only by association). This is true in both the U.S. and U.K. (and every other country AFAIK).
Click to expand...

As Hugh has pointed out, that's fundamentally wrong for the UK. There is no legal requirement for consent because there is no concept of personal IP in this country.
 
Phil V said:
You definitely need a release to use any photograph that you were commissioned to shoot, it's covered in the copyright act, so you need to cover it in the contract.
Click to expand...
Commissioned to shoot "for private and domestic purposes?" I.e. most cases where the subject is also the client...
 
sk66 said:
The release/waiver "requirement" arises due to violating an individual's personal rights (defamation, embarrassment, etc). In the US it also includes using a person's likeness for commercial gain (advertisement). And in the UK it also includes the use of images taken for "private and domestic purposes."

I suppose my "error" is that in the U.K. the association/advocation/advertisement would also have to be with something that is potentially "embarrassing"/etc.
Click to expand...

A commission for 'private or domestic purposes' is covered by copyright law and is very specific (normally only encountered in social or B2C photography).

What we are discussing here is consent for use (as opposed to publication) which is entirely different.

The UK now has some of the tightest defamation laws in the western world thanks to the changes in 2013 making it virtually impossible to use this as a mechanism of tort unless the publisher does something catastrophically stupid.
 
sk66 said:
I suppose my "error" is that in the U.K. the association/advocation/advertisement would also have to be with something that is potentially "embarrassing"/etc.
Click to expand...

I'd stop talking. The only person at risk of embarrassment is you :) showing that stunning lack of knowledge
 
DemiLion said:
A commission for 'private or domestic purposes' is covered by copyright law and is very specific (normally only encountered in social or B2C photography).

What we are discussing here is consent for use (as opposed to publication) which is entirely different.
Click to expand...
Where is "private and domestic purposes" specifically defined?
Wouldn't use on a website qualify as "communicated to the public"? Isn't that a "use" that is a copyright limit and different from "publication"?
 
sk66 said:
Where is "private and domestic purposes" specifically defined?
Wouldn't use on a website qualify as "communicated to the public"? Isn't that a "use" that is a copyright limit and different from "publication"?
Click to expand...
FFS, go and read the portion of the copyright act, it's obvious to anyone what it means and is the reason that those of us who need to understand it include permission for use in our contracts.

But it bears no resemblance for what's described here in the OP, or for any shoot that's organised either by the photographer or a client hiring a photographer for a commercial shoot.

Which is why I mentioned it in context to show an exception for where a release is required.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd stop talking. The only person at risk of embarrassment is you :) showing that stunning lack of knowledge
Click to expand...
What if the models were nude and it wasn't a multiple photographer club shoot...
Is there not a risk of violating the individual's privacy in putting such images on the web? Isn't there a risk of "breach of confidence?"

There are many considerations that would/could mitigate those concerns... and if the images were commissioned there would be other overriding limitations. But I think it's a valid question.
 
Phil V said:
FFS, go and read the portion of the copyright act, it's obvious to anyone what it means and is the reason that those of us who need to understand it include permission for use in our contracts.

But it bears no resemblance for what's described here in the OP, or for any shoot that's organised either by the photographer or a client hiring a photographer for a commercial shoot.

Which is why I mentioned it in context to show an exception for where a release is required.
Click to expand...
I have read it. And I do think it "appears to be" obvious. You are probably safe is you apply it in a very general way. I was questioning Mark's comment as to it being "very specific" as I haven't seen anything very specific.

I agree that it is not applicable and understood your showing it as one of a few exceptions... I just think that "any photograph that you were commissioned to shoot" is a bit too vague/general.
 
sk66 said:
I have read it. And I do think it "appears to be" obvious. You are probably safe is you apply it in a very general way. I was questioning Mark's comment as to it being "very specific" as I haven't seen anything very specific.

I agree that it is not applicable and understood your showing it as one of a few exceptions... I just think that "any photograph that you were commissioned to shoot" is a bit too vague/general.
Click to expand...
It's not vague at all, it starts off with a specific scenario.
A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have--

  1. (a) copies of the work issued to the public,

  2. (b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

  3. (c) the work communicated to the public;
and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.

(2) The right is not infringed by an act which by virtue of any of the following provisions would not infringe copyright in the work--

  1. (a) section 31 (incidental inclusion of work in an artistic work, film or broadcast);

  2. (b) section 45 (parliamentary and judicial proceedings);

  3. (c) section 46 (Royal Commissions and statutory inquiries);

  4. (d) section 50 (acts done under statutory authority);

  5. (e) section 57 or 66A (acts permitted on assumptions as to expiry of copyright, &c).
 
sk66 said:
What if the models were nude and it wasn't a multiple photographer club shoot...
Is there not a risk of violating the individual's privacy in putting such images on the web? Isn't there a risk of "breach of confidence?"

There are many considerations that would/could mitigate those concerns... and if the images were commissioned there would be other overriding limitations. But I think it's a valid question.
Click to expand...


Gosh, so much wrong and unhelpful in one post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top