Hi all,

The never ending debate of copyright on an image seems to never be clean cut. It always confuses me as we have laws written down so somewhere there is a line that clears it up.

On another thread (I didn't want to hijack it so i started a new one) a member wrote this (quoting someone else themself):

"This is a lie, yes they would have copyright but cannot use the images commercially without signed consent from you like a model release, did you sign one? "

WRONG...... Under UK Copyright law a model has NOTHING to release. Copyright holder can do, pretty much, what they like with THEIR material.

I am not saying the above statement is wrong, I simply don't know if it is. Does anyone know or can paste into a forum post the section in UK Copyright law that backs up the above statement?

Common sense tells me the first statement is right, that you need consent for a commercial use. However as laws can be silly sometimes I can also believe the other statement is true. I just want to know which it is and how it is phrased in law.

Thanks

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 12:36:49   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Hi all,

The never ending debate of copyright on an image seems to never be clean cut. It always confuses me as we have laws written down so somewhere there is a line that clears it up.

On another thread (I didn't want to hijack it so i started a new one) a member wrote this (quoting someone else themself):

"This is a lie, yes they would have copyright but cannot use the images commercially without signed consent from you like a model release, did you sign one? "

WRONG...... Under UK Copyright law a model has NOTHING to release. Copyright holder can do, pretty much, what they like with THEIR material.

I am not saying the above statement is wrong, I simply don't know if it is. Does anyone know or can paste into a forum post the section in UK Copyright law that backs up the above statement?

Common sense tells me the first statement is right, that you need consent for a commercial use. However as laws can be silly sometimes I can also believe the other statement is true. I just want to know which it is and how it is phrased in law.

Thanks

M x

---

http://www.copyright4clients.com

there ya go..

Simples.

Simples 

Yasmin Stone , Model  posted on 08/05/2009 13:05:44   Posted 425 times

Located:Bristol,Avon, UK
Member Since: 19/09/2008

Quoting post from Yasmin Stone

---

Simples 

---

hahaha, Yasmin,  i forgot the "squeek"

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

---

Quoting post from Yasmin Stone

---

Simples 

---

hahaha, Yasmin,  i forgot the "squeek"

---

I think we should start a campaign for a simples smiley, maybe they could play the squeak too?

But I shall save that for another thread so as not to hijack this one

Yasmin Stone , Model  posted on 08/05/2009 13:10:39   Posted 425 times

Located:Bristol,Avon, UK
Member Since: 19/09/2008

Hi,

Thank you for the link but I want a link to actual legislation, you linked me to another site that says how it is but with no detail to explain on what terms there definition is.

They state that the photographer owns copyright of images if you as a client get a photographer in. However it does not cover the use of images of another person such as a model without a model release.

I am assuming they are assuming in their statement on that site that the photographer has taken the images, has a model release signed (if they used a model) and are now giving the pictures to a client who has paid for their use what rights the client has. They are not talking from the point of view of a model in a shot who it could be argued is part of the 'creation' and so has some say on copyright unless they sign it away.

"In the same way that musicians control who can reproduce their music, photographers control who can reproduce their images. Authors of original works own the copyright in their work " - copyright4clients

Who is considered the author when more than one person is involved in the creation. Surely in such cases the copyright is shared. Now add in to the mix things like human rights law, you have photographed someone but have no paper work without a release to cover you that they gave permission for these shots to be used in a commercial sense. Surely this would breach their human rights all copyright issues aside.

Do you have any links or does anyone else to the actual lines of legislation that cover the copyright directly from the law? I really want a clean cut answer - if there is one.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 13:11:05   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Hi,

Thank you for the link but I want a link to actual legislation, you linked me to another site that says how it is but with no detail to explain on what terms there definition is.

They state that the photographer owns copyright of images if you as a client get a photographer in. However it does not cover the use of images of another person such as a model without a model release.

I am assuming they are assuming in their statement on that site that the photographer has taken the images, has a model release signed (if they used a model) and are now giving the pictures to a client who has paid for their use what rights the client has. They are not talking from the point of view of a model in a shot who it could be argued is part of the 'creation' and so has some say on copyright unless they sign it away.

