Photography legal rights?

[icer]

Hi all,

Just have some questions on the legal rights when it comes to taking photos.

1) If we took pics of people without asking their permission? do we have the rights to post them on the web or develop them for use? Does it matter whether if the person is recognisable on the photo? Like sometimes we took the back view of someone or just the silhoutte.

2) When we post photos on our gallery or blog, can other surfers print them or use them? Heard that so long as we change the photos in one way or another, we will not be liable legally. Like flipping the photo or crop it. True?

;p

 

[blurblock]

Hi all,

Just have some questions on the legal rights when it comes to taking photos.

1) If we took pics of people without asking their permission? do we have the rights to post them on the web or develop them for use? Does it matter whether if the person is recognisable on the photo? Like sometimes we took the back view of someone or just the silhoutte.

No, you don't have the right unless he/she signed a model release form for [bold]specific [/bold] assignment.

Yes, it does matter if the person can be recoginsed in the photograph

Backview still recognisable, not silhoutte, how to recongise?

2) When we post photos on our gallery or blog, can other surfers print them or use them? Heard that so long as we change the photos in one way or another, we will not be liable legally. Like flipping the photo or crop it. True? ;p[/QUOTE]

No, they can't print them or use them. But seriously, if he really print them, as long as iti is for own consumpation, I guess you cannot really catch him right, but if he use your photograph, even if he turn it upside down, it is still your picture. If he use it, he should be the one liable legally ..... you can even sue him for infringing your copyright

 

[sehsuan]

icer, you want to check this out?

http://sehsuan.clubsnap.org/copyright

for your info, the group mentioned in this page of mine has sent me an apology letter, and i accepted it.

 

[Minoxman]

Hi all,

Just have some questions on the legal rights when it comes to taking photos.

1) If we took pics of people without asking their permission? do we have the rights to post them on the web or develop them for use? Does it matter whether if the person is recognisable on the photo? Like sometimes we took the back view of someone or just the silhoutte.

2) When we post photos on our gallery or blog, can other surfers print them or use them? Heard that so long as we change the photos in one way or another, we will not be liable legally. Like flipping the photo or crop it. True?

;p

I went to the zoo recently and I asked the tiger for a model release.

 

[blurblock]

I went to the zoo recently and I asked the tiger for a model release.

Uncle / Auntie ..... we are talking about human lah ...... you might be on the same league as a tiger, but we are not.......

 

[quekky]

i heard from somewhere that it is ok to modify someone's image more than 75% then use it as your own. i'm not so sure about the law so could someone correct me

streetdirectory actually sued some company coz they copy streetdirectory's map and use on their site (obviously with little modification). just be very careful when anyone is going to use something off other website

 

[icer]

I went to the zoo recently and I asked the tiger for a model release.

If that is the case, I am doomed. I never asked those spiders, monitor lizards, grasshoppers, tortoises, squirrels, dragonfly, birds for their permission.
How how??? :sweat:

Anyway, now with internet, copyrights are really a thin line to draw. YOu see, I can copy a picture from another website and post on my own website. For instance, it's a superstar's photo. But this photo can also be reproduced in printing by shops and was sold to me. I can scan the same photo and put it on my website. Anything wrong? I bought the photo, so I got the rights?

 

[sehsuan]

i heard from somewhere that it is ok to modify someone's image more than 75% then use it as your own. i'm not so sure about the law so could someone correct me

streetdirectory actually sued some company coz they copy streetdirectory's map and use on their site (obviously with little modification). just be very careful when anyone is going to use something off other website

quekky, then where would the *source* of the "your photo" be from, if you were challenged?

please read my earlier posting in this thread.

 

[sehsuan]

If that is the case, I am doomed. I never asked those spiders, monitor lizards, grasshoppers, tortoises, squirrels, dragonfly, birds for their permission.
How how??? :sweat:

Anyway, now with internet, copyrights are really a thin line to draw. YOu see, I can copy a picture from another website and post on my own website. For instance, it's a superstar's photo. But this photo can also be reproduced in printing by shops and was sold to me. I can scan the same photo and put it on my website. Anything wrong? I bought the photo, so I got the rights?

the photos you bought are actually only the reproduction rights to it (and only one instance) from the original photographer if it's not digitally stolen, and the artiste can countersue the photographer for selling photos that can distinctly tell the photo was of him/her. confusing? sure is. i'm very sure there are more people who know of all these, but have not read this thread yet.

