• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

photography question concerning rights and ownership of pictures

high impact

New Member
Is it legal for a photography studio to post personally identifiable images on the internet for promotional and marketing use with no written permission from the customer?

What rights does the photographer have and what rights does the customer have inregards to the actual photo taken?
 

GK

New Member
No, typically a model release/liability waiver needs to be issued and signed.
 

high impact

New Member
so...by the using the logic that the photographer owns the negatives, the photographer can do what he/she pleases with them electronically with no contract?

If you can't tell I've found myself in the middle of a situation where a photographer I know very well posted photos of someone on the internet I know very well with no agreement and the photos were very private.
 

Checkers

New Member
It's a gray area because the image by itself is copyright protected. However, since the subject is being used for advertising purposes without consent, it could be a violation.

Check out "Personal Rights Issues" here...
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/photos.html

So, your best answer will come from a qualified attorney.

Checkers
 

high impact

New Member
I have consulted the attorney and he agrees that it is a violation which could most likely "win" in court (I am not the subject or business owner by the way). I was hoping for something a little more clear cut than an attorneys "best observation" for when I sit down and meet with this business owner and their involvement in my non-profit organization.

My research has indicated that it appears the composition is much more the copyright protected issue than the individual themselves. It appears that a photographer is really setting themselves up for a legal issue if they do not have written permission to use. The reality is that you had better really trust the photographer AND have a clear cut contract if you are getting pictures taken that could be embarrassing if they were released to the public.
 

Grafix USA

New Member
Here's the reality of use of photos by a photographer. 2 main areas of clarification; if the subject in the photo had their photos taken by said photographer I'm sure there was some sort of "contract" signed by the subject. Almost ALL photographer include that verbage in their contract that allows them to use the images for their promotion. Second, if the subject in the photo was not shot as part of an authorized shoot then they could be entitled to payment if the images are being used in a commercial way, if editiorial, no compensation.

I hope that helps. What are the details of the situation you are speaking of. I can probably answer a little better with more details.
 

Grafix USA

New Member
You own the "Prints" the photographer owns the "Negatives".

Actually, you only own the prints sold by the photographer. The photographer owns the "negatives" or digital files unless otherwise agreed.

When someone has "private" images taken they can definitely negotiate a rate to buy all rights to the images and all copies, hard or digital.
 

solock

New Member
Unless the photographer is in a "work for hire" situation they own the copyright to the images made. The photographer working for the local sears portrait studio is in a work for hire situation, and sears portrait studio (actually CPI Corp) owns the rights to the image. You purchase limited rights from the photographer, $40 for an 11x14 , $500 to use on a billboard, $2000 for a million print magazine run etc. But he owns the image. You cannot copy the print you bought and therefore duplicate the image without purchasing the rights to do so. Yes you can copy it but we're talking legally here.

As the owner of the image the photographer, with really no permission needed can use the image that he owns the rights to to promote his business as he sees fit. If that means that usage in his studio for samples hanging on the wall or in a sample book, he has the rights to do so. He cant sell prints as that invades your privacy, but usage on a website slideshow is also a premitted use.

He further solifidied this usage in the contract you likely signed when you bought his services, but even without the wording in the contract, he can use it for self promotion.

Now any photographer I know usually goes out of the way to inform the subject that he wishes to use said images for promotion and with rare exception gets the permission for the cost of the $40.00 11x14 (his cost $4) or some similar low cost trade.

In the scope of copyright, this same thing applies to every one of your designs that you make. They are yours, you are the artist, you posess the copyright. Most may be derivative works featuring an image, a graphic, and a font or element of type but its your work and your copyright. When a customer takes your design and has another shop print it as is, you have been stolen from.
 

solock

New Member
Also, any photographer that is a decent person would immediately remove any photo that bothered the subject or their subjects guardians/parents. If you ask, they should remove the image. An irritated customer can do far more damage than any single proof they feature as a sample can help them.
 

solock

New Member
I just caught that the nature was "very private". There have been numerous cases that if you were party to the "private" event (viewee) and took photos, and the person who is the subject of said images knew that photos were being taken, then they have allowed the "violation" of their privacy. Even when they arent husband and wife, their usually is no consequences to sharing the images. Selling, something different, but posting on a public website or sharing the images with friends is usually under the "expectation of privacy" and if you knew you were naked and knew that there was a picture being taken, and you didnt get covered up, then you had no expectation of privacy.
 

ddarlak

Go Bills!
just take a bat over there and beat the livin crap out of him....then take his picture and post it on the internet...

we need a little more of this today...
 

Rooster

New Member
Without a model release he cannot use the images for any commercial purpose. Including self-promotion.

Often these releases are found in the oddest spots. Like the back of a ticket for a sporting event or concert. Where you waive your rights to any photos that should happen to include you or your image taken at that event.

If he cannot produce either the waiver or a model release contract. Then he cannot legally use them.
 
Top