sell it to other people?
Basically - because I have done nothing about organizing photos of our baby in spite of a huge amount of information, offers and goodwill passed my way in an earlier thread - my wife has organized for a pro photographer to take some photos of our child.
He owns copyright, fine. Can he automatically use these photos for advertising his own services or sell these photos to other people?
Thanks. And sorry for not following up other thread - it's on my to do list :/
He owns copyright
I think that is your answer.
He should only really sell the pictures if he has had a model release form signed allowing him to do so. Now given that the 'model' is a baby it would be you as the guardian who signs the form or not.
I don't think so, if the child is a minor or under 16, (or whatever the age limit is).
A minimal request for permission would have been quite courteous too.
If he is selling them to other folks, he should have a model release form signed. If he's using for his own publicity, what I said above.
He should only really sell the pictures if he has had a model release form signed allowing him to do so.
I believe this is the case for commercial usage, yes.
Tell us what is is you;re worried about particularly though.
I think that is your answer.
That's what I'd kind of thought, but then
He should only really sell the pictures if he has had a model release form signed allowing him to do so. Now given that the 'model' is a baby it would be you as the guardian who signs the form or not.
I sort of thought this as well! Also,
I don't think so, if the child is a minor or under 16, (or whatever the age limit is).
A minimal request for permission would have been quite couteous too.
sorry if my post was misleading - it hasn't happened yet and most probably never will (I imagine!). Rather, it's me overthinking something he said to my wife when she booked.
And thanks all.
As far as I understand it he cannot use the images without your permission. The fact he owns copyright only protects him from you reproducing the images.
This is equally the case whether a child or an adult too I think.
What m_f says, mostly.
As far as I understand it he cannot use the images without your permission.
Almost. the difference is between editorial and advertising - if your picture could not be used without your permission, there'd be no paparazzi. It's when your picture is used to imply your support of something that you need permission, for instance if someone used my picture in a marmite advert I'd be annoyed as I don't like marmite. If it's just a picture in support of an article, no permission is usually needed
Well yes I guess that is true.
I wonder how it works when they use your pictures to promote their own service - a big picture of my wife was in a photographers window/website for about a year after our wedding but we never (knowingly) gave permission. No pictures of me mind you, but then I am ugly.
if your picture could not be used without your permission, there'd be no paparazzi.
Talking about subject over the age of majority, no? Surely there must be some form of protection for minors even with paparazzi. Generally in Spain the press protects the identity of minors.
As far as I understand it he cannot use the images without your permission. The fact he owns copyright only protects him from you reproducing the images.
That's my take on it too MF, unless it states on the MRF that they can, but knowing how some photographers work, it also will come down to how professional the photographer is, some I know are nothing less than sharks!
Model release, model under 16 therefore needs parental consent. You can also specify (in some situations) exclusions to when/where you would want the pictures used.
Only some. 
Advert = permission needed
Otherwise = no permission needed
If I took photos of your kids in the park I could use them for whatever I like, so long as it wasn't advertising anything.
Talking about subject over the age of majority, no? Surely there must be some form of protection for minors even with paparazzi.
Nope.
Nope.
Well bu66er me! I am a bit surprised at that.
+1 for owning copyright, but I am guessing it comes down to his individual contract etc as to whether there is a model release etc in it.
For the stuff I shoot (weddings, families, kids) I generally specify that I wont use the images other than for promotional purposes ie for my website/portfolio - I always talk my clients through this and make sure they understand that and that I am not going to go sell the images to a stock company etc etc. I also ask them if they are comfortable with this and always give them the option to veto at that point and before I use images (say on my blog etc) - I dont have to, but I think its fair and courteous to do so. Clients like it - they have said so - in fact one client who wasn't too keen on it was more than happy to allow me to use a picture of their newborn online for promo stuff - all because I took the time to explain it to him.
Model stuff - usually do it for TF (so promo/port only) or specify it might be used for stock etc (different contract).
If you have doubts, why not ask the photographer to put your mind at rest. Their response should either allay any fears (and show you how professional they are in terms of customer service) or put you off even more.
There's no law from stopping them using them for whatever they want.
The image belongs to the photograger who took it or the agency they're working for if it's an agency.
But it is considered very poor practice to use any image like that without a model release form being filled in & signed.
Ask them, I'm sure they won't mind.
I know I'd rather sort things like that out before the shoot, as any decent pro would.
This issue was discussed on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 this morning. It might be available on the R$ website or replay or something.
I have a model release clause built into all my wedding and portrait contracts - by signing the contract, my clients are allowing me to use photos of them for advertising and competition purposes.
Pretty sure this is standard practice.
Law surrounding photography is very complicated and full of all sorts of strange and wonderful things.
Basically, as far as I understand, the photographer can do whatever they want with the photographs, bar using them in a way that defames the individual/s depicted, or suggests an untruth about them. A model release form is simply a contract between the model and the photographer, to protect the model's commercial rights. If you don't want the photographer to be able to use the images of your child, then don't let the photographer take any. You could produce a contract which stipulate that the photographer is forbidden to use those images in any context. I think again here might be legal issues. Would only apply to a private space anyway.
