photography wankers (1 Viewer)

[Space]

Yeah I'm fairly sure the line is where your image is used to endorse a product. You own the rights to your image/face so if someone uses your image to sell a product you can sue for misrepresentation. Or something like that anyhow. I'll check with me da and get back to yas, he's bound to know.

 

[hugh]

That link that Big Monster Love posted is really good. Cheers.

It kind of confirms what Goff was saying in that the law on this is somewhat ill-defined in this country, and therefore there are only legal guidelines (derived from the constitution and European cases), which I suppose are always open to interpretation and open to challenge.

But the guidelines would be that:

- you can take anyone's picture in a public place unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy

- subjects can object to the publication of that photo if (a) it interferes with some sort of commercial endorsement (i.e. if someone takes a photo of a sports star drinking Coke and uses it to advertise Coke) or (b) the photo has been altered in some way or (c) the photo "tortiously" (I dunno what that means) violates their privacy.

In the case of (a) it only really seems to apply to famous people. If someone takes a picture of me drinking Coke then I can't make the claim that this interferes with my commercial interests as it's pretty unlikely Pepsi are going to be beating a path to my door anytime soon looking for me to act as the "new face of Pepsi".

So it would seem to me from this that taking someone's picture in a public place, displaying it in a gallery and selling it - is fair game. Legally speaking anyway ...

 

[Goff]

Aye, it is.

The link also mentions the whole "passing off" thing as well. Basically, implying that I like to drink Pepsi when in fact I hate the stuff, means I could sue them. And win. Altering an image could just as easily be something as simple as the implication that I like Pepsi.

Tortiously means it's to do with Tort Law. Which is a fairly interesting area of Law. Actually, if you're using "free" software, they'd have to sue you under that.

I'd love to know how Janer's mate won that case as DCC didn't do anything wrong technically (although morally, they did, as far as I'm concerned). Still, that's the beauty of Summary Justice. Judge's can make shit up as they go along. I like that. And it gives people some hope of privacy.

It gets a bit crazy when you look in to it. The safest option is to get a mode release form if you intend selling anything for publication - and definitely for advertising purposes. Galleries, I wouldn't be bothered about, tbh. Most advertising images are taken from Stock Libraries, and I don't know of any that doesn't require a model release form, so it all should be covered, just in case.

The thing about galleries is, that anything that is displayed in a gallery can be construed as "Art". And ART trumps most laws. In this country, at least.

Catherine Deneuve once sued a magazine just for displaying her image without her permission (it was probably a pap shot that made her look shite) and won, based on the fact that her image (her whole image) was her intellectual property. That's the kind of direction I'd personally veer towards.

If you want to make money out of photography, you should really be fair about it.

 

[hugh]

I'd love to know how Janer's mate won that case as DCC didn't do anything wrong technically (although morally, they did, as far as I'm concerned). Still, that's the beauty of Summary Justice. Judge's can make shit up as they go along. I like that. And it gives people some hope of privacy.

Well, I suppose by using a picture of him in a DCC advertising campaign they were implying that he endorses DCC (obviously the fact that he actually works for them doesn't necessarily imply he approves of or endorses them ). So it falls under that commercial use/endorsement stuff.

I did think that this only really applies to celebrities who have a reasonable chance of actually getting paid for endorsements. So that's obviously not quite right - or at least it's not as clear cut as that.

The usual thing is that a model release form would be obtained. In this case it wasn't, and the judge took the view that it should have been - following normal custom and practice. Since the law is ill-defined another judge might have taken a different view though.

 

[Goff]

Since the law is ill-defined another judge might have taken a different view though.

That's the problem. Always err on the side of caution is the best option.

Your galleries thing. Just do it. So long as you don't show anyone in a derogatory light, no one will complain. If they do, you take it down.

 

[magicbastarder]

Although Virgin tried their hardest last year. And if you took them to court, they'd more than likely settle for a (very) small fee. Even though they don't have to.

was that the one with the photo released under creative commons?

 

[Space]

was that the one with the photo released under creative commons?

Yep.

 

[taubstumm]

(b) the photo has been altered in some way

presumably this implies that a person can object if a photo they're in has been photoshopped, right?

that seems like pretty shaky grounds to base a right of legal objection on...

 

[pissypants]

sorry but that girl's comment is a big jizz stain.

well put La La!

 

[hugh]

presumably this implies that a person can object if a photo they're in has been photoshopped, right?

that seems like pretty shaky grounds to base a right of legal objection on...

Yeah, I think it might mean you can object if the image has been photoshopped in such a way that it implies you are doing something you are not, or constitutes a false impression of your behaviour. If I made a photoshop image of you shooting up drugs for example .... assuming you are not in the habit of shooting up drugs ... though who knows ... I hear Berlin drives a man to all sorts of madness.

 

[taubstumm]

Yeah, I think it might mean you can object if the image has been photoshopped in such a way that it implies you are doing something you are not, or constitutes a false impression of your behaviour. If I made a photoshop image of you shooting up drugs for example .... assuming you are not in the habit of shooting up drugs ...

yeah, that's what i thought; it seems like it's based on a pretty weak understanding of photography and/or photoshop. (or: when is an image altered most? before or after it's photographed?)

though who knows ... I hear Berlin drives a man to all sorts of madness.

boom boom!