facebook photos

[DazzyD]

this all seems to be getting a bit complicated lol

i suspect this particular lady has some reason for not being photographed at the party, maybe her husband didnt know she was going.

im still waiting back to hear from her, but if taking these photos is going to cause any further hassle, i might have to consider whether its worth the bother.

Not really. People nowadays are very protective of their privacy and feel that having their picture published, be it in print or on the web, is an invasion of their privacy. I would think that this is most likely to be the case.

Not everyone caught by the Google cam is a criminal but the majority are blurred as to be unrcognisable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelization

A familiar example of pixelization can be found in television news and documentary productions, in which vehicle license plates and faces of suspects at crime scenes are routinely obscured to maintain the presumption of innocence, as in the television series COPS. Bystanders and others who do not sign release forms are also customarily pixelized.


Steve

This is because this is part of Google's Privacy Policy. They are being proactive so as to avoid confrontation with members of the public who feel that they are having their privacy invaded in this way. There is no legal requirement on Google to do this but it is what they feel is the correct and right way to do things as a responsible company.

As for the pixelation in news programmes, this is a different matter altogether and the Wiki paragraph you have quoted explains the reasons.

But, to be fair, with talk about Google and news programmes, we have gone off on a tangent somewhat as these are very different scenarios from the OP.

[Corabar Steve]

But, to be fair, with talk about Google and news programmes, we have gone off on a tangent somewhat as these are very different scenarios from the OP.

Very true.

[DazzyD]

I would say that by posting the images on Facebook you are promoting your business and therefore you should look very carefully at this paragraph in the link you posted

"'You need a model release'. Model releases are not necessary for anything except photographs to be used for commercial purposes. For editorial or artistic purposes they have no relevance unless you intend defaming the subject and need them to make a contractual agreement not to sue you for libel. If you intend selling the image for marketing or advertising use that implies endorsement by the subject, then yes, you need a model release (or rather, the advertiser does)"

Steve

Just seen this bit. The T&Cs paragraph is fairly standard. However, we couldn't suggest for one minute that a photo of a busy dancefloor on a mobile disco web page implies endorsement of the disco by all the folk dancing. I don't see such pictures and think "Hmm, the lady in the red dress on the edge of the dancefloor is smiling as she is dancing so she must be recommending the disco and I should book them". That's a hell of an implication!

[Corabar Steve]

Just seen this bit. The T&Cs paragraph is fairly standard. However, we couldn't suggest for one minute that a photo of a busy dancefloor on a mobile disco web page implies endorsement of the disco by all the folk dancing. I don't see such pictures and think "Hmm, the lady in the red dress on the edge of the dancefloor is smiling as she is dancing so she must be recommending the disco and I should book them". That's a hell of an implication!

Another very good point. Some very selective highlighing in the original quote changes the context somewhat.

[BVD]

To be honest with everyone it does not really make much difference to me as my arena of work is different to the one being discussed here.

But remember "ignorance of the law is no defence".

I have attended seminars on the subject of model release forms, peoples implied permission etc and it is a minefield. I am no expert on the subject and sought legal advice on how it effected what I do and was basically told to cover my a*** because one law suite could destroy me financially.

You take your chances and if you really think it worth the risk of being sued for the sake of a few images, go ahead. Personally I would rather take the advice of a qualified expert rather than a barrack room lawyer any day of the week.

I have no axe to grind but would truly hate to see somebody caught out by these very complex laws with the resultant costs.

Please take my participation in the thread as trying to be helpful and not being a troll or just stirring it.

Cheers

Steve

[DazzyD]

To be honest with everyone it does not really make much difference to me as my arena of work is different to the one being discussed here.

But remember "ignorance of the law is no defence".

I have attended seminars on the subject of model release forms, peoples implied permission etc and it is a minefield. I am no expert on the subject and sought legal advice on how it effected what I do and was basically told to cover my a*** because one law suite could destroy me financially.

You take your chances and if you really think it worth the risk of being sued for the sake of a few images, go ahead. Personally I would rather take the advice of a qualified expert rather than a barrack room lawyer any day of the week.

I have no axe to grind but would truly hate to see somebody caught out by these very complex laws with the resultant costs.

Please take my participation in the thread as trying to be helpful and not being a troll or just stirring it.

Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve

From my POV, you're not coming across as a troll or trying to stir anything. I think you trying to be helpful and offering advice from your own point of view which is actually what the forum is all about.

However, whilst I wouldn't suggest for one minute that the privacy laws regarding the use of photograph imagery are not complex, I think the main issue is that they are contaminated by a lot of misinformation which makes them hazy. When Joe Public sees a company's privacy policy they immediately think "Oh, this must be law" when this is simply not the case. A point to illustrate this is that only today I attended my son and daughter's school's "Christmas Production" which was, in no uncertain terms, the school nativity play with a modern slant (it was really quite good!). At the start, the headmistress stood in front of everyone and told them there could be no photographs taken and everybody must turn off their mobile phones for this reason. She said it was "due to child protection laws". What utter rubbish! Only recentlyM (in the last couple of years), the Government released a statement to schools across the country urging them to stop preventing taking such photographs as parents have a right to take these photos as memories of such events. They advised the schools that the "laws" they were hiding behind didn't actually exist (well, they do but not in the way that schools are quoting them). The advice to schools was that any such decision to prohibit photo-taking was purely down to the school and they should make this clear to parents. Well, from my experience today it seems this advice isn't getting through.

So, what's my point? Well, you've stated:

But remember "ignorance of the law is no defence".

which is very true. However, that law (in terms of taking photos at private parties) doesn't exist. If it did, the Wedding Photography industry would be dead and buried.

Actually, we've been through this discussion before so it might be worth reading up on this thread as there's some interesting, and informative, linkys in there!

http://www.forum.mobilediscodirector...ighlight=photo

[DJ Jules]

I attended my son and daughter's school's "Christmas Production" which was, in no uncertain terms, the school nativity play with a modern slant (it was really quite good!). At the start, the headmistress stood in front of everyone and told them there could be no photographs taken and everybody must turn off their mobile phones for this reason. She said it was "due to child protection laws". What utter rubbish!

The school my kids go to are luckily, very clued up in this area. At the beginning of the performances the Head stands up and says - "Does any parent here object to their child being photographed?" If no-one objects (bearing in mind most parents are sat with their phones/cameras in hand - it never happens), then all parents are free to take photos. The head then always adds "Please bear in mind that any photographs taken should be for personal use only and should not be published in any public or commercial form - so please avoid posting photos of the children on Facebook".

Which is part legal requirement and partly just good advice as a lot of people still don't know how to use the privacy settings on Facebook properly

Julian

[djdave01]

ive now had a reply from the lady, out of 38 photos id posted, shes asked for 20 to be removed.

having had a chat with the hotel manager, ive decided to remove all the pictures, and im not going to take anymore at the christmas partys.

shame really, because plenty other people were 'liking' the photos

[BVD]

It is a pity one person can cause do much trouble.

I live in a holiday beach town. The police will actually question a single male photographer seen taking photos along the beach.



Steve

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Steve, I had to edit your post as this forum is indexed by Google and I don't wish to have that turning up as a phrase.