Does this subject of a photo have any rights? Opinion of photographers wanted...

anamaria

Hi, I am not sure if I am posting in the right place for this but would like some opinions

I know there's a lot of hassle over copyright and rights to images. I can imagine it's a nightmare for photographers to safeguard their work

I am curious though as to what the legal situation is with regards to the subjects of the photos? I am a performer and do small concerts and performances every so often and keep coming across photos of me being used for various things (tourism promotion video being the strangest one yet!). While none of these have been objectionable I was wondering if it is okay for the photographer to allow other businesses to use these images without my knowledge? Obviously he owns the rights to the photos, that is a given, but do I have any control over who he sells them to and how they're used

Apologies if this has been covered on another topic.

Kenny Logins

Public performances?

amdgilmore

My understanding is that yes, they can use it any way they like if it has not been altered in a defamatory way, and if you were in public or in some other situation (like a performance) in which you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even as a photographer I don't really agree with it. I think the subject should have the right to have a say in how a photo is used - or at least the right to have a photo taken down (unless it is in the public interest).

anamaria

amdgilmore wrote: »

My understanding is that yes, they can use it any way they like if it has not been altered in a defamatory way, and if you were in public or in some other situation (like a performance) in which you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even as a photographer I don't really agree with it. I think the subject should have the right to have a say in how a photo is used - or at least the right to have a photo taken down (unless it is in the public interest).

That's what I thought alright. I really don't mind to be honest. It's just when my image starts popping up in advertising/promotion for completely unrelated businesses that it gets annoying.

mdebets

amdgilmore wrote: »

My understanding is that yes, they can use it any way they like if it has not been altered in a defamatory way, and if you were in public or in some other situation (like a performance) in which you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even as a photographer I don't really agree with it. I think the subject should have the right to have a say in how a photo is used - or at least the right to have a photo taken down (unless it is in the public interest).

That's not quite true. You can't use the picture to endorse a product, even if it is taken in a public place, so only editorial or art usage is allowed.

AnCatDubh

You should be somewhat concerned (which i guess is probably why you are here in the first place). Reason: Have a read of this thread on flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/ or this one http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html

The examples are out of Irish jurisdiction and i'm unaware of specific Irish cases in law.

As far as I am aware the photographer will own the copyright to whatever image is taken (so long as it wasn't taken in a country whereby a persons image is their own copyright irrespective of who takes the image). However owning the copyright doesn't necessarily mean that they have free reign over the use of the image.

My understanding is that a photographer can use an image they take for non commercial purposes - posting to their blog is ok, or their photo stream is ok. Also, I gather that editorial use is ok too ie. a photojournalist takes your photo and you end up on the front page of the indo, examiner, times, etc... As a subject of an image, you aren't entitled to any particular compensation.

However, if a photographer wishes to release your image whether for compensation or not to another organisation (such as a tourism organisation), they are required to have a model/subject release in order to legally do so.

The above is just my understanding and not a legal opinion / definition. I don't know how it pertains to video though. That may be a different kettle of fish.

humberklog

amdgilmore wrote: »

My understanding is that yes, they can use it any way they like if it has not been altered in a defamatory way, and if you were in public or in some other situation (like a performance) in which you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even as a photographer I don't really agree with it. I think the subject should have the right to have a say in how a photo is used - or at least the right to have a photo taken down (unless it is in the public interest).

Great question by the OP but I 'm not sure if you're answer's strictly correct. By the logic I'm reading is that if (for e.g.) a snapper caught you smoking he could sell it to Marlboro to do what they do once they didn't alter the image. Now whether the client is Philip Morris or a forced rhubarb grower from Connemara the same rules apply. Maybe?

Just my thoughts on a cracking question.

magicbastarder

mdebets wrote: »

That's not quite true. You can't use the picture to endorse a product, even if it is taken in a public place, so only editorial or art usage is allowed.

this is my understanding. if you are recognisable in the shot, the image cannot be used in a commercial context to advertise or sell goods or services.

anamaria

Thanks for the interesting replies guys. I'm not really planning to kick up a fuss but it's good to think of the future.

