Whats the situation with people in pictures?

dod

dod

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,680
Name
Ebenezer McScrooge III
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering what the situation is with selling pictures where there are people who are easily recognisable in them.

Reason is that one of the vets has asked me for a number of stock equestrian shots for his new website and advertising materials. A lot of the shots he wants include riders and I'm wondering if I should have/need model release forms?

Just being paranoid maybe??
 
Be a little careful 'dod'. The publishing of known faces on what is basically an advert for your vets business may cause a little consternation amongst your customers. They may see it as them being used to promote someone they may or may not know or ,like or approve of. Small world horses and you never know if grudges are held. Just thought, after the shots are chosen, contact the subjects and ask. Two reasons. 1/It'll seem very business like and polite
2/ Possbly generate more business!
 
Sharkey said:
Be a little careful 'dod'. The publishing of known faces on what is basically an advert for your vets business may cause a little consternation amongst your customers. They may see it as them being used to promote someone they may or may not know or ,like or approve of. Small world horses and you never know if grudges are held. Just thought, after the shots are chosen, contact the subjects and ask. Two reasons. 1/It'll seem very business like and polite
2/ Possbly generate more business!
Click to expand...

I would go along with that Dod !

You dont necessarily need model releases here, but its always better to cover your backside for the reasons mentioned above !
 
Sharkey said:
Be a little careful 'dod'. The publishing of known faces on what is basically an advert for your vets business may cause a little consternation amongst your customers. They may see it as them being used to promote someone they may or may not know or ,like or approve of. Small world horses and you never know if grudges are held. Just thought, after the shots are chosen, contact the subjects and ask. Two reasons. 1/It'll seem very business like and polite
2/ Possbly generate more business!
Click to expand...

Now why didn't I think of that :thinking: That's just what I'll do :) Thanks
 
If its advertising you will need their permission because essentially they will be endorsing something. So if it was a company who stab cats for £10, then this guy might not want his photo on it saying "Oh yeah, its fun." For editorial use you don't really need their permission, but having their consent (name on a paper) helps. Its how photos of celebs naked in the back of cars appear in news papers. As long as its not twisted, like taking a photo of a fat person and then writing an article on how stupidly fat this guy was, then its ok. The crunch comes if they can prove a loss, then they can sue you if you didn't have their permission. Thats the gist of it, and I'm sure the tabloids get away with a lot worse but if its advertising its best to get their permission.
 
Also be aware of the data protection act.
You can actually be prosecuted for using a picture of someone without their consent.
 
Only if they can prove a loss of some sort as far as I know.
 
You don't have to prove anything.
Example:
If you posted a picture of me anywhere, be it web based or in print.
I could take legal action against you, using the data protection act.

I researched this last year, as somebody had a photograph of one of my kids on their website.

I was very close to bringing legal action against that person.

Here is the extract from the act:
information about a living individual that is processed automatically (e.g. by a computer) or held within a relevant filing system (e.g. manual records system) or recorded with the intention of processing or filing it, and which enables the individual to be identified or identifiable. Personal data can include photographs or images, in digital or analogue (non-digital) form.
Click to expand...

The image/photograph doesn't even need to offered for sale.
 
How do tabloids get away with publishing career destroying photos of people? Celebs topless on the beach?
 
thanks for the input folks, doesn't make it any easier unfortunately.
 
Another quote from the act:
Many of the Data Protection Act's provisions can be set aside where personal data is processed for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes, if this is done with a view to publication and is believed to be in the public interest.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, many celeb's receive payments from images that appear in the press, be it for good or bad publicity.
As the old saying goes, "No publicity is bad publicity".
 
Matt said:
You don't have to prove anything.
Example:.
Click to expand...

From the act,
(a) makes an order under subsection (1), or



(b) is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which he was the data subject and which have been rectified, blocked, erased or destroyed were inaccurate,

it may, where it considers it reasonably practicable, order the data controller to notify third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction.

(4) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject-



(a) that he has suffered damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act in respect of any personal data, in circumstances entitling him to compensation under section 13, and
Click to expand...

In this case it probably could be construed that endorsement of this vet could be inaccurate, particularly if there had been any sort of previous disagreement :bang: Bur there does appear to be an element of proof required
 
Matt said:
Another quote from the act:


Don't forget, many celeb's receive payments from images that appear in the press, be it for good or bad publicity.
As the old saying goes, "No publicity is bad publicity".
Click to expand...

So I was right? For editorial use you can publish photos of people without asking them, and they can only sue you if they can prove a loss due to those images. I was on a course last year and I'm fairly sure thats what they were saying.

In other circumstances, for instance if you are photographing in public for editorial or artistic purposes, it is good professional practice to explain to people what you are photographing them for, and ask them whether they mind their photograph being used. Whether you back this up with a piece of paper is up to you. If you take a photo of someone in the street and then distort it hideously and supply an offensive caption, they should sue you for defamation whether or not they gave consent. On the other hand if you run the picture undistorted with a neutral caption, they probably couldn't sue you successfully just because they didn't like the photo - whether or not there was consent given. So you can see that in many cases obtaining a consent form might be meaningless, and it will certainly interrupt the flow of your work. Perhaps the best advice if you do this sort of work regularly is to make a note each time someone is happy or unhappy about being photographed; then at least you have a record if someone ever does complain.
Click to expand...

Redeye Network
 
If you told someone that a company as asked for some imagary of yours (the photographer) In most cases I would imagine the model would agree but would want funded?
 
If the photos imply that the people / horses concerned use / endorse the services of the Vet then you will probably need permission , if they are just 'Horsey' type backgrounds then I don't believe you do.
 
petemc said:
So I was right? For editorial use you can publish photos of people without asking them, and they can only sue you if they can prove a loss due to those images. I was on a course last year and I'm fairly sure thats what they were saying.
Click to expand...

Only if it is the publics interest.
 
Matt said:
Only if it is the publics interest.
Click to expand...

Thats a VERY sketchy legal term. Who decides what's in the publics interest? Generally the media. Is seeing the latest celeb topless in the publics interest? We could go without that kind of news really.
 
Like I said earlier in the thread Pete, most of these celebs receive cash from the images. How do you think the tog's know where they are?
 
Thanks for all the advice. I'm taking no chances, the shots I've provided are all with people who will give permission to use them if required. Pity really, I've got a couple of decent shots of Ian Stark at Burgie last year :(

And for fees I've told him there's a call out fee, computer start up fee, lab report (the wife inspected them) and "miscellaneous essentials" :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top