"In the same way that musicians control who can reproduce their music, photographers control who can reproduce their images. Authors of original works own the copyright in their work " - copyright4clients

Who is considered the author when more than one person is involved in the creation. Surely in such cases the copyright is shared. Now add in to the mix things like human rights law, you have photographed someone but have no paper work without a release to cover you that they gave permission for these shots to be used in a commercial sense. Surely this would breach their human rights all copyright issues aside.

Do you have any links or does anyone else to the actual lines of legislation that cover the copyright directly from the law? I really want a clean cut answer - if there is one.

M x

---

that "another site" is part of the A O P. thats pretty much clear cut.

Photographer is the creator/author er go, by default under UK law, is the copyright holder.

Bob is your man for links to copyright info... but it is really as simple as that.  This is one of Bob's favourites... http://www.ipo.gov.uk/home.htm

enjoy that one.. its pretty heavy going...

 

 

 

He who presseth the button, owneth the copyright.

Hi,

That 'other site' is not clear cut, in a court of law no one will care if it is part of AOP. The actual law as written downis all that will matter which is what I want to nail here.

As a photographer yourself are you unable to paste me the line of actual law that backs up these claims? I was hoping you would know the actual law directly but I appreciate none of us are lawyers but when photographers are taking images to cover yourselves I would have thought the exact law would be well known to you. 

I will look over the patent site now but it still raises the argument of how it applies to human right law when you take shots of people and use them for various commercial gain without their consent. This will not be covered by intellectual copyright law I would have thought.
 
Is there anyone out there with any legal knowledge or examples of previous cases where say a model has taken someone to court over copyright issues?

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 13:59:12   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Hi,

That 'other site' is not clear cut, in a court of law no one will care if it is part of AOP. The actual law as written downis all that will matter which is what I want to nail here.

As a photographer yourself are you unable to paste me the line of actual law that backs up these claims? I was hoping you would know the actual law directly but I appreciate none of us are lawyers but when photographers are taking images to cover yourselves I would have thought the exact law would be well known to you. 

I will look over the patent site now but it still raises the argument of how it applies to human right law when you take shots of people and use them for various commercial gain without their consent. This will not be covered by intellectual copyright law I would have thought.
 
Is there anyone out there with any legal knowledge or examples of previous cases where say a model has taken someone to court over copyright issues?

M x

---

the point i was making RE the A O P is that its not just some amateur webmaster knocked up in an afternoon site... It is part of the Association Of Photographers, who WILL have many many lawyers at their disposal who will have trawled through the law and written a condensed version that is easily digestable for the average joe to comprehend.

the only thing I can see, regarding Human Rights, is issues arround defamation of charactor. 

E.g if I shot a pub frontage just as you were leaving the doorway, if I then were to submit that image to a stock library, as I normally would, and that image was published accompanying an artical on alcholic behaviour... THEN you may have a case based on distress, on the grounds that you may have been potrayed as being alcholic.

As for knowing the law... I dont "need" to know it's every twist and turn.. thats what associations such as A O P, B I P P etc are there for.

Surely you, as a retoucher, should have as much knowledge on copyright as I have... How else can you safely edit other's works without knowing the basics?

Hi,

As a retoucher all I need is written confirmation from the photographer that he/she has full rights to the work, gives me permission to edit them. That covers me.

Regarding AOP I am sure they are very trusted but in court a lawyer isn't going to say "well the AOP said it was safe". That's the point I am making, a filtered and condensed version is not factual and will apply as a general case. That first site was also aimed at the client not the photographer.

I just want to know what the actual law says. I assume then you do not know what the actual law states on this or you'd have said by now. It's no slant on you if you don't know, but to answer me I'd like the actual facts as recognised by a court of law. If anyone does know please let me know.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 14:22:02   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Hi,

As a retoucher all I need is written confirmation from the photographer that he/she has full rights to the work, gives me permission to edit them. That covers me.

