Threat of legal action over charity calendar

[andymonk]

Wondered if anyone had any advice to offer please. I'm being threatened with legal action over a "Calendar Girls" style horse riding calendar I am creating for charity.

We borrowed a horse from a stables in North Yorkshire to do a shoot for the calendar. The stables (unbeknown to me at the time) gave us one of their customers horses for an hour, after asking the owners permission to do so of course.

Almost twelve months on and the girl who owns the horse has just emailed me telling me not to use any of the photographs and to remove all photographs with her horse on from the website, Facebook, and the calendar, or she will take legal action against me! She's also been posting threatening messages on our facebook pages.

The calendar is being printed right now. All proceeds are going to Multiple Sclerosis and Leukodystrophy research.

What to do? There is no law that I know of saying you can't take photographs of animals, unless they are on the owners own private property, in which case you need the owners permission, but these were taken on land owned by the stables and anyway, she did give her permission in the first place, though it has turned out that she wasn't told of the nature of the shoot.

The photos are at hottotrot.org/jessejames.htm


andy

 

[Rhodes100]

Does this person think that she owns Shergar or Red Rum and think that you are profiteering and infringing her horses image rights?

What legal action would this girl be taking, an injunction or claim for losses?

You called her a girl and I guess that she is still a child who is acting like a child and who doesnt like the idea of someones bare arse being on her horse!

I would ask her what legal action she intends to take and ask that she points you towards the statue or case law she intends to rely upon as you are not aware that you have breached any law.

You could of course use this to your advantage, the local tv and press love stories like this, and you could get a great deal of publicity for the cause. Most people would see the fact that you are trying to raise money for charity and she is trying to stop you. You will then embarass her into stopping this harrassment.

 

[andygambles]

If you are using the images for commercial purposes then you should have gotten written permission.

As it stands she has a case if you can not prove she gave permission.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

If you are using the images for commercial purposes then you should have gotten written permission.

As it stands she has a case if you can not prove she gave permission.

Andy

By what law does she 'have a case'?

 

[andygambles]

She owns the horse which is her intellectual property.

I confess to not being a specific expert in this area but having been involved previously with having to pay for permission to use the photograph of a building even though the picture was taken from a public street.

If it us of concern then speaking to a solicitor would be my advice.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I honestly couldn't begin to say for sure what the laws are. Speak to a solicitor who specialises in this and you should have the answer within 10 minutes. I'd imagine that it's a very clear-cut case as to whether she has any sort of claim.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

She owns the horse which is her intellectual property.

A horse is NOT intellectual property.

 

[Mpg]

I'd have a look over on the TalkPhotography forums. The Pro togs on there may have a way around it.

 

[andygambles]

A horse is NOT intellectual property.

Thinking about it you are probably right (and I was wrong). But the owner will have some rights over the use of the horse.

As advised talkIng to a solicitor is probably best.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Thinking about it you are probably right (and I was wrong). But the owner will have some rights over the use of the horse.

As advised talkIng to a solicitor is probably best.

Restrictive rights in the UK apply to property like private land, business premises, my garden etc. If the photographer had permission from the owner of the stables to take photographs on their land he is in the clear. Apart from very few instances, which AFAIK are protected by restricted access, animals have no protection from photography. So, a lion in a zoo might be protected by a general restriction on commercial photography on the zoo's premises. As soon as the lion escapes into a nearby wood it loses any kind of protection against photography.

If the circumstances are as described I would make the stable liable for their mistake.

 

[PeterG]

I would, mostly, agree with the above comment but one thing is missing...

Implied right of access for commercial property.