egafd.com

This is a bit of a strange one but I could do with picking some brains as I know that model releases are not actually as concreet as they seem. Also to disapoint this is none porn related.

My sister got married a few weeks ago and was contacted by one of the guest who has sudenly decided to start a wedding photography bussiness and wanted to put some of the pics he had taken of them on his new site. At the time they had no idea he was doing this. He said he'd send a release over for signing and send a disc as a present. - The pictures were terrible and when they checked the site, not only were the pictures of them already up but so were lots of the rest of the guests including children. Now my sister is a primary teacher and her husband is a trainee lawyer so neither can really afford for this to go wrong (also not to chuffed about being on the web with a porn star, how rude).

So where do they stand legally do you think? I assume that because they were unaware the pictures were being taken for any reason other than because you take pictures at a wedding they can get them removed but does the photographer own the pictures or the subject as I know from watching this board that this is a bit of a grey area.

In other news im taking alot of home bookings at the moment (im still happy to travel for good work) and because the weathe ris picking up the stable location I have is up for hire to so if you fancy a trip to Leeds or are feeling brave and want to get a derbyshire tan at the yar give us a buzz xx - masiedee@googlemail.com xx

Hiya Masie

As far as I am aware, if your sister signed a model release, then her picture may be used for whatever purpose the photographer wishes because he owns the image. This said there are a couple of potential get out clauses, did everyone in the pictures sign a model release? Because as you know everyone has to for it to be valid (i.e. did both Mr & Mrs sign a release) if not he cannot use them. In group pictures if one person didn?t sign that scuppers his plans.

Did the other guests or if under 18 their parents sign releases if not he cannot use them ...if your sister signed a release stating the he could photograph the whole day did he display signs warning the guests, maybe you can argue that, as at concerts when they film and take pictures of the audience then warnings have to be displayed before you enter (don?t like it don?t come in)if not maybe individuals can complain and get them removed.

I don?t know how it would hold up in court but according to my basic knowledge he owns the image but may not be able to use them if he didn?t get the paperwork right for every person.

Hope some of that helps

James

Model releases are only signed for the US 2257. try arguing this in a court of law in the UK and you will find the releases mean nothing other than serve as proof of age and consent to the BBFC at the very least.

If said porn star is in civil attire then who is to say her presence is questionable among young children? The fact she is a porn star is circumstantial

I think the easiest thing is to ask that person politely for the pics to simply be removed but I wouldnt waste time threatening legal action if there is no impropriety going on other than the fact your sister simply doesnt like the pics

However, if there is no money involved then the permission can be reversed but if they decide to keep it then prepare to fall out.

The model release as contract only works if money changes hands otherwise it can be disputed.

In summation: prepare to fall out as disagreements like this usually end up going that way.

Bear in mind there is also fair use but ultimately if it was me I would imply just remove the pics if not paid for.

James - you are confusing good practice withn law.

Law does not require a model release, (or even the agreement or knowledge of the subject), nor does it protect children per se, nor does it require signage.

All it does is enshrine a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in non public spaces, which is of course entirely context driven, and how that works is down to Judges...

Copyright is always the photographers, even if he can't use it as intended.

This famous image made the photographer a mint, and he didn't even know who was in it, let alone have their permission .... (ok, so it's American, but the point stands....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E2%80%93 ... mes_Square

Thanks guys, this is what i thought, but Its always worth checking in with your legal brains xxx

When I was in the military I was told that the copyright belonged to the person who pressed the trigger of the camera.

I and every other photog gave up copyright of any photo taken while serving.

And Masie, I certainly would love to get a tan with you again at the stable, maybe get someone else to join us?

Also there is no need to get others to sign or consent for underage is shot in a public place.

I notice some tv companies do not require a consent release now for the simple fact you are addressing the camera ia consent enough in itself and sinc ethey shoot mostly on public property protects them even more.

The reason why people in porn need it is mainly to prove the performers were of age at the time of shooting

My understanding of it is slightly different and also comes from, a predominantly, TV background (and is not necassarily correct!).

Copyright is with the photographer or the person who pays them

If you use someone's image for gain or publication you should get a release signed, however I think if you are in a public place you are legally allowed to photograph anyone.

If the pictures give a feel that the people in the pics new they were being photographed and did not complain, there is a strong case for implied consent (easier to prove on video).

Bloody minefield that is often ignored until it bites you in the bum.

Lesson to learn? Sort these things out in advance and if you have any concerns about your image being used don't trust anyone with a camera.

I would say that if he has crap pictures up and is using them to promote himself he won't last long anyway.

It reminds me of a friend who gave her pics to a high street photo processor and then saw herself blown up to life-size in the shop window in her bikini (she was lush), even such a blatant act of copyright theft was just ignored, these cases are just not worth the hassle.

AT the same time if it affects you and yours it must be a real pain. x

Ask hiwatt, he'll know for sure !