Legality of photography in a private place.

Messiah Khan

Messiah Khan

Santa is your dad
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,666
Name
Alasdair Fowler
Edit My Images
Yes
I roughly know the legality of taking pictures of people in public places, and that taking them on private property will require a model release form. But what id the private property was yours? Ie, A college was to take pictures of students without them knowing, could the college then use those photographs for publicity material without concent?
 
Nope, because that would be for commercial reasons. I believe that wherever you are, you need a model release if you are somehow aiming to make money, directly or indirectly from the photos.

I could be wrong but that's my understanding of it.
 
Nope, model release doesnt come into whether the photo was taken in a private or public place. The rules are the same for both.

The difference between public and private property governs the actual taking of photos, and also to a fashion, what you do with them afterwards. Basically to take a photo of someone in private *without permission* is an invasion of privacy.

As to your answer. No. Not for publicity material. Just like they cant take a photo of David Beckham to endorse the college either. The rules for you and Beckham are the same ;)
 
Cheers guys, much as I thought really. Im sure the college that I work at are doing this. Ive just had some tog' come round taking pics of students and myself, and im fairly sure the students don't sign any sort of cencent forms when they enroll, and im sure I havent given any sort of cencent in my contract either.

Slapo said:
I have no idea what the laws in the UK say about this.

I would say that if you're in there, it would be just if you could say whether you're OK with them publishing it anywhere.
Click to expand...

This would be the easiest way, but I doubt a verbal contract like this would be much good if it went sour.
 
Marcel said:
Nope, model release doesnt come into whether the photo was taken in a private or public place. The rules are the same for both.

The difference between public and private property governs the actual taking of photos, and also to a fashion, what you do with them afterwards. Basically to take a photo of someone in private *without permission* is an invasion of privacy.

As to your answer. No. Not for publicity material. Just like they cant take a photo of David Beckham to endorse the college either. The rules for you and Beckham are the same ;)
Click to expand...


So how do the Papz get away with taking photos of celebrities and selling them? Is it because they are "newsworthy" and so don't need a model release form?
 
You are not required to have a model release in the UK.
It is the responsible agencies that ask for it, as they may require proof of release to
use any images in other countries.
 
Amp34 said:
So how do the Papz get away with taking photos of celebrities and selling them? Is it because they are "newsworthy" and so don't need a model release form?
Click to expand...

good point, i too would like to know
 
i told them no when they came in here.
Just email the woman upstairs and say i dont want my picture used in the prespectus and as such could you take it out please.
 
Madpup said:
good point, i too would like to know
Click to expand...

I don't think they're that bothered are they? £50,000 fine against a world scoop of £250,000.... :shrug:
 
Amp34 said:
So how do the Papz get away with taking photos of celebrities and selling them? Is it because they are "newsworthy" and so don't need a model release form?
Click to expand...

If it is deemed to be in the public interest they will use it.
Also some photos you see, the photographer has given a cut of the fee to the subject. Its a way of keeping the subject in the public eye (its called business).

Gandhi said:
You can use pics of people fro editorial usage without consent.

Commercial usgae requires a releaswe form.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement in UK law for a model release for a photo of a subject. Responsible agencies will ask for the release form, but only so they can market the image worldwide.
You have to be careful with this though, as people can and will manipulate different parts of UK law to seek damages if they're not happy.
 
Gandhi said:
You can use pics of people fro editorial usage without consent.

Commercial usgae requires a releaswe form.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. 'Editorial' use, that doesn't promote anything, is OK. You couldn't use them for marketing collateral (brochures, leaflets, posters, etc.) or advertising etc.
 
so for use in the next years prespectus? that would be classes as marketing? so would be wrong?
 
Matt said:
For those of you that don't understand UK Law on model release, please read the following:

Photographers' Rights in the UK.
Column 4 paragraph 3.

Hopefully this will clear up the confusion in this thread.
Click to expand...

From my understanding of that pdf, your are pretty much allowed to take pictures of anyone anywhere, although if on private property, the property owner can impose restrictions. So therefore as the property owners, we have no restrictions as to who we can take pictures of. Is this about correct Matt?
 
As property owners, you set your own restrictions.
You need to make sure they are visible to anyone visiting the property, to evade any sort of confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top