If the pictures will be used commercially

[Steve Randles]

In the context that alibee is discussing, she is quite correct. I have model release forms in my camera bag should I ever take a shot that would be marketable in my view.

 

Journalists pretty much have free rein when it comes to selling their work. But you are right Elton, the moment you take the shot you have the copyright to it. Even after enquiries on pro forums the law is still quite vague and its interpretation even more so.

[Guest allibee]

In the context that alibee is discussing, she is quite correct. I have model release forms in my camera bag should I ever take a shot that would be marketable in my view.

 

Journalists pretty much have free rein when it comes to selling their work. But you are right Elton, the moment you take the shot you have the copyright to it. Even after enquiries on pro forums the law is still quite vague and its interpretation even more so.

 

 

Hi guys, reportage is completely different and anyone/thing is fair game so maybe Newts book could be argued as reportage

 

No one is debating who owns the copyright to the shot I think Elton, just whether the person within it has to/needs to give their permission - remember this is a sue/sue world of litigation we live in today

 

the best answer is for Newt to knock up his own simple model release/consent form and err on the side of caution

 

For example a picture that was taken of me fishing was nearly used within a publication I had absolutely no wish to be in. Fortunately i found out about it before it went to press and kicked up a stink until they removed it. had they not removed it, against my explicit request and wishes, I would have have plenty of grounds for suing them ... which i made sure they knew

 

sadly the world of angling photography a very grey area with people adding photos to their publications/websites from wherever they happen to nick them from and because no one knows the difference they can get away with using the pictures in whatever way they want. in the real outside world you would never get away with that ... not suggesting Newt would at all, but as the largest participation sport in the country, you would think someone would know the definative answer!

[chesters1]

i have a great picture of a lady angler (famouse surname) using an intrepid reel ,despite asking all my contacts they cannot remember the photographer nor do any of the printers used by morritt at the time exist today (unless their names changed) if i took a picture of the picture who would have the copyright

[poledark]

Alibee, can you enlarge on "the grounds for suing" please. Do you mean you would try to claim damages for something??

Just interested.

 

And what would you have done had you found out some time after publication of your picture?

 

Steve, what is the legal difference between a journalist and myself, who has sold a few articles and pics?

 

Den

Edited January 25, 2006 by poledark

[Steve Randles]

Den, have a read of Lid's 2nd link in post 6. I read it the other day (for the tenth time I think) and its as clear as mud to me. But somewhere in their journalists can claim their activities as reportage.

 

Stock photography needs model (and building) release forms because of its international marketability, as other countires expect these by law. Its not yet law in this country.

 

But any picture you take in public is immediately copyrighted in your name and can be used as you wish, commecially or not...but only in the UK.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Steve Randles

[Guest allibee]

Alibee, can you enlarge on "the grounds for suing" please. Do you mean you would try to claim damages for something??

Just interested.

 

And what would you have done had you found out some time after publication of your picture?

 

Steve, what is the legal difference between a journalist and myself, who has sold a few articles and pics?

 

Den

 

the photo was not only used without my consent, it was used out of context and altered so yes, as it would be humiliating and damaging to me personally, i would have sued their ar5es to high heaven

[Guest allibee]

i have a great picture of a lady angler (famouse surname) using an intrepid reel ,despite asking all my contacts they cannot remember the photographer nor do any of the printers used by morritt at the time exist today (unless their names changed) if i took a picture of the picture who would have the copyright

 

the estate of whoever took the pic originally - surely the woman in the pic or here family would know - but the 70 year rule may apply ... no idea

actually - you would own the copyright to the pic of the pic, but your pic would be an infringement of the original copyright holder

 

what a lush question - how long is a piece of string

Edited January 25, 2006 by allibee

[chesters1]

what a lush question - how long is a piece of string

thats easy its twice as long as one end to the middle.

the lady in question is Grace Oglesby (no doupt a relation to Arthur???) whether she still survives i have no idea

i have also a huge amount of the original photo's of the intrepid reels used in the catalogues and advertising and promotional photo's of the reel making process,and a huge box of the BFR negatives and related goods ,unfortunatly without knowing the photographer its all going to be unuseable in my book and thus hidden away to all but my eyes

Edited January 25, 2006 by chesters1

[Guest allibee]

not necessarily - the photographer may have passed/sold the copyright to intrepid - inwhich case you should approach them - they may well want to buy them off you. if they claim copyright ask for written proof

[chesters1]

intrepid died in 1980 and BFR last year,it was BFR going to a chinese company that diverted the photo's from the skip to me

Edited January 25, 2006 by chesters1