Photographing my first paid event

M

MPHOTOGRAPHY

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Name
Molly
Edit My Images
No
I photographed my first festival over the weekend (friends festival) and my payment was a free ticket (£70). They understandably want to post the photos themselves first which is fine and they’ll collab me, but they don’t want me to post the photos myself on my photography page, is this normal?
Is it normal to ask if I can still just post my photos on social media after they do and just make sure to tag them and their festival?
Feels strange not having the freedom to do what I want to do with my own photos
 
Being blunt, a free ticket is not payment. The following is made on the premise that there was no prior agreement reached or contract signed (otherwise, that would stand):

If they want to use any photos that is up to you but it should come with the proviso that you are allowed to use the images for your own portfolio.

Otherwise they need to pay for the images properly under an exclusivity of use agreement.
 
It sounds like the "friends" are taking you for a ride and being utterly selfish and unfriendly. They are abusing your friendship imho.
 
OK you probably figured out by now that this should have all been sorted beforehand :)

Its there event and they will want to control what goes out as its there advertisement for the next event.. so very important to them

You can either keep peace and just share what they publish to your time line... or go all out and tell them they are your pictures.. you will fall out and not be invited next time though :)

going forward if you want to do more for them and open other doors your probably going to have to learn a lesson (sort before hand) and suck it up :(
 
Last edited:
I photographed a fair few festivals over the years (Link in my sig' below) and this is far from normal.
As Mark points out a free ticket is not payment. Without further consideration you are not even working for free. Did you have access to backstage facilities, toilets ,rest areas and food concessions etc. And that's before we get on to the notion of payment for use.
The photo's are your's to use pretty much as you wish, not there's to use by right.
File it under lesson learned and sort details before hand next time.
 
For events I've shot, they are usually happy for me to use some photos for my own use, but to leave it 3-4 weeks after their photos have been published and they have had the exclusivity.

A free ticket isn't payment, unless the value of the ticket is significantly higher than the value of the work you are being asked to do (and you would be going anyway). For the event's I shoot I expect to be issued a free ticket in order for me to do the job that they are asking me to do. As well as a free entry ticket, I normally get access to a media centre where I and my colleagues have somewhere quiet to process images, ideally with refreshments, secure lockers and decent wifi.
 
You own the copyright to images you take and can do with them as you wish. The only thing that can alter that is if whoever commissioned you to take them has a contract stating otherwise.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988
 
gerry s said:
You own the copyright to images you take and can do with them as you wish. The only thing that can alter that is if whoever commissioned you to take them has a contract stating otherwise.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988
Click to expand...


Not necessarily true. The right of publication does not correlate to copyright ownership.
 
Pretty much I think. Obviously a mutually agreed contract is an exception and in certain circumstances publishing without a signed release form
 
if by "collab" you mean instragram, I'd say that is worthless for you. you certainly can't pay bills with that either. you're being taken advantage of.
 
gerry s said:
Pretty much I think. Obviously a mutually agreed contract is an exception and in certain circumstances publishing without a signed release form
Click to expand...


No. They are totally different issues. Do not conflate them.
 
gerry s said:
Pretty much I think. Obviously a mutually agreed contract is an exception and in certain circumstances publishing without a signed release form
Click to expand...
Mark is referring to the clause in the act which specifically states you can’t post certain images without written permission from the client.

It’s not particularly relevant here; but absolutely should be a caveat whenever suggesting that copyright= right to publish.

And there’s no actual concept in U.K. law of a ‘signed release form’. A model release doesn’t exist in U.K. law, but that doesn’t mean they’re not often used for a variety of reasons.
 
gerry s said:
I was talking about property release.
Click to expand...
This has taken an unexpected turn.
Because my understanding of English law doesn’t run to a property owner having automatic rights over images of their property. I’m aware some have tried to claim such a thing, and that in France it’s well documented, though impossible to uphold (as per their laws re images of people).
Can you point to the law?
 
Phil V said:
This has taken an unexpected turn.
Because my understanding of English law doesn’t run to a property owner having automatic rights over images of their property. I’m aware some have tried to claim such a thing, and that in France it’s well documented, though impossible to uphold (as per their laws re images of people).
Can you point to the law?
Click to expand...
That's also my understanding unless you've paid for admission e.g. a stately home and the terms cover this point. However in that case you would have entered into a contract by purchasing the ticket.
In the OPs case I'd suggest he has entered a contract and the organisers can restrict his use. Dragging the depths of my memory for a contract to be valid there must be: offer, acceptance, the intention to enter a legal relationship and consideration
 
taxboy said:
That's also my understanding unless you've paid for admission e.g. a stately home and the terms cover this point. However in that case you would have entered into a contract by purchasing the ticket.
In the OPs case I'd suggest he has entered a contract and the organisers can restrict his use. Dragging the depths of my memory for a contract to be valid there must be: offer, acceptance, the intention to enter a legal relationship and consideration
Click to expand...
I wholly agree, other than the crux, which is that whilst she's entered into a contract to shoot the event, for a consideration (ticket), as there was no discussion re image ownership at the point the contract was agreed, copyright remains with the creator (default legal position). So in these circumstances, legally she can do what she likes with them.

in practical terms though, she needs to consider whether the value of the relationship outweighs the value of upholding her legal rights.
 
