Legal question...?


Status
Not open for further replies.

MrRempls

New Member
Nov 2, 2009
4
0
0
#1
Hey... I recently hosted an event where the local media came in and took pictures without permission, and then displayed them on their site giving improper credit to those involved. Meaning that they gave credit to some people that were in NO WAY involved with the event.

We did have contracted photographers on site who were paid for their services. Who were also asked not to publicly display any photos that were taken, but they were just asked to give them all to us for us to go through and decide what could be displayed.

There are some minors in the photo's that were taken by the media. This was technically a private event. There was a cover charge.

Does anybody here know what sort of legal action I might be able to take? I know the media person involved and she is not going to let this go lightly. I have already contacted the publication via email and the photographers asking them to please take the pictures down from their site. So far I have not received a response.
 

CS TAN

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2007
3,663
0
0
Hong Kong
#2
If you are serious about this, better go to a proper legal firm and engage their service rather than come here. The advice you receive here might or might not be valid and you don't want to risk that in case you are going to sue the other party.
 

eosandy

New Member
Sep 14, 2008
842
0
0
Land of smiles
#3
Seek a professional legal consultation as CS Tan says to avoid ambiguity.

To a lay-person like myself, it does sounds like you have a case.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#4
try to gather evidence too.
If they remove the images from the site after the suit is filed, then .... how?
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#6
Best is to seek professional legal advise.

However, some questions come to mind ... if the area was condoned off and secured, with a cover charge imposed, who let the media in (were they uninvited or invited?) and why were they allowed to stay long enough (if uninvited), and why were they not stopped when they started shooting, or was this private event held in an area open to public scrutiny? If prior knowledge informs that privacy and non-publication or strictly controlled publication was a requirement at this event, how did the lapse in arrangements and security happen?
 

MrRempls

New Member
Nov 2, 2009
4
0
0
#7
I do not want to have to sue them. I would rather they just take them down. But what I would like to know is the legal aspect of the situation?

What I am gathering thus far is that they are in the wrong completely.


Is that what everybody here is saying?

Also... I have taken a screen shot of the page where everything is displayed, so I have the evidence.

"if the area was condoned off and secured, with a cover charge imposed, who let the media in (were they uninvited or invited?) and why were they allowed to stay long enough (if uninvited), and why were they not stopped when they started shooting, or was this private event held in an area open to public scrutiny? If prior knowledge informs that privacy and non-publication or strictly controlled publication was a requirement at this event, how did the lapse in arrangements and security happen?"

Security at the door let them in. They came unannounced. They were not invited. They didn't come as "media" and the pictures were not taken with an obvious camera. It had to be a pocket camera, and its easy to tell by the quality.

I have worked with these people before and the last time they did contact me, and ask permission etc... I was totally ok with it, but I had a security guy follow them around the entire time they were there.

It wasn't that there was any sort of lapse, it was them trying to be sneaky about it. They were unnoticed and it's hard to point out people in that are in costume surrounded by 1000+ other people.
 

Last edited:

artspraken

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,563
0
0
#8
Your description is not clear enough for a meaningful assessment unfortunately. First question is what loss/damage have you suffered as a result of the impugned acts. If you can answer this question, you will know whether your case is worth paying legal fees.

Next question is who holds the copyright to the pictures. This can be either the photographer or the website owner, depending whether (i) the photographer license the pictures to the website, or (ii) assign the copyright of the pictures to the website. Depending on who owns copyright, you go and chase that party. This is because the holder of copyright controls the right to display the pictures.

Next question is what cause do you have to ask for the pictures to be removed from display. In this regard, it is not clear what problem you have with minors. It is also not clear what exactly is "improper credit". I mean, if people who were not involved are credited, does that cause you damage? Can you show that loss/damage?

If you can answer the above, you will be more equipped when you see a lawyer.

Pls do not regard the above as legal advice. It is simple advice to help you structure your thoughts to prepare you when you see a lawyer.

In future, if photographs are disallowed at an event, and you see people carrying cameras, please tell them to leave. If they persist in staying with their cameras to take photos, they will be trespassing and you may put them on notice of such. Depending on the situation, if you have bouncers available you may use them to take reasonable steps to eject the trespassers.
 

Last edited:

MrRempls

New Member
Nov 2, 2009
4
0
0
#9
For obvious reasons I am not going to publicly state some of the answers to the above questions, but my concern about the minors is that from what I have read on other sites it is not lawful to photograph minors without parental consent.

The improper credit was that they are stating that certain performers were there to perform but were not.

It's like saying Metallica played last night when it was really Guns N Roses.... Get that?

They gave credit to a promoter that was not at all involved.

The media web site that the pictures were posted on is for profit. They have advertising all over their site, so essentially they are profiting from the use of the pictures. We hire photographers and do eventually post up the pictures weeks after the event, and do so solely on our website. That alone typically gets us 15,000 hits in a 1-2 week period once we post them up.
 

artspraken

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,563
0
0
#10
there are no image rights to singapore. this means if paparazzi take pics of your event, the copyright to those pics may be freely used by the paparazzi at their discretion subject to certain general legal constraints (eg. cannot be obscene etc etc). singapore law follows the general position that the photographer is creator of copyright and therefore has control over it.

you can, however, probably argue trepass if you can show the photographers were asked to leave but failed, neglected or refuse to leave.

depending on ur lawyer, he may consider economic torts, or maybe harassment. the difficulty is to prove how there is loss accruing to you as a result of certain photos displayed on another website, and how to quantify that loss. if their credit to a promoter causes u economic loss, then u may have arguable case, subject to rules against damage being too remote.
 

Last edited:

MrRempls

New Member
Nov 2, 2009
4
0
0
#11
Thank you to the above post...


However, my attorney just got back to me and feels as though there is tons of merit here and will be perusing the case.

I am not seeking any monetary compensation I just want the pictures taken down.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#12
For obvious reasons I am not going to publicly state some of the answers to the above questions, but my concern about the minors is that from what I have read on other sites it is not lawful to photograph minors without parental consent.

The improper credit was that they are stating that certain performers were there to perform but were not.

It's like saying Metallica played last night when it was really Guns N Roses.... Get that?

They gave credit to a promoter that was not at all involved.

The media web site that the pictures were posted on is for profit. They have advertising all over their site, so essentially they are profiting from the use of the pictures. We hire photographers and do eventually post up the pictures weeks after the event, and do so solely on our website. That alone typically gets us 15,000 hits in a 1-2 week period once we post them up.
Get a lawyer to write them a letter to remove the pictures. See if they budge. A lot will, when they see a lawyer letter.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom