interesting data protection r.e. photographs

Ezteq

Queen of OT
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
13,457
Hiya,
the legalFHOT'ers will probably know this already but i thought i'd share this for the mortals among us.

You know how every so often we get posts here or stuff in the news saying how some school or whatever has banned parents from taking photos of their kids at a nativity or school play? or someone gets stroppy because you took a picture and their kid happens to be in it and demands you destroy the film? well it is a load of cobblers, you can take pictures of your children (in fact you can photograph any children if they are in a public place) and data protection only covers business' and organisations not private individuals.

So if you have a child in your family who is in a school play and you are told your are not allowed to phtotgraph them you can challenge that as it is only the protocol of the school (or swimming pool or whatever) and it is not law.

one of the case examples used on the course was of a park warden telling a couple they could not photograph their own daughter on a swingset in the park because there was no photography allowed in the play area under the data protection law...twas rhubarb!

anyhoo hope this is useful to someone
Ez
xxx
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
There was a case recently of a man who was asked by a policeman to stop taking photographs of a busy high street one Saturday afternoon. The policeman was quite wrong to ask him to stop. The photographer had every right to take his photos.
 

adoNix

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
1,582
In Norway you can take a picture anywhere but private areas but you can't upload it where its available to everyone (the internet)
 

Bahumat

FH is my second home
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
16,788
ooh nice find. Do you have a link incase someone says "prove it". I would tell them "Ez told me" but not everyone trusts you...after the hedgehog scam!
 

Chronictank

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
10,133
i am pretty sure you can legally take the photo if it is in a public place
 

Mey

Part of the furniture
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,252
But then i'm pretty sure you have to get my permission (to use the picture) if I end up being in your photograph?
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
But then i'm pretty sure you have to get my permission (to use the picture) if I end up being in your photograph?

So if I take a picture of 1000 people in a football stand I got to get 1000 people's permission to print it ?

Nah
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
If i took a picture of a stunning girl for an advertising campaign i think i would have to ask her permission to use it no?

Most schools ect say you can not take pictures record videos ect as every parent there would make a fuss about the bloke they do not know recording children. So i can see why schools do not allow it because of the potential arse ache. They should ban it and then make Video and Pics avalible to parents of each event.
 

Chronictank

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
10,133
If i took a picture of a stunning girl for an advertising campaign i think i would have to ask her permission to use it no?

Most schools ect say you can not take pictures record videos ect as every parent there would make a fuss about the bloke they do not know recording children. So i can see why schools do not allow it because of the potential arse ache. They should ban it and then make Video and Pics avalible to parents of each event.

theres a difference between using and profiting off ;)
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
Ez your right

The "you can not take photos here" you'll find is a school policy to ban which has gone across all schools. People are entitled to ban photography in private places/buildings.

I'll link to loads of stuff this week if you want on legal issues taking photos in public places and even taking photos of children etc (minefield)

And to the model comment...you can take a photo of anything you want and the photographer becomes the owner of that image not the model. That means that the photographer can do whatever they want with it, BUT if you then use that image to make money or mass branding and it aims soley on that person then the person has a right to ask for royalties. If they are just a person standing in a crowd then no they cant cause they arent the main focus of the image

Its a very interesting subject legally, some people still think that the person in the photo is the owner but a law was put in place early on to protect us photographers, much like music producers
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
My mate snapped a photo of Paul Gascoigne eating a kebab and sold it to the Sun donkeys ears ago, so he was glad he got the cash and not Paul !
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
Slightly off topic here, but did you know, that Technically, Freddyshouse can be sued, for letting people post links to copyrighted material on youtube?
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
As can the hundreds of millions of other web sites that allow users to do the same
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
As can the hundreds of millions of other web sites that allow users to do the same

No shit, but as we are on FH, that is why i used it as an example.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Copyright only applies directly, i think, if you try to profit out of it(which FH doesn't) and if the person owning the copyright has a problem with a non-profit posting of their work, they first have to ask for it to be removed, and ONLY if the site doesn't, they have a legal case.
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
Copyright only applies directly, i think, if you try to profit out of it(which FH doesn't) and if the person owning the copyright ahs a problem, they first have to ask for it to be removed, and ONLY if the site doesn't, they have a legal case.

Wrong. Another website I use, has banned all links to youtube, as solicitors for TV Companies got involved. I guess its to do with the traffic of a site too, i mean, how many different people use FH, 200? 300? The TV Companies wont even know FH exists. The website im talking about has like 100,000 active users.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Wrong. Another website I use, has banned all links to youtube, as solicitors for TV Companies got involved. I guess its to do with the traffic of a site too, i mean, how many different people use FH, 200? 300? The TV Companies wont even know FH exists. The website im talking about has like 100,000 active users.

