Copyright query

[sands1967]

we publish a free, community magazine. We wrote an article on a local amateur group that asked us to do a story on them. They supplied photos to go with the article. We received a solicitors letter saying that the copyright for the photo we used belongs to their client (who is not a member of the group)

Apparently he took the photo a long time ago, they though 'as a favour' (friend of a friend) the person has now made photography his job - the amateur group said there was no payment made, they have used it a number of times and don't understand why he is doing this.

I believed that as the picture was submitted to us 'as theirs' the copyright issue lies between them and the photographer but I simply don't know.I can't afford to deal with solicitors. No payment has been given or made for the article.

Can anyone advise please

 

[LawHound]

What are they asking you to do about it? It may also be useful for the future to have in place a terms of use agreement which covers use of IP and gives your business indemnity from claims by them. Happy to talk to you about this on Monday if it helps.

 

[jules12345]

we publish a free, community magazine. We wrote an article on a local amateur group that asked us to do a story on them. They supplied photos to go with the article. We received a solicitors letter saying that the copyright for the photo we used belongs to their client (who is not a member of the group)

Apparently he took the photo a long time ago, they though 'as a favour' (friend of a friend) the person has now made photography his job - the amateur group said there was no payment made, they have used it a number of times and don't understand why he is doing this.

I believed that as the picture was submitted to us 'as theirs' the copyright issue lies between them and the photographer but I simply don't know.I can't afford to deal with solicitors. No payment has been given or made for the article.

Can anyone advise please

Get it in writing that they claim it is their picture...!

Yes I would tend to agree, the issue is between them and the photographer. He will say he granted them the right to use the photo as they were the subjects, if it got nasty he would have to prove that he had their permission to TAKE the photo for internet use. if he 'didnt' and he has put their photo up on the net in his portfolio then it would be he/the photographer that was breaking the law. You cannot show any image of any person on the net without their permission - simple as that. Or offer the photographer a reference to his work in your publication usuall keeps the peace specially for an amateur artist setting out on the difficult road to professional status as it seems to be indicative of the case when he took the photo.


Regards
Jules
Always ask a pro im only an LPC student.

 

[MikeJ]

You cannot show any image of any person on the net without their permission - simple as that.

Really?

 

[jules12345]

Yep - to show an image of someone on the net you need their permission ALWAYS. get written permission always.

Messy when it comes to Bloggs so many people so few with permission, but the court will basically demand that they take it down, unless yo could prove nefarious use of image.

regards
Jules

 

[MikeJ]

So.....

Those stories of Wayne Rooney that have been published recently. All with his picture along side him? He's given his permission, has he?

I know you need permission to use the pictures commercially. But that's not the same as putting the images on the internet.

 

[matth]

You don't need permission to use most images online, or indeed in print, especially in the UK (different countries have different laws, of course)

It's considered good practice to get a model release signed by the people in the photos to save any potential legal issue relating to the article (i.e. a caption being used that doesn't paint them in the best light, for example).

There is no legal requirement for a model release in the UK, but that's not true of other countries, hence why if you're sending images to stock agencies like Getty, you need to have one (I send other agencies stuff occasionally).

There's also different rules for editorial photos, or, images that could be considered in the public interest (protests, and the like).

It's also quite grey when it comes to taking photos on private property, as different rules can be applied to the property owners (football matches, for example).

 

[akirk]

we still, (though it is being eroded it seems), have a right to take photos of who / what we like and use in any way we wish without their permission, unless for commercial purposes / endorsing / etc. You also have to be cautious about someone's trademark.

so, no issue putting someone's photo on the web - child / adult / etc. all allowed - and you can use it for reporting without any permission at all.

this situation is your responsibility - not that of the supplier, (though they might be argued to be a part of the situation), as the publisher you need to ensure that you have the rights to what you publish - I would take lawhound's advice - you need something of a legal nature to protect you, otherwise you may well hold liability.

regards

Alasdair
(pro. photog. )

 

[cgwpublishing]

Copyright in images depends where it was taken, believe it or not. If it was taken on public property then the subject can't complain, although they often do.

In your case I think that the most important point is that there is a precedent set, that they have used the image a number of times without the photographer pressing for royalties, which adds weight to their assertion that they thought it was s a favour. Just because he's a professional now doesn't mean he can recoup past royalties on work that he freely gave his client in good faith.

As a result of reading your question, I've decided to become a professional forum contributor, so you now all have to pay me royalties for reading my posts...

 

[Eagle]

Yep - to show an image of someone on the net you need their permission ALWAYS.

Can you link to and/or quote the Law which states this?

It is, however, most certainly illegal to use an image of someone to endorse or promote a product/service or other entity without their permission.