Photography

Mark.87

I have a few quick questions about photography and their ownership. I have read the “Do Not Seek Legal Advice....” but I hope someone can help me (legal background or not). This topic is appearing more and more around the internet in this world of social media and cameras everywhere so I am just wondering where Ireland stands on the issue.

Basically I want to know who is the owner (if there is such a thing in this case) of a photograph taken of people a) in a public place and b) on private property. Of course in both cases all involved are aware they are being photographed, etc.

Do the people in the picture or the person who took the picture “own” it?

In the case of private property, does the land owner or business have any right to ownership?

Paulw

Copyright remains with the photographer (or the company the photographer works for), not the subject of the photograph, nor the property owner, unless a contract states otherwise.

Mark.87

Paulw wrote: »

Copyright remains with the photographer (or the company the photographer works for), not the subject of the photograph, nor the property owner, unless a contract states otherwise.

I thought as much, thanks for the info!

Mark.87

On a side note, what happens if someone takes a photograph of me in the three situations below and I dont want them too. Do I have any right to say I dont want to be photographed or request what they are going to do with the photographs.

a) Photo is taken fully on public property
b) Photo is taken fully on private property
c) I am on private property but the person taking the picture is on public property

Paulw

You can request anything.

The copyright still remains with the photographer.

If the image is taken on private property, then the property owner can request that the photographer stops taking images. That is all. If the photographer continues, they can be considered trespassing.

For case C) - do you have an expectation of privacy on that private property?

Mark.87

Paulw wrote: »

You can request anything.

The copyright still remains with the photographer.

If the image is taken on private property, then the property owner can request that the photographer stops taking images. That is all. If the photographer continues, they can be considered trespassing.

For case C) - do you have an expectation of privacy on that private property?

Obviously I can request anything but do I have any right to stop him from taking pictures of me in public or prevent them from uploading them to the internet, etc. (nothing to do with copyright)?

On private property can the landowner make the person delete the pictures taken before / during he/she requests them to leave?

For case C) I was thinking something along the lines of within someone home or garden with the photographer being on the street or in an adjacent building.

My questions aren’t based on anything other than curiosity. Thanks for taking the time to answer them Paulw.

Paulw

Your only way to prevent images being taken is to cover yourself or get away. You cannot forbid the photographer from taking photos. Their right to take photos in a public place is equal to your rights.

No matter what - only a court order can compel a photographer to delete images. Anything else would simply be a request. Not even a Garda has the ability to delete the images.

For case C) - being within a home would have an expectation of privacy. So, in that case, you may have recourse.

Here's a good resource - http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Mark.87

Thanks Paulw

alyssum

Paulw wrote: »

Your only way to prevent images being taken is to cover yourself or get away. You cannot forbid the photographer from taking photos. Their right to take photos in a public place is equal to your rights.

No matter what - only a court order can compel a photographer to delete images. Anything else would simply be a request. Not even a Garda has the ability to delete the images.

For case C) - being within a home would have an expectation of privacy. So, in that case, you may have recourse.

Here's a good resource - http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Isn't there also a rule the photographer cannot profit by the sale or licenceing of the photo without the persons authority?

Paulw

alyssum wrote: »

Isn't there also a rule the photographer cannot profit by the sale or licenceing of the photo without the persons authority?

A rule?

It would totally depend on the context and image usage. The image could be sold to newspapers for editorial use if the image was newsworthy. The image could also be printed and sold as limited edition artistic prints. None of these require a release. But, it is always better to get a release if you plan to use/sell images of a person.

alyssum

Paulw wrote: »

A rule?

It would totally depend on the context and image usage. The image could be sold to newspapers for editorial use if the image was newsworthy. The image could also be printed and sold as limited edition artistic prints. None of these require a release. But, it is always better to get a release if you plan to use/sell images of a person.

thought you could not sell it to newspaper without persons permission but press photographers do

Paulw

alyssum wrote: »

thought you could not sell it to newspaper without persons permission but press photographers do

You definitely can sell to papers, as long as the image is factual and doesn't misrepresent the subject. Editorial usage is permitted without consent of the subject.

Carawaystick

Paulw wrote: »

Copyright remains with the photographer (or the company the photographer works for), not the subject of the photograph, nor the property owner, unless a contract states otherwise.

Copyright of the photo is the photographer's, but if the photograph contains a copy of something already copyrighted by someone else it is complicated
If the photo was a photo of another photo it's obviously at one scale
And at the other is if a photo contained a tiny snippet of another copyright

And that's before you have trademarks or the like

In us, buildings have been copyrighted to make things even more complicated...

Yorker

Carawaystick wrote: »

Copyright of the photo is the photographer's, but if the photograph contains a copy of something already copyrighted by someone else it is complicated
If the photo was a photo of another photo it's obviously at one scale
And at the other is if a photo contained a tiny snippet of another copyright

And that's before you have trademarks or the like

In us, buildings have been copyrighted to make things even more complicated...

could you copyright your face?

234

Yorker wrote: »

could you copyright your face?

No. [/thread]