Anything shot in public space is fair game. There is no such thing as 'privacy' here.
The image belongs to the photograger who took it or the agency they're working for if it's an agency.
But it is considered very poor practice to use any image like that without a model release form being filled in & signed
I am not sure this is correct - you own the rights to your own image so if someone else tried to use it they would be in contravention of those rights.
Wrong sorry. you don't own the rights to your image at all
you own the rights to your own image
Not in the UK you don't. You only have the 'right' to prevent others from using images of yourself out of context.
Otherwise we'd see no pics of celebs all over the media.
If I take a picture of Wayne Rooney with his wife on a beach somewhere, I can sell that picture to who I want. Rooney has no power to stop me.
I can't however use that pic to sell a chocolate bar or a sports car. Because that would be using the image outside of it's original context.
The law is evolving in this area - re Google Earth case etc which I think is still ongoing.
Asking a photographer how they interpret it is a bit like asking a wolf if he minds keeping a wee eye on those lambs.
DPA could be applied, if a person is an identifiable individual and the main subject of the image, their image cannot be repurposed without permission, holding copyright it not enough.
Its also standard practice to drive 5mph over the limit, doesn't mean its legal, or harmful, so understanable why most photographers would do this unless people object, or can prove that harmed was caused by said use.
DPA could be applied, if a person is an identifiable individual and the main subject of the image, their image cannot be repurposed without permission, holding copyright it not enough.
It'd need some case law for DPA to apply. Can't ever see it happening.
wonder how it works when they use your pictures to promote their own service - a big picture of my wife was in a photographers window/website for about a year after our wedding but we never (knowingly) gave permission.
so you pay a photographer to turn up, take pics and then pay for the images, he then claims free use of the images. If he was to try and produce the images otherwise he would have to hire a model and pay them.
I would suggest that anyone who doesn't restrict the use of images they paid for is a mug unless there is a quid pro quo.
I have a model release clause built into all my wedding and portrait contracts - by signing the contract, my clients are allowing me to use photos of them for advertising and competition purposes.
I'd be looking for a different photographer
Fair enough IMO, although I guess it's polite to ask if it's from a booked session. I have no idea why so many people are that precious about their "image", it really isn't going to make any difference to you now is it? As above, it's something else if they're using your image to misrepesent you. If you're good looking enough to be used in a competition or some promo material, consider that reward enough and stop grubbing for money!
and in the UK the press can identify children in published photos without permission but usually they choose to ask or avoid doing so - if you run events with kids that attract press attention it is a problem where children are subject to protection orders or parents have other issues about childrens names being in the public (and internet) domain
Nope.Well bu66er me! I am a bit surprised at that.
Elfinsafety - Member...
If I take a picture of Wayne Rooney with his wife on a beach somewhere
What about a picture of Wayne Rooney with someone else's wife?
On the child protection issue. From my experience with newspapers as opposed to photographic studios, common good practice is if you use photos of kids you don't identify their names; if you use names then no photos. It's all about stranger danger, we tell the kids not to speak to people they don't know but if the stranger can approach the kid and say, 'Hi, you're Charlie Brown aren't you, I'm one of your Dad's friends - he asked me to give you a lift home from school tonight as he's a bit busy. He was telling me you just won the school sports cup last week...' etc. then he's not a stranger is he, knowing that much.
So with relevance to the above. Unsavoury as it may be to think some pervert may be poring over over promotional images of your kids, it's almost as if it isn't happening if you don't know and he doesn't know who they are. So as long as the photographer won't identify you with the images, I'd say from what I've seen above that there's little you should bother about.
Who knows, maybe somewhere some housewife is getting unnecessary over the photos from my wedding day that my photographer still has on her website
@big n daft - you have a fair point, however, I think you find that most photographers 'price' the job with the idea they will get to use images they own copyright for for promotional work (ie their portfolio). I know a few that have on the odd occasion been restricted on this have re-priced at a significantly higher rate due to the inability to show the work to potential future clients - remember its the images that will attract future clients through the door. How many of the graphic designy types on here use work they have done for clients in portfolios? A fair few I would guess (I may be wrong, and realise it would depend on contract).
Another way of looking at it sis this. I'm a photographer. I need a portfolio. So I hire a model or 2, stage a 'wedding' and stick that up on a website. You and your missus come along, like my 'work' (unknowing that I am being disingenuous with it and it was all staged) and book me for your big fairytale wedding. Things go tits up and I produce poor images because I cant cope with the pressure of a fast moving dynamic event (but can manage a slow moving photo shoot style setup). How would you feel? (I know how you would feel) So you could say that photographers having clients images in their portfolios and using them to promote themselves is a good thing - it gives you a feeling for their work etc etc.
Oh and there are plenty of ways to get model images for free - there is such a thing as TF (time for) - where you basically swap services to be able to use stuff for portfolio/promotion (non commercial) with models and MUAs
There is no such thing as 'privacy' here.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
