Technology8 mins ago
photographs
7 Answers
who owns the right to a photgraph, just a normal(ish) personal one? What if someone had access to a picture of you and they distibuted it even though you didnt want them to?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Goodsoulette. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry Kempie, but I just read that link and it made my head spin. And in the end it still didn't clarify the issue lol.
I know that as far as professional photographers (weddings, portraits, press) are concerned the copyright is in the hands of the photographer, but unsure about others like holiday pics etc.
Still doesn't really anwer the question though.....
I know that as far as professional photographers (weddings, portraits, press) are concerned the copyright is in the hands of the photographer, but unsure about others like holiday pics etc.
Still doesn't really anwer the question though.....
Also found this :
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198 80048_en_2.htm#mdiv11
Still isn't clear though - it appears that a photo is classed as an 'artistic work' but the act is not specific on WHEN copyright exists as there is no mention of personal family type pics. Sorry, but hope it helps a bit.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198 80048_en_2.htm#mdiv11
Still isn't clear though - it appears that a photo is classed as an 'artistic work' but the act is not specific on WHEN copyright exists as there is no mention of personal family type pics. Sorry, but hope it helps a bit.
Copyright in a photograph is normally held by the photographer. However, if he takes the photograph in the course of his employment, copyright will be held by the employer.
In general, a copyright owner has the right to show a photograph when and where he likes (including by publication in print or by placing it on a website) and to distribute it to whomever he likes. (There are, of course, legal restrictions relating to such things as official secrets and pornography but your question makes it clear that you're not asking about such matters).
Where an image is used for commercial purposes, photographers are advised to obtain a signed 'model release form' from people who appear as individuals (rather than, say, as a member of a crowd) in their pictures. This is because such people may have the legal right to prohibit the use of their image or to receive payment for such use. (In general, this doesn't normally have much to do with 'the man in the street'. It's primarily to stop advertisers from using an image of, say, Tony Blair or Andrew Flintoff, in their promotions, without permission).
In some circumstances, it can be argued that when a photograph is taken on private property, the owner of that property either owns the copyright or has the right to control publication and distribution. (This normally applies, say, to photographs taken in stately homes or within commercial premises. It's unlikely that, say, a woman who allowed her boyfriend to take her photograph in her own home, could exercise any legal rights over the image, unless he sought to use it for commercial purposes).
If we put aside some of the specific restrictions mentioned above, a photographer normally holds the copyright in a photograph and has the right to distribute it. For example, If I stand on the public footpath and take a photograph of you in your garden, I have every right to show that photograph to anyone I choose and
In general, a copyright owner has the right to show a photograph when and where he likes (including by publication in print or by placing it on a website) and to distribute it to whomever he likes. (There are, of course, legal restrictions relating to such things as official secrets and pornography but your question makes it clear that you're not asking about such matters).
Where an image is used for commercial purposes, photographers are advised to obtain a signed 'model release form' from people who appear as individuals (rather than, say, as a member of a crowd) in their pictures. This is because such people may have the legal right to prohibit the use of their image or to receive payment for such use. (In general, this doesn't normally have much to do with 'the man in the street'. It's primarily to stop advertisers from using an image of, say, Tony Blair or Andrew Flintoff, in their promotions, without permission).
In some circumstances, it can be argued that when a photograph is taken on private property, the owner of that property either owns the copyright or has the right to control publication and distribution. (This normally applies, say, to photographs taken in stately homes or within commercial premises. It's unlikely that, say, a woman who allowed her boyfriend to take her photograph in her own home, could exercise any legal rights over the image, unless he sought to use it for commercial purposes).
If we put aside some of the specific restrictions mentioned above, a photographer normally holds the copyright in a photograph and has the right to distribute it. For example, If I stand on the public footpath and take a photograph of you in your garden, I have every right to show that photograph to anyone I choose and
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Home & Garden9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Body & Soul21 mins ago