Regarding AOP I am sure they are very trusted but in court a lawyer isn't going to say "well the AOP said it was safe". That's the point I am making, a filtered and condensed version is not factual and will apply as a general case. That first site was also aimed at the client not the photographer.

I just want to know what the actual law says. I assume then you do not know what the actual law states on this or you'd have said by now. It's no slant on you if you don't know, but to answer me I'd like the actual facts as recognised by a court of law. If anyone does know please let me know.

M x

---

what i know..is what i know...

in as much as the photographer, by default, owns copyright.  Unless the photographer is employed by a company and their role is that of a photographer... i.e a photographer directly on the books of a PR/marketing company or newspaper/magazine.

And no.. a lawyer wouldnt say "the aop says.. so its true"... but i never said that.. MY lawyer knows the ins and outs.. as he specialises in Copyright law.  Ask him about matrimonail disputes.. and he's buggered......

I'd suggest that, if you want the full un condensed law, you call a solicitor firm and ask to speak to the copyright specialist. It may be downloadable from one of the .gov sites... 

Maybe google "copyright for dummies"... there may be something out there... I know they do books for nigh on everything in the "for dummies" range. 

this one might help....

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

I'd reccomend popping the cork on a nice bottle of Red and settling down with it before commencing reading this.. its pretty hard going...

I find this site to be useful

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Hi,

Regarding the AOP, you implied that the statement on the site would be covered by lawyers going through it. My point is, regardless of this that site cannot be used as a place to make a complete, clear cut decision. So when you said it's pretty clear cut as it is on that site. In short, it isn't. I hope you can see why I say that, the aim of this thread is to find out once and for all, if anyone knows what the rule is in the eyes of the law say.

Thank you for the links, the condensed one is too condensed. I can't find anything to cover the issue of a photographer shooting a model . (with a camera ) . Too simplified for this I think.

Photographing a building etc I see no issue. It's purely when a model is involved. By her skills as a model she has helped create the image. This can definitely be argued, as such she can be considered in part an author when it comes to photography. Furthermore the human rights issue I mentioned, AMPhotographique gave a good example of how this could come into play. I'd go further, any use of it, however harmless the photographer may feel can be deemed a breach of human right if no consent was made as it is down to the individual. A beauty ad, classy and flattering but used without consent from the model could have the same claim. She doesn't want her image in magazines or wherever as she doesn't want the publicity. However silly we'd find that it is her basic human right to decide and no photographer with a camera can waive that right.

I actually believe we are not allowed and cannot waive our human rights (take euthanasia for example) which would in essence mean that all release forms are void if argued on this basis but let's not go there and assume a basic model release will cover you for image use.

I'm trawling through the detailed link AMPhotographique gave but as I read it I can't help but think, if model releases are not needed, then why do they exist at all?

Anyone know of any famous cases where this issue was raised in court and what the out come was?

Either way, fascinating discussion and thanks to all for taking the time to comment and help me debate this. (even the 'simples' one )

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 14:57:19   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Hi again Margret...

It's clear cut in the sence it poses a question "who owns copyright" to which it answers "the photographer".

The human rights issue/scenario you use, wouldnt hold up in court.

I'd suspect that its generally accepted that if a model has agreed to pose and subsequently been rewarded for posing, either financial or with images, that s/he has willingly posed and accepted the terms.

Model releases are a non starter.. Under UK law we dont "need" to have them signed as a model has nothing to release.

Models are, sometimes, miss informed into not signing them, thinking that this will prevent photographers publishing and making financial gain from resulting images.  Alas, by refusing to sign it only restricts any "rights" they may have gained, in as much as a "release" (more favourably termed Agreement) MAY allow certain restrictions/criteria and stipulations on the usage of the output.

Most "releases" in circulation are blanket ones. They outline catagorically that the model understands that the have no rights nor claims to the images and that they can be used and manipulated in anywhich way shape or form.

So, to go back to my HR scenario, if you'd signed my release of the shot of you leaving the pub, I could sell it on the any buyer who, given my permission, could have used it anyway they wish.... It may then accompany an article on drink, drugs and unemployment social demise. 

