Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Whats photographers right?

  1. #1

    Default Whats photographers right?

    Hi
    Dear all, just curious... are we liable for any legal action if we go shoot someone in public and put the photos in the net or publish? I am talking about decent photos, not nude or indecent.
    For example, I shot some photos in a sport event, then sell the image and was subsequently used in advertisement? Can the person sue or take legal action?
    Cheers

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrynight
    Hi
    Dear all, just curious... are we liable for any legal action if we go shoot someone in public and put the photos in the net or publish? I am talking about decent photos, not nude or indecent.
    For example, I shot some photos in a sport event, then sell the image and was subsequently used in advertisement? Can the person sue or take legal action?
    Cheers
    If it is a private event held by a private organisation, I guess the photographer can be sued, especially if the organsiation can be easily identified. You will be making use of the organisation's "Goodwill".

  3. #3
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    you may want to try searching here, think this question has been asked and answered many times.

    Quote Originally Posted by starrynight
    Hi
    Dear all, just curious... are we liable for any legal action if we go shoot someone in public and put the photos in the net or publish? I am talking about decent photos, not nude or indecent.
    For example, I shot some photos in a sport event, then sell the image and was subsequently used in advertisement? Can the person sue or take legal action?
    Cheers

  4. #4
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    i believe that if the picture is going to be used in an ad you need a model release.
    it also depends on the image of that person, is he/she he main subject?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    Rights, what rights????

    This topic as pointed by Mr Vince123123 have been discussed millions of times.

    Don't be lazy....go do a search.....go go......

  6. #6

    Default

    thanks... didnt know it had been ask many times...

  7. #7

    Default

    pai sie...
    can't seem to find the site lei...
    I found discussion on people taking one's photo and use or place whether people can stop us from taking...
    But I meant if I take photo of say... a runner in a sports day then use a photo for a commercial publication... can I?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Easterner
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrynight
    pai sie...
    can't seem to find the site lei...
    I found discussion on people taking one's photo and use or place whether people can stop us from taking...
    But I meant if I take photo of say... a runner in a sports day then use a photo for a commercial publication... can I?
    Tell you something interesting. At last year's Siggraph in the states, there was a notice outside the exhibition hall that states something to this effect..

    "By being here, you are giving up your rights to privacy and you have no claim should you face appear in any of the photographs taken herein.."

    something like that lah.. forgot the exact phrase. the point was, if you are in a public space, the rights of the image is held by the photographer and/or its firm.

    Off course, this is a matter of intent, if some of you can recall the JCGirls incident in which the "victims" had the right to request that their images be removed from the site. Since it was taken for less than desireable reasons.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrynight
    Hi
    Dear all, just curious... are we liable for any legal action if we go shoot someone in public and put the photos in the net or publish? I am talking about decent photos, not nude or indecent.
    For example, I shot some photos in a sport event, then sell the image and was subsequently used in advertisement? Can the person sue or take legal action?
    Cheers
    Since you can't find the answers ....

    Any shot of any single individual or small group of individuals (generally less than 10 people) taken in a public or private location that is used for commercial purposes, eg: advertising, sold, leased or otherwise paid for must have a model release that is correctly worded and completed. Most advertising agencies will not accept work that doesn't have the appropriate model release.

    Exceptions: Shots that are of public interest These are shots that are taken of newsworthy events, eg: fire, accidents etc and are printed in newspapers or news based magazines (eg: Time), or are of shots of people who have high public profiles, for example, movie stars, singers, musicians, famous artists etc.

    Another exception is people participating in public sporting events as competitors, as a general rule no model release is needed unless the shots are being used for advertising and the individual can be identified. Identified means their face or other distinguishing marks are clearly visible adn they are not part of a larger group.

    Professional sports people have very talented lawyers who will generally sue the !@$ off any agency who tries to use shots of their clients without paying a suitable 'endoresement' fee.

    General
    If you are thinking of potential future commercial sale of shots, always get a mdoel release or releases. It's a pain the behind sometimes but it offers the photographer (and agency) a reasonable amount of legal protection in most cases.

    Having a model release is not a guarantee that you won't be successfully sued as there are a few lesser known provisions in most countries law with regards to the rights of the individual. One right particularly strongly enforced in most western countries is the use of a shot (with release) that demeans, ridicules or otherwise impunes or damages a person's reputation and good standing in the community.

    There have been several successful lawsuits internationally in the last few years regarding demeaning / ridiculing shots used commercially. As I recall, in each case it was due to the photographer / agency failing to disclose the intended purpose of the shot and or using the shot in a manner not specified and or aproved of by the model.
    Last edited by Ian; 12th March 2005 at 08:32 AM.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  10. #10

    Default

    Thanks guys for all the effort and time. I fully understood now!
    cheers. Happy shooting

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian
    Since you can't find the answers ....

    Any shot of any single individual or small group of individuals (generally less than 10 people) taken in a public or private location that is used for commercial purposes, eg: advertising, sold, leased or otherwise paid for must have a model release that is correctly worded and completed. Most advertising agencies will not accept work that doesn't have the appropriate model release.

    Exceptions: Shots that are of public interest These are shots that are taken of newsworthy events, eg: fire, accidents etc and are printed in newspapers or news based magazines (eg: Time), or are of shots of people who have high public profiles, for example, movie stars, singers, musicians, famous artists etc.

    Another exception is people participating in public sporting events as competitors, as a general rule no model release is needed unless the shots are being used for advertising and the individual can be identified. Identified means their face or other distinguishing marks are clearly visible adn they are not part of a larger group.

    Professional sports people have very talented lawyers who will generally sue the !@$ off any agency who tries to use shots of their clients without paying a suitable 'endoresement' fee.

    General
    If you are thinking of potential future commercial sale of shots, always get a mdoel release or releases. It's a pain the behind sometimes but it offers the photographer (and agency) a reasonable amount of legal protection in most cases.

    Having a model release is not a guarantee that you won't be successfully sued as there are a few lesser known provisions in most countries law with regards to the rights of the individual. One right particularly strongly enforced in most western countries is the use of a shot (with release) that demeans, ridicules or otherwise impunes or damages a person's reputation and good standing in the community.

    There have been several successful lawsuits internationally in the last few years regarding demeaning / ridiculing shots used commercially. As I recall, in each case it was due to the photographer / agency failing to disclose the intended purpose of the shot and or using the shot in a manner not specified and or aproved of by the model.
    Ian, very well said. Of all the discussions I've read around the net, yours seems to be the most concise, to the point answer. Thanks for posting here.

  12. #12
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    The only thing would be that the issue of model releases may not be relevant under Singapore laws

    Quote Originally Posted by singapurasteve
    Ian, very well said. Of all the discussions I've read around the net, yours seems to be the most concise, to the point answer. Thanks for posting here.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    The only thing would be that the issue of model releases may not be relevant under Singapore laws
    Given that Singapore's legal system is based on the British (English to be exact) system and from what little I know of the SG system, common law protection does prevail. If this is the case then model releases have a very valid legal footing. I'd like to hear from any SG based lawyers if my assumption above is incorrect.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •