Copyright of photographs

ZENER

Looking for a reliable source of information concerning copyright of images taken of children with consent from parents. In particular a case where the images are taken and offered for free. Am interested to know what rights the parents have to the images they do not select. I believe there was a case in the last few years where copyright was awarded to the parents. Any assistance greatly appreciated.

Ken

Tom Young

www.digitalrights.ie has a decent write up there on.

ZENER

Thanks for the link but I had already looked there but couldn't find anything specific enough? Is there anything else I could check?

Pete67

The copyright usually belongs to the photographer unless he assigns it to another person by means of a contract. However if he is taking pictures in the course of his employment then the copyright usually belongs to the employer. I can't think of any circumstances where copyright would automatically belong to the subjects, or parents of the subjects if they are children.

ZENER

Thanks Pete, that was my understanding too but recently someone told me of a case that went to European Court and copyright was given to the parents of a child. He couldn't recall specifics of the case which is what I'm trying to find out, that and any effect it may have had on Irish copyright law.

I've always understood that the copyright of an image is owned by the taker or his employer (where a photo studio is involved).

The case involved a child who had a picture taken in a photo studio, the parents bought or were given their selected images but later argued that they were entitled to all the images taken on the day. Does this ring any bells with anyone ?

Thanks for the replies !

Ken

Paulw

Was that case even Irish?

Different countries have different laws in that respect. For example, in Australia, when you commission work, you hold the copyright, not the photographer. So, you pay someone to cover your wedding or portrait shoot, you own the copyright, not the photographer.

In Ireland, the photographer retains copyright, unless otherwise contracted.

The French have some different regulations too, more to do with privacy, but that also comes in to such things.

NoQuarter

Paulw wrote: »

Was that case even Irish?

Different countries have different laws in that respect. .

I think the OP got that. They wanted to know of the case that went to the ECJ and any impact that decision might have on Irish law. Perfectly valid question.

If you can give us every unusual feature of the case you have OP, Ill have a look. The usual search terms havent turned up anything.

RainyDay

Under Data Protection law, you have some rights for a copy of any data that relates to you. From https://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=242

Access Requests

Any person whose image has been recorded has a right to be given a copy of the information recorded. To exercise that right, a person must make an application in writing. A data controller may charge up to €6.35 for responding to such a request and must respond within 40 days.

I'm not sure if this would also apply to studio photos???

Ken.

This is from 2006 so don't know if its still relevant.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/


Ownership of Photographs?
If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright. This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph – as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in writing – or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the copyright.

The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment – if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary – for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.



Your Subject’s Rights
Can the subject of a photo prevent you from publishing it? Most of the caselaw in Ireland has centred on the misuse of celebrity images to imply an endorsement of a commercial good or service. This is dealt with by the courts, in general under the normal rules covering passing off. So, if the subject’s image might be worth money if used in an advertisement or as part of a product endorsement, they have a right to protect the income flowing from that, as a property right.

But what about the rest of the world, who don’t make their fortunes by assuring the world that, as Hollywood millionaires, they choose only the finest home-bottle hair-dyes to colour their hair? As the actor Gordon Kaye found out, when he was photographed by an interviewer whilst recovering from a serious head injury in hospital, there’s not much anyone can do to prevent you from publishing your photos. Provided your photographs are genuine, even if they would bring the subject down in the eyes of society, they’re not libellous.

Up to now, the right to privacy has been largely determined by a mixture of Constitutional rights, and ECHR caselaw – the Minister for Justice has previously said that the private interactions of a person – even in a public place – may be covered by the right to privacy – for example, while doing the shopping, or meeting a friend for coffee. But, once the interactions become public – at an awards ceremony, or waving from the podium at the Olympic Games you lose that right to privacy.

It may be hoped that the forthcoming Privacy Bill will clear up these issues, but for now, it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs, unless your subject was in a situation where a reasonable person would believe that they’d brought their ‘portable sphere of privacy’ out with them.

In short, your subject can object to the publication of photos of them if: The photographs are untrue – they’ve been altered in some way, to show something that isn’t the case; The photographs are interfering with the subject’s commercial endorsement business; The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.

The last option is still not entirely clear, but use common sense and remember the hypothetical “reasonable person”, and you shouldn’t go too far wrong.

ZENER

I guess if there had been any changes to Irish copyright law it would be fairly obvious ? Anything I've read in connection to legally taken photos in a photo studio suggests that the copyright remains with the photographer ! Unless previously agreed in contract as I understand it.

Unfortunately I can't get any further details on the case I've mentioned and it's quite possible it was outside of Ireland where rules may differ. It's also quite possible that the person who told me may have simply been mistaken or got the context wrong.

Thanks for the replies, if I do find out anything further I'll post it.

Ken