I assumed (based on not very much information it has to be said) that the photographer was okay to use the photo themselves but would need a release form to pass it on to other businesses

anamaria

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Public performances?

Most would be in a small theatre so I suppose that definetly counts as a public performance. This is why I was unsure if the subject of photo would have any say in how it was used as the photo would be taken at a public event

amdgilmore

Thanks for the clarification re: commercial uses. Though I am not sure about the need for a release - are we sure we're not confusing Irish and US law on that point? I understood from reading about this previously that model releases were not a legal requirement in Ireland (but are nonetheless required by agencies like Getty).

mdebets

anamaria wrote: »

Most would be in a small theatre so I suppose that definetly counts as a public performance. This is why I was unsure if the subject of photo would have any say in how it was used as the photo would be taken at a public event

That would make it even more restrictive on how the photo can be used, as it was taken ijn a private place, so the rules of the owner come into play as well.

mdebets

amdgilmore wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification re: commercial uses. Though I am not sure about the need for a release - are we sure we're not confusing Irish and US law on that point? I understood from reading about this previously that model releases were not a legal requirement in Ireland (but are nonetheless required by agencies like Getty).

You don't strictly need a model release, you just need to be able to proof that the person in the picture gave their consent for it being used for advertisement.

Wabbit Ears

I am of the understanding that there is little legal basis in Ireland for the "cant use in advertising or commercial purposes" thing as there is a complete lack of test cases on the subject. I may be completely wrong and this is straying into legal areas we're not allowed discuss but I'd like to see any links people may have to test cases on this matter?

GoodLord

AnCatDubh wrote: »

My understanding is that a photographer can use an image they take for non commercial purposes - posting to their blog is ok, or their photo stream is ok. Also, I gather that editorial use is ok too ie. a photojournalist takes your photo and you end up on the front page of the indo, examiner, times, etc... As a subject of an image, you aren't entitled to any particular compensation.

How is that non commercial if the photographer gets paid?

Paulw

GoodLord wrote: »

How is that non commercial if the photographer gets paid?

Because editorial is classed differently from commercial. Editorial is for news (doesn't matter if the photographer is paid or not), while commercial is when the image is bought for something like advertising.

magicbastarder

one simple rule is that if the photograph is being used to promote a good or a service, it would be considered commercial rather than editorial use.

Wabbit Ears

So if I do sell an image that's used in advertising/commercial poster or booklet and that person wants it to be removed or monetary compensation what recourse do they have? They can try taking you to court which is a gamble but beyond that?

I really think that an individual has no real rights at all if an unethical or unscrupulous photographer sells an image of themfor advertising or commercial purposes, especially if that images is used outside of the jurisdiction of the irish state.

Paulw

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So if I do sell an image that's used in advertising/commercial poster or booklet and that person wants it to be removed or monetary compensation what recourse do they have? They can try taking you to court which is a gamble but beyond that?

It will depend on jurisdiction, but yeah, they take you to court. What court will depend on where the action is taken, and will also determine the amount they can win. In the US, it can be millions. In Ireland, I think it is limited to the tens of thousands (open to correction). They can take action against the photographer, the publicity company and/or product company.

Even if they don't win in court, you have been dragged through court, your name/business has been questioned, and you may find companies less likely to use your work in future.

sheesh

anamaria wrote: »

Most would be in a small theatre so I suppose that definetly counts as a public performance. This is why I was unsure if the subject of photo would have any say in how it was used as the photo would be taken at a public event

that is, as pointed out different again,
because a small theatre is not a public space.
if you hired the small theatre to do your performance it is different again it is your hall not the owners.

It all depends on how the person taking the photograph gained access to the venue and what they were allowed in writing to do when they were inside.

In the early 2000s after the share price of getty had gone down and the prices of stock photography dropped the larger players scoured the internet for unlicenced usage of their images and invoiced small sites for serious amounts for unlicensed usage of their images.


OP you could always ask the advertiser where they got your image from 'As you would like to buy acopy from the photographer'....

also look at tineye.com and google image search.