Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Photo Copyright (kinda) question

Options
  • 10-04-2011 11:39am
    #1
    angelfire9
    Registered Users Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭


    I happened to be browsing a website and came across a photograph of my OH that is published on said website (without express permission)
    Now I don't have, nor does my OH, any problem with them publishing a photograph that was taken in a public setting

    However, I contacted the photographer who "owns the copyright" of the images on the site to ask for a copy of the photo as it was a nice pic and I wanted a copy and he refused :confused::confused:

    How can he own copyright of a photo of someone else??????


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    How can he own copyright of a photo of someone else??????

    He owns the copyright because he took the photo. It doesn't matter what is in the photo (place, person, object), it's simply the fact that he created the photo and hence owns the copyright.


  • Options
    #3
    angelfire9
    Registered Users Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭angelfire9


    Paulw wrote: »
    He owns the copyright because he took the photo. It doesn't matter what is in the photo (place, person, object), it's simply the fact that he created the photo and hence owns the copyright.

    Ok
    But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?


  • Options
    #4
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    Ok
    But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?

    nope


  • Options
    #5
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    Ok
    But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?

    The person in the photo would have minimal rights, more related to commercial usage (advertising, etc)

    It will also depend on where in the world the image was taken.


  • Options
    #6
    angelfire9
    Registered Users Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭angelfire9


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    nope

    ok :(

    To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    ok :(

    To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??

    I'd certainly be willing to sell them a print of the photo.


  • Options
    #8
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    ok :(

    To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??

    again... nope :D


  • Options
    #9
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Not a free copy no.

    You hardly walk into a photography studio and ask for a free picture, just because it was out in public makes no difference.


  • Options
    #10
    angelfire9
    Registered Users Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭angelfire9


    stetyrrell wrote: »
    Not a free copy no.

    You hardly walk into a photography studio and ask for a free picture, just because it was out in public makes no difference.

    But if you were in a studio you'd be REQUESTING a photograph be taken of you, you'd pose for it and obviously pay for it

    this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)


  • Options
    #11
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)

    Consent doesn't need to be implied or otherwise for a photo to be taken. A photo can be taken illegally and the photographer would still retain copyright. But, the permitted usage of such an image would be drastically limited.

    The usage of the image still does not entitle you to a copy.

    You may have rights, under the Data Protection Act, which you may be able to envoke to limit how the image is used (advertising should only be permitted with expressed consent, a model release).

    But, again, if you want a print of the photo, why not offer to buy a print???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    But if you were in a studio you'd be REQUESTING a photograph be taken of you, you'd pose for it and obviously pay for it

    this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)

    You don't need permission to take a picture of someone, no matter where it was taken.

    The only reason they'd need consent or a model release is if they were selling the photo, or using it a publication like a magazine.

    That's just the law and the way it works. Check out street photography, it's just candid shots of unsuspecting victims who haven't got a clue :D


  • Options
    #13
    angelfire9
    Registered Users Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭angelfire9


    stetyrrell wrote: »
    You don't need permission to take a picture of someone, no matter where it was taken.

    The only reason they'd need consent or a model release is if they were selling the photo, or using it a publication like a magazine.

    That's just the law and the way it works. Check out street photography, it's just candid shots of unsuspecting victims who haven't got a clue :D

    Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?

    I mean legally in things like actions for libel it has been taken that publishing information on the web is legally equivalent to print media


  • Options
    #14
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.
    In what context is the photo on the website btw?? Is it being used to promote the photographers work?


  • Options
    #15
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.

    On the legal discussion section on boards, the OP actually wants the digital copy (high-res) of the image, to make a canvas print.

    I'm not surprised the photographer said no.


  • Options
    #16
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    Paulw wrote: »
    On the legal discussion section on boards, the OP actually wants the digital copy (high-res) of the image, to make a canvas print.

    I'm not surprised the photographer said no.

    In that case then the photog is probably right.
    Surprised he didn't offer a 7 x 5 print or something along those lines though. Something too small to successfully enlarge but enough to keep the OP happy.


  • Options
    #17
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,412 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?
    depends on what context it's used in on the website; if the photo is used to sell a service, it would require a release form from anyone recognisable in the shot.


  • Options
    #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    depends on what context it's used in on the website; if the photo is used to sell a service, it would require a release form from anyone recognisable in the shot.


    I don't agree. Every photo on my website is being used to sell a service (ie; me as a photographer) but I certainly haven't got anyone's permission and wouldn't seek it.


    I think it only is required for usage in a public place or if money is being made from it (Stock site, etc. who would sell it on to be used in a public manner).


  • Options
    #19
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.

    Think about what you're saying there...

    It's mean for the Photographer, who spends time and money on photography, not to give away a free copy of a photo he took to one of the few people that might have some interest in buying the photo.



    Op: the photographer owns the copyright, and can do whatever he wants with it for personal use. His own website also counts as personal use. Releases are only really required where the copyright or licencing will be passed on afaik.


  • Options
    #20
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    over in legal discussions she was getting all sorts of funky advice, good read tho ;)


  • Options
    #21
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    over in legal discussions she was getting all sorts of funky advice, good read tho ;)

    I saw...