 

[acetylcholine]

so waht shld i do when i take pictures of others ? with regards to copyrights

 

[sehsuan]

so waht shld i do when i take pictures of others ? with regards to copyrights

the legal copyrights to the photo are yours to own, but if the person can be distinctly identified in the photo, he/she may be able to countersue for invasion of privacy. but locally, generally most people are "bochup" about it, but doesn't mean that you are 100% safe.

 

[acetylcholine]

so when i take a pic where a person can be identified, i own the photos as in, w/o my permission no one can use it ? then the person in the pic has the right to del the pics ?

 

[sehsuan]

so when i take a pic where a person can be identified, i own the photos as in, w/o my permission no one can use it ? then the person in the pic has the right to del the pics ?

wah, damned tricky situation.

as far as i understand personally, you are free to own the photo, but you are not allowed to publish it. it's a special case for editorial photography (aka newspapers), but that's something i dont think i will have a chance to delve into

 

[StreetShooter]

I went to the zoo recently and I asked the tiger for a model release.

Did he ask for any Cash in return?

 

[sehsuan]

Did he ask for any Cash in return?

must have been cash, Blood Money

yes, blood money as the kind mentioned in the newspapers

 

[Prismatic]

This is what I gathered from a public seminar a while back:
Let say you take a picture of someone on the street.You can take her/his picture and post the picture on YOUR own website for private purposes. However, you cannot publish the picture in any media from which monetary gains are made. This include you or any other third parties. Meaning, you cannot sell off that particular photo to be published anywhere without a model release. And strictly speaking, you can't use that picture in your own porfolio, as it is considered an endorsement of a product (ie. your skill). But this area is a bit hard to regulate.

It's prefectly fine to photograph anyone on PUBLIC premises, it's hard to build a case of invasion of privacy when you are in a place where the public can see the same thing that you photographed.

 

[tunster]

Below is my stand, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it is ok to publish photos which are shot in "public". My understanding of "public" is somewhere that can be access or be seen freely by other not related persons. e.g. Beaches and Parks. Since the subject (a person or persons) is obviously in the public, they are meant to be seen. So what's wrong with their photo published? Unless they are doing something wrong which are not suppose to be happening in the public isn't it? Perhaps places which are sensitive enough like public toilets to be excluded in this case. But I don't see any "privacy" in "public" places.

 

[Prismatic]

Below is my stand, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it is ok to publish photos which are shot in "public". My understanding of "public" is somewhere that can be access or be seen freely by other not related persons. e.g. Beaches and Parks. Since the subject (a person or persons) is obviously in the public, they are meant to be seen. So what's wrong with their photo published? Unless they are doing something wrong which are not suppose to be happening in the public isn't it? Perhaps places which are sensitive enough like public toilets to be excluded in this case. But I don't see any "privacy" in "public" places.

The crux here is the nature of what you mean by publishing. If it's simply a post on your own website or porfolio, then it shouldn't be a problem. But however, if you are making monetary gains from the pictures, let say, by selling the picture to a stock agency or using it in a print ad, then you need to have to have a model release for your subject. The reason being, you owe your subject a part of your monetary gains because your picture would not have sold if the subject hasn't been in the picture, would it? So you are need to have a contract stating the right of claim of the subject. Though it's an highly debatable case anyway, photographers just work with model releases to avoid any possible trouble.

 

[leebl]

one question. What if your subject is a pet that someone owns ? Is a model released required if the pet was shot at a public place/event ? Tks.

 

[icer]

Ok,

Thanks for all the active postings. Do give more info for those who knows the legality of photography.

At least I know a few things now;

1) If I take a pic of you in public, I should be able to use the photos in my websites or posting.

2) But I can't use it for monetary gains unless I have a model release.

3) If I take a pic of you and very sure it is not recognisable, I should be able to use it for any purposes.

Ok, what if using the photos for competition purposes, do we need a model release?? You know those competitions we often see photos with old people, young children or even Samsui women. Are you sure they have model release? Dun think so right?? So for competition it's okie?? And normally the organisors will say that they have the rights to use the photos for publishing purposes. So can they be sued by the Samsui women?