Local paper used photo (with our child in it) without asking.

I work in local press. You throw your image onto social media and you have pretty much lost rights to anything but a credit. An image of an underage person should be unused or tweaked such that it cannot be identified.

I’m (arguably) a hobbyist photographer, and whilst the second part of that statement might be your policy, it’s certainly not law. There are exceptions – if the child is accused of a crime, for instance – but unless there’s a geographical or other restriction in place (eg, on a railway station) you can photograph members of the public with impunity.

As for the first part, I’m not sure. A public photo on FB muddies the waters somewhat, I’d refer to the licencing stuff posted on the previous page as a starter.

It was a free paper according to the OP so surely there won’t have been any financial gain?

If the paper is supported by adverts then there is financial gain since advertisers only pay because people read the paper. The paper wouldn’t be read without the stories and pics.

As for the first part, I’m not sure. A public photo on FB muddies the waters somewhat, I’d refer to the licencing stuff posted on the previous page as a starter.

We are in a new era in regards to the copyright and reproduction of photos. It will be interesting to see how legal the T&Cs of Facebook are if legally challenged. The main problem, as the local newspaper knows, is that the cost of suing is more than the photo is worth (sorry op).

What’s your point caller?

He’s more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

He’s more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

Well, he might have the chance of objecting about the first and seeking remuneration, but he’s got buckley’s about the second.

Told him he was talking bollocks, I could take photos of what I pleased, and he really ought to check his facts before mouthing off.
He didn’t take that very well…

That’ll teach them for looking out for the kids under their charge!

He’s more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

So I hadn’t missed the point at all then. 😉

Facebook don’t claim you lose copyright. You grant Facebook a licence to use images but retain copyright. Just because Facebook can use your image doesn’t mean anyone else can.

Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content. For more information please visit our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which contains information about intellectual property, as well as your privileges and responsibilities as a Facebook user.

https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/193430577370347

Though a local paper using a pic of a tree is a bit of a storm in a tea cup IMO.

So you’re happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you’re getting paid for it?

*not read all of topic due to rugby induced beers*

That’ll teach them for looking out for the kids under their charge!

So you’re happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you’re getting paid for it?

I don’t get all the hysteria about photographing kids doing normal, everyday activities tbh. I can’t see the reasoning behind it, and really can’t see what it has to do with noncing. It’s a kid standing next to a tree.

Getting into the local paper is an achievement, surely? Having your photos stolen however, is not. Maybe it balances out, but doesn’t make it right.

I work in local media and you can’t take images from Facebook without permission. My recommendation is to call the desk and ask who gave permission to use the image?
They won’t be able to answer this I suspect.
Photographers are wary of copyright scribblers much less so in my experience the picture is yours and remained so publishing it in Facebook does not change that fact.

It’s a kid standing next to a tree

Did it have “wood”?

Which paper is it. Depending on the group I might be able to search for it and find out who filed the caption the fore who stole it.

“It not about the money . . . . ”

Theft is theft.

So you’re happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you’re getting paid for it?

I hate to break it to you, but local nonces can look at your children using the tried-and-tested method of “going outside.”

Devious bastards!

I’d probably get the bombers out!!!

Then I’d put them away, sit down… reflect and get over myself.

Then I’d put them away, sit down… reflect and get over myself.

Hi! You must be new here…?

Doesn’t make any difference whether she’s a member of the public or not, no difference whether she put the image in the public domain

Public domain has a specific meaning in copyright law (and it’s not how you use it).

Donald: the newspaper is not Facebook, so unless Facebook sublicensed the use of the image to the newspaper it’s irrelevant.

Given the OP’s wife took the photo, if he’s lucky they might give him a discount

@konabunny – Agreed

Public domain has a specific meaning in copyright law (and it’s not how you use it).

That’s just crap and the law has gone in the wrong direction. It should be protecting the rights and not diluting them. But I also call bullcrap on the argument. If I take a photo, you don’t have the right to use it as you see fit without my permission; see my UKIP reference above. Otherwise you’re saying that Alberto Korda lost all rights the moment Che was released into the public domain, and this has to be rubbish.
Sorry art I tried to protect you. 🙁

This is all a bit confusing.

If you take a photo in a public place of pretty much ANYONE you own the copyright the second the camera photo/camera goes click in UK.
The subjects can be Kids(not yours) , adults, dogs, cat does not matter public place there is no issue so long as it’s for none commercial purposes.

If that image is then use for commercial purposes you need everyone in that image to have signed a model release. Otherwise you cannot use it for commercial purposes/personal gain.

So any image you take the copyright is yours.

If you post that image on Facebook / any social media platform the press can then “argue” this image has been released into the public domain and so as a piece of “news”, in the public interest it “may be used”.

BUT the copyright of the image is still the person who took the image and if the news paper or anyone else used it for advertising etc You could screw them for copyright infringement.

If your lucky depending on the size of the image used they may offer you £25.00 for the use of the image in the paper especially if they did not credit the original source but you will not be talking telephone numbers that’s for sure!

I am not a lawyer or legal professional just had a few images published over the years.

I don’t know how many court test cases have been used yet in regards to media using social media images.

FROM BBC

Legal Issues

The re-use of material from the internet can raise legal issues of privacy and copyright. A strong public interest reason for using a photograph can help justify re-use without permission, but you should not automatically assume that pictures or video you are seeking to include can be used under ‘fair dealing’. Advice is available from BBC Lawyers.

BBC guidance of social-media-pictures

That’s just crap and the law has gone in the wrong direction. It should be protecting the rights and not diluting them. But I also call bullcrap on the argument. If I take a photo, you don’t have the right to use it as you see fit without my permission; see my UKIP reference above.
Sorry art I tried to protect you.

you didn’t bother looking up what “public domain” means, then…

No I didn’t, but educate me.

When works enter the public domain
Generally speaking, artworks fall out of copyright and enter the public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the artist.

There are a few exceptions:

Sound recordings, ?lms, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the date of making or the date of release if the release occurs within 50 years of it being made
Engravings and photographs taken on or after 1 June 1957 that remained unpublished on 1 August 1989 are protected until 2039, even if that is longer than the life of the artist plus 70 years. There’s more information on older unpublished works here.
Artworks that are made in an industrial process and marketed in suf?cient numbers may only be protected for a shorter period of 25 years
Copyright in typographical arrangements of a published edition lasts for 25 years from the end of the year in which the edition was ?rst published.

This is all I’ve got to go on.

basically… I think the general rule of thumb is, if you don’t want your pics to become public property, don’t publish them on social media

Captain: okay, great, now you know what “public domain” means, reread what you wrote:

Doesn’t make any difference whether she’s a member of the public or not, no difference whether she put the image in the public domain

ask for $90,000….

Just saying…[/url]

If that image is then use for commercial purposes you need everyone in that image to have signed a model release. Otherwise you cannot use it for commercial purposes/personal gain.

Bet it’s a right pain for a football photographer to go around all the fans with a release form at the end of a match!

Don’t confuse the ownership and copy rights on an image with the rights to privacy of the person appearing in an image. Very much depends on context, and how identifiable the person is.

Random unidentifiable child next to a tree ? Not such a big deal.

Prince George at age 12 sitting in his garden smoking Malboros and reading an adult magazine ? Quite a big deal.

The photographer owns the rights to both images, publication of them is a different set of issues.

This thread is useless without pictures

This thread sums up society today 🙄

Bet it’s a right pain for a football photographer to go around all the fans with a release form at the end of a match!

not the same thing.

Used to be a right of passage to get photo in local rag…. What’s the world come to.

A mate takes pics for the local rag .I think you get about £12 to £15 quid for the first photo

Are the tea towels on sale yet? I’d like to buy one for my private collection.