    Love how the suggestion from legal advice forum was to steal (printscreen) the photo. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    Have just read the companion thread to this over on Legal Discussion.

    What I cannot get is how the OP feels they are entitled to this image because the Photographer may have already been paid. To apply the same logic it would mean an Author only gets paid for the First Edition of a book. They have then been paid so any further re-prints should then be for free.


    The Privacy Legislation quoted seems to hinge on images taken of babies in a Hospital. That is not a Public Place and is somewhere that one would expect privacy. I very much doubt that would have any affect on matters raised here.


  • Options
    #23
    jaybeeveedub
    Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭jaybeeveedub


    angelfire9 wrote: »
    Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?

    I mean legally in things like actions for libel it has been taken that publishing information on the web is legally equivalent to print media

    that's more of a term of art in that context...

    hand gestures also count as "publishing" in the sense you're discussing!!


  • Options
    #24
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,412 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the only grey point i can see here is whether the photo being hosted on a site which seems to be promoting the event would constitute commercial use of your likeness. i don't think there's been any clarity on whether there was any clause on the ticket, or whether such a use would fall outside the normal use case requiring release forms.


  • Options
    #25
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    I don't really view this as a legal issue, but more as that of a moral quandary. I think the 'decent' thing to do would be to send or make available to the OP a print - as the op seems unwilling to purchase one, there's no real loss of revenue potential. Furthermore, furnishing the op with a digital copy is not the same as passing a loaded gun to a child - I don't think anyone who tries to 'Save As...' a flash image poses any real threat in this regard. A more common-sense approach is needed IMO.

    These arguments aside, I think the hard-line attitude of certain photographers (not referring to Boardsies here) is itself indicative of a culture of entitlement. On the face of it, Irish Copyright Law is somewhat counter-intuitive in this regard, and I think there's a propensity for photographers to not only champion this law, but also to parade it in the face of the unknowing. What's that old adage about catching more flies with honey? I think the same applies here.


  • Options
    #26
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    So, a photographer should just give away high-res digital images to anyone who asks?

    And photographers shouldn't insist on their copyright rights?

    Fair enough if you put no value on your own photography, but some of us do try to make some money from it.

    I see no reason why the OP is entitled to a digital copy of the image. But, I also see no good reason as to why the photographer wasn't prepared to sell the OP a canvas print of the image itself.


  • Options
    #27
    smelltheglove
    Registered Users Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove


    If I was the photographer I would offer a low res watermarked image or a 4x6 at most! There's nothing in it to benefit the photographer, only take up his time!

    If the image is on a site for say an annual event, I would not see that as an ad, mire of a documentary purpose, I mean photos of kids at St Patricks day parade would not be assumed to be advertising the parade right?

    If the op is looking to have a canvas printed then why not request this from the photographer? I don't get the problem here, surely the photographer would be happy to make a few bob unexpectedly and maybe even offer a discount, there is no way I would release a high res for this purpose though! I like to be confident that my work is displayed well rather than on the cheapest print and canvas possible!


  • Options
    #28
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    smelltheglove wrote: »
    If the op is looking to have a canvas printed then why not request this from the photographer? I don't get the problem here, surely the photographer would be happy to make a few bob unexpectedly and maybe even offer a discount

    According to the other thread the OP asked for that, from the photographers reply it seems that the picture of the OP's OH was cropped out of a high res image, and doesn't have sufficient resolution to make a large print.


  • Options
    #29
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    If you read the other thread, then the photographer has implied that the image is an extreme crop and would only be good for a small print or web use.


  • Options
    #30
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Paulw wrote: »
    So, a photographer should just give away high-res digital images to anyone who asks?

    No. Who said that?
    Paulw wrote: »
    And photographers shouldn't insist on their copyright rights?

    Again, no.
    Paulw wrote: »
    Fair enough if you put no value on your own photography, but some of us do try to make some money from it.

    Power to you brother. I actually put quite a good deal of value on my own work, it's just not all fiscal. I'd actually be quite perturbed if my interest in photography developed to a point where I was forced to exercise my legal rights to protect my endeavours.
    Paulw wrote: »
    I see no reason why the OP is entitled to a digital copy of the image. But, I also see no good reason as to why the photographer wasn't prepared to sell the OP a canvas print of the image itself.

    I believe this is known as a lose-lose situation. A little education and empathy goes a long way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    smelltheglove
    Registered Users Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove


    I have read the other thread and I am quite shocked that in the legal forum there was advice to break the copyright law. (even if you did at 4x6 you probably would get little more than a blurry pixellated shot)

    OP it is the photographers decision not to furnish you with any form of this image, it is his decision to make and you can do little but accept it. I would only assume that as was mentioned the quality of the image probably isnt good enough and he would not be comfortable supplying it to you.

    Just because your OH is in it gives you no right to it or its copyright, I sincerely doubt it is being used as advertisement at all but more likely in a documentary state. I'm afraid you may have hit a wall here.


Advertisement