Copyright advice

[PmSonic]

Hi Folks,

Just looking for a little advise. I took some pictures on a boat that was hired out for a private function a while ago. The people who run the business have asked for a copy of two of the pictures i've taken.

It was a fun occassion & we got on very well so i'm happy to give the two pictures to them, but want to ensure that ownership / rights remain with me. I'm not really bothered if they use the images on there website or promotional material, but would like to be asked first.

How do i go about making sure the ownership remains with me?

[PmSonic]

any thoughts from anyone?

[HCK]

this site might have some info for you.....

http://www.copyrightwitness.com/prot...aphy_copyright

[PmSonic]

Thanks for the link HCK. I've used the advice on the site and think i've got everything covered, I've attached one of the processed shots with the copyright info here. If anyone knows of anything i've mist your advise would also be appreciated.

[Hal_loe]

Originally Posted by PmSonic

Thanks for the link HCK. I've used the advice on the site and think i've got everything covered, I've attached one of the processed shots with the copyright info here. If anyone knows of anything i've mist your advise would also be appreciated.

I'd make sure you include the year the photo was taken, as copyrights don't last forever.

Also i suggest you ask them politely, that they ask your permission before they use the pictures...

Hope that helps.

[PmSonic]

Great, thanks. I'll do that

[paulwIre]

Copyright is determined by the law of the country. So, copyright in the US can be different to copyright in the UK, or copyright in Ireland.

Copyright can (and in most cases is) for the life of the photo. So, copyright does last forever.

Any photo you take is automatically copyright to you. Putting something in your photo doesn't change that (and can be easilly removed in Photoshop etc). Your little copyright symbol plus name does nothing really, other than maybe distract from the photo. Legally it hasn't changed the image at all.

In many cameras, you can put your name in, which is then stored in the image EXIF information. This is used as a normal method of proof of ownership, since if the EXIF information is edited, it is actually marked in the photo as having being edited.

Bottom line, look up the copyright legal information for your country (or the country where the image was taken). Most info found online is based in the US, and hence may not even apply to you.

I hope this helps.

[PmSonic]

Thanks, that does help.

[Hal_loe]

Originally Posted by paulwIre

Any photo you take is automatically copyright to you. Putting something in your photo doesn't change that (and can be easilly removed in Photoshop etc). Your little copyright symbol plus name does nothing really, other than maybe distract from the photo. Legally it hasn't changed the image at all.

I'm afraid that is not strictly true.

If you take a picture of someone without their permission, they can demand you destroy the image. A person has a right to their own image not the photographer.

[captain chunk]

Originally Posted by Hal_loe

I'm afraid that is not strictly true.

If you take a picture of someone without their permission, they can demand you destroy the image. A person has a right to their own image not the photographer.

I think you'll find that if that was the case their wouldnt be such a thing as paperazzi and the various celeb mags would be empty.

[paulwIre]

Originally Posted by Hal_loe

I'm afraid that is not strictly true.

If you take a picture of someone without their permission, they can demand you destroy the image. A person has a right to their own image not the photographer.

Errr, not strictly true either. Again this depends on the country and the laws of privacy.

[Hal_loe]

Originally Posted by captain chunk

I think you'll find that if that was the case their wouldnt be such a thing as paperazzi and the various celeb mags would be empty.

See paragraph below.

Originally Posted by paulwIre

Errr, not strictly true either. Again this depends on the country and the laws of privacy.

True, but under UK law....

From: Photography and copyright

Model release forms
An individual has certain rights to control the use of their image. The specific details will vary from one coutry to another depending on national legislation, although the general rule seems to be to protect a person against defamitory or offensive use of their image.

If you intend to sell or distrubute images that include people, then it is worth getting your subjects to sign a model release form as this will protect you against any comeback.

[paulwIre]

Originally Posted by Hal_loe

See paragraph below.



True, but under UK law....

Model release forms
An individual has certain rights to control the use of their image. The specific details will vary from one coutry to another depending on national legislation, although the general rule seems to be to protect a person against defamitory or offensive use of their image.

I guess it then comes back to what is defined as - "defamitory or offensive use of their image".

But, living in Ireland, I don't need to worry about that.

[tomson]

Originally Posted by captain chunk

I think you'll find that if that was the case their wouldnt be such a thing as paperazzi and the various celeb mags would be empty.

that can be classed as editorial use - and doesn't usually require permission or a model release

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Hal_loe

I'm afraid that is not strictly true.

If you take a picture of someone without their permission, they can demand you destroy the image. A person has a right to their own image not the photographer.

If they're on private land then yes, but on public land I'm afraid we're all fair game.