 

Firstly, let me just say I know pretty much bugger all about this subject except this....

Model releases are not required in the UK.  To upload images to places like istockphoto, they require releases as its demanded by US law and their clients to keep them happy.

I always get a release signed as a matter of caution for this use only.

my 0.02 baht

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

---

Hi again Margret...

It's clear cut in the sence it poses a question "who owns copyright" to which it answers "the photographer".

The human rights issue/scenario you use, wouldnt hold up in court.

I'd suspect that its generally accepted that if a model has agreed to pose and subsequently been rewarded for posing, either financial or with images, that s/he has willingly posed and accepted the terms.

Model releases are a non starter.. Under UK law we dont "need" to have them signed as a model has nothing to release.

Models are, sometimes, miss informed into not signing them, thinking that this will prevent photographers publishing and making financial gain from resulting images.  Alas, by refusing to sign it only restricts any "rights" they may have gained, in as much as a "release" (more favourably termed Agreement) MAY allow certain restrictions/criteria and stipulations on the usage of the output.

Most "releases" in circulation are blanket ones. They outline catagorically that the model understands that the have no rights nor claims to the images and that they can be used and manipulated in anywhich way shape or form.

So, to go back to my HR scenario, if you'd signed my release of the shot of you leaving the pub, I could sell it on the any buyer who, given my permission, could have used it anyway they wish.... It may then accompany an article on drink, drugs and unemployment social demise. 

 

---

Hi again,

I don't feel it is clear cut in answering that question as it is not accurate, a guide yes but not something to stake your career on, in my opinion. We could debate that all night though so lets agree to disagree there.

I don't feel that neither you or me can say if the human rights scenario would hold in court. Neither of us are lawyers after all, I just feel it is an argument that can be made.

I didn't realise that in UK law a model release is not required. So what you are saying is a model release actually benefits the model and works against the photographer? Not having one allows a photographer to do what they like with the images? If the Uk law does not require one then doesn't this mean that without one you can't use the images anywhere they can be seen internationally (such as websites) or does it not work that way?

Though similarly if a model does not sign a release you have no proof that you informed them of the intended use of the images which surely they have some say about if they argue they were not told.

I still want to see actual law that backs this up but I am not going to pay a solicitor just to satisfy my curiosity (very tempted though). It seems from this that it remains a grey area.

I am certainly unsure on the standing, its no wonder so many models are too. The debate goes on I suppose.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 08/05/2009 16:45:31   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

I suggest you check out a book such as Don Cassell's The Photographer and the Law. It covers all the topics raised in this thread such as who owns copyright (always the photographer unless he/she works for a company and is paid a salary, then the company owns the copyright). Model releases aren't needed to sell images, so yes they do protect the model more than the photographer. The word release is mis-leading as they aren't releasing anything, basically they're saying the relize that the images are intended for sale/publication as outlined.

As for human rights, the photographer has them too, and surely it's his/her human right to sell any images he/she owns the copyright to? In your example I wonder why the model is posing for a photographer who intends to sell/use the images, surely the model would have found this out before agreeing to the shoot?

I have asked a leading newspaper picture editor and I have asked a lawer and it is clear cut the photographer owns the copyright. When a photographer is employed its in his contract of employment that the employer owns the right. I know this as I was once employed by a newspaper. How do you think free lance photographers earn a living. If they did not own the copyright they could not exist, very simple indeed.

"I still want to see actual law that backs this up but I am not going to pay a solicitor just to satisfy my curiosity (very tempted though). It seems from this that it remains a grey area. "

Margret...I linked you to the exact law/act that covers it. 

It IS clear cut and yes.. I WOULD stake my career on it.. As I have done when challanging a Red Top Daily paper when they published an image that was submitted to a Babe competition without my authorisation... I won, they paid my invoice.

I, like most professional operations, sought relevant legal professionals to get the information required... I DONT need to know, as most photographers wont need to know, the exact wording of the 24 page document that covers all the areas of the act... BUT I know what I need to know, anything else I may need to know is only a phone call away.