Phil V said:
Mark is referring to the clause in the act which specifically states you can’t post certain images without written permission from the client.

It’s not particularly relevant here; but absolutely should be a caveat whenever suggesting that copyright= right to publish.

And there’s no actual concept in U.K. law of a ‘signed release form’. A model release doesn’t exist in U.K. law, but that doesn’t mean they’re not often used for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
Written consent of the client would be covered by a release form.
 
Phil V said:
I wholly agree, other than the crux, which is that whilst she's entered into a contract to shoot the event, for a consideration (ticket), as there was no discussion re image ownership at the point the contract was agreed, copyright remains with the creator (default legal position). So in these circumstances, legally she can do what she likes with them.

in practical terms though, she needs to consider whether the value of the relationship outweighs the value of upholding her legal rights.
Click to expand...
Like all these things the devil is in the detail like who said what and when. If nothing else it's provided training for the OP on what not to do on the next festival shoot. Unfortunately I'd imagine the organisers will work on the principle of we got someone to do it for free last time......
 
gerry s said:
Written consent of the client would be covered by a release form.
Click to expand...
The legal point being ‘when and why is written consent required in English law?’

The principle in English law is that you can take a photograph of whoever and whatever you please and publish that photograph.

There are some complications when you accept a commission, you then need express permission from the customer.

And if you’re on private property the property owner is perfectly entitled to limit any aspect of your behaviour as a condition of entry. That would include the taking of or publication of photographs.

Then there’s obviously the ability that a published photograph has if accompanied by other data to breach someone’s right to privacy, or the GDPR, or indeed, someone might possibly decide that an image contributed to a libellous act.

And if you’re shooting new products, you’re likely to have either signed over copyright or entered into an NDA.

But nothing in that gets automatically assigned or overridden by a release form.

If I’ve missed something specific, can you enlighten me?
 
I think what you are missing is we are basically saying the same thing in different ways.
 
Phil V said:
And if you’re on private property the property owner is perfectly entitled to limit any aspect of your behaviour as a condition of entry. That would include the taking of or publication of photographs.

Then there’s obviously the ability that a published photograph has if accompanied by other data to breach someone’s right to privacy, or the GDPR, or indeed, someone might possibly decide that an image contributed to a libellous act.
Click to expand...

Those are the only two salient points in this case (as well as 'passing off' - which is unlikely to apply).

The licence from the landowner/event organiser (as a proxy) is the most important thing; ie what rights have been granted as part of access.

gerry s said:
I think what you are missing is we are basically saying the same thing in different ways.
Click to expand...


No, you are not. What you were suggesting was permission to publish images of a property, which is totally different.
Right of access is the key point here.
 
many libraries/agencies ask for a release form because they sell internationally and their client require them. Although I appreciate it isn't a specific requirement in the uk it is usually always wise to get one anyway.
 
Frankly, I don't think that you have a clue what you are talking about.

At first you stated that as the images are hers, she can do what she likes with them.

Then you started talking about property releases.

Now you are talking about photo libraries.

None of which is relevant.
 
I haven't "dished out" legal advice to anybody. I don't quite know what your problem is with me or perhaps that is just who you are. Somebody asked a few questions and it just progressed from there. As far as I am aware this forum is for open discussion which is presumably "allowed" to wander and develop. I suppose like other forums it has some sort of self appointed hierarchy but I see no need whatsoever for rudeness or condescension.
Perhaps I have taken this the wrong way, in which case I would give an unequivocal apology but somehow I don't believe I am
 
gerry s said:
You own the copyright to images you take and can do with them as you wish. The only thing that can alter that is if whoever commissioned you to take them has a contract stating otherwise.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988
Click to expand...


That looks pretty much like legal advice to me.

And it is wrong.
 
simple answer. Ask them where in the contract it says " they don’t want me to post the photos myself on my photography page". No contract? oh dear no conditions attached. Go ahead and use all as you wish, you own the copywrite
 
So are you saying you don't own copyright to your images or that a contract cannot alter your right to do as you want with those images ?
 
realspeed said:
simple answer. Ask them where in the contract it says " they don’t want me to post the photos myself on my photography page". No contract? oh dear no conditions attached. Go ahead and use all as you wish, you own the copywrite
Click to expand...

Copyright. Copywriting is a whole different thing!
 
Well I'm not a lawyer and I don't take pictures professionally so you will no doubt make up your own minds as to the value of my input here. I did run a business before I retired and did deal with people, agencies and related contracts. Seems to me that Kipax has said all that needs to be said here. My caveat would be that while you could look to your future photographic relations with this friend, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be a very worthwhile relationship from a business point of view.

They don't seem all that invested in the value of photographers and I suspect that if this is their attitude you might want to consider how valuable they might be as future clients. If you don't feel they will be of use in future then do what you want with the pictures. I doubt they are going to sue you!
 
It has been a week and I wonder how it all went as Molly does not appear to have been logged in since the 8th October :thinking:
 
Bristolian said:
Given the conflicting views and arguments above I don't blame her.
Click to expand...
Granted, however she did ask for (business?) insight that impinge on contract arrangements and overlap into copyright. So no surprise that it opened up those aspects.

Though she clearly (unlike some other such posters) was not seeking affirmation of her decisions made. I do hope that she will come back with her reflections on the discussions her OP triggered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top