Aye, but there's no legal case there, they most likely asked the site via a very strict email(or some such) to stop it and they did.
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
Youtube are responsible for the content on their site, not the sites directing to them. Well at least thats what all the streaming sites claim, you know the ones i'm on about

It is true depending on where the sites are hosted, very grey area that no-one wants to take charge of imo
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
Aye, but there's no legal case there, they most likely asked the site via a very strict email(or some such) to stop it and they did.

Again, you are wrong. Being a site sponsor, I was privvy to all legal communication between the site, and representitives of SKY. Its is illegal in the UK to link to copyrighted material on youtube.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Again, you are wrong. Being a site sponsor, I was privvy to all legal communication between the site, and representitives of SKY. Its is illegal in the UK to link to copyrighted material on youtube.

Yes, but there's only a legal case if the site declines or challenges them after asked to remove material.

And that's youtubes problem, not the sites lining to youtube.
 

Ezteq

Queen of OT
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
13,457
aaah but i was talking about taking pics for your own album not using commercially, there was a case study (true story) of a little disabled gal who thought she had AIDS because some wiz kid decided to go and pic a photo at random and use in an AIDS information brochure (which was distributed across the gals hometown) she saw the pic and was like "OMG I'm on the cover and it says I'm an AIDS suferer...what have'nt my folks told me???" not to mention the embarrassment of it.

So if you take a pic of someone then slap it on a billboard then tbh your in the wrong (Oh and photo's have a use by date too, so if you got permission 5 years ago to use it and decided to use it now you'd have to re-ask) but if your just out and about (like me) snapping pics of scenery and some child gets in on the act (what it is with kids and cats, stick a camera in the area and they just magically appear lol) no one can force you to destroy it by spouting the data protection act (Bahu, this is available to everyone all you have to do is google the act and print it out).
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
Yes, but there's only a legal case if the site declines or challenges them after asked to remove material.

And that's youtubes problem, not the sites lining to youtube.

Ergo its ILLEGAL!

And no, its not just youtubes problem, as I said, I was privvy to the legal communication between the site's solicitors and SKY's solicitors, who basically said, it was illegal (but you know better dont you) and if the site didnt stop all linking to youtube, unless copyright was held individually, they would close the site and demand compensation.
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
FYI

COPYRIGHTS & PHOTO OWNERSHIP

Unless a contract has been signed stating otherwise, the federal Copyright Act states that the photographer owns the copyrights in the photographs and thus controls how they may be used. Copyright law is slanted in favor of the creator. The copyrights of photos are given to the photographer, not the model. The exception is if the model (or client) pays the photographer for his services, and prior to shooting gets a contract signed by the photographer stating that the work will be a "work for hire". However, this prior designation of an independent contractor's work as a "work for hire" can only be done when the work falls into one of the following nine categories: (1) contributions to a collective work; (2) parts of a motion picture or other audio visual work; (3) translations; (4) supplementary works; (5) compilations; (6) instructional texts; (7) tests; (8) answer material for a test; or (9) atlases. If you are paying a photographer for his services and wish to receive the copyright of the photos taken, be sure to get them to sign a copyright transfer release (your responsibility). The ownership between the photographer and a client should be clearly stated and agreed upon in writing by both parties as the first item in the contract. It may be difficult to find photographers who will do this without significant compensation.

With that said, even when a photographer owns the copyright of a photo, they cannot publish or sell a model's photo without a signed model release. Nor can a model publish photographs without a signed publication release from the photographer (even if the model paid for the images).

Photographs taken at public events are considered newsworthy, and in most instances do not require a release.

Photos taken of public people such as the President or a celebrity do not require a signed model release because they are considered "public people"
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
Also photographers own their work for up to something like 75 years after their death too. I'll find the documentation

I have loads of this stuff as i take alot of images in public places
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Ergo its ILLEGAL!

And no, its not just youtubes problem, as I said, I was privvy to the legal communication between the site's solicitors and SKY's solicitors, who basically said, it was illegal (but you know better dont you) and if the site didnt stop all linking to youtube, unless copyright was held individually, they would close the site and demand compensation.

That's what i said! :eek:
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
i think what marc is saying is

it is illegal to do it but instead of taking you to court, we simply ask you to stop doing it. if you dont stop, then we will take you to court.
its probably part of their legal teams policy. dont just take procedings left and right. ask first, then take action.

it saves everyone time and money.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom