facebook photos

[djdave01]

for the last few months, ive been taking photos at selected gigs, some are used for our website, some end up on our facebook page.

at private events, ive always told the client in advance that this might happen, and have mentioned on the mic several times that the photos taken may be used online. in most cases there has been no problems, only once has a client asked for photos not to be used. It also states in my T & C's that photos might be used.

at a recent christmas party, having mentioned on the mic several times about it, photos were taken and some are now on facebook.

last night, i recieved an email from a lady who attended the party. She is demanding that i remove the photos from facebook and is threating legal action if i dont. she states that i didnt mention anything about facebook until right at the end, which is wrong. i mentioned it several times.

Im going to ask her to identify which photos shes in, and i'll remove those photos, but im wondering where i legally stand on this. am i supposed to get written consent from everyone at the event, or is telling them over the mic enough?

[mattydinx]

I'd just simply take the photos she doesn't approve of down - Although technically you don't have to!

http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking

[Corabar Entertainment]

To answer your own question: do you think that a newspaper contacts every person in a group shot to ask for permission to publish a photo before they go to print? Or, for that matter, never mind group photos, do you think that celebrities give permission for all those candid shots?

If the organiser hasn't objected, and you've got it in your T&Cs, I can't see that they would have a legal leg to stand on, but from a PR POV, you're doing the right thing by removing.

[Vectis]

The grey area here is whether by whacking them online you are exploiting them for commercial purposes. In which case model releases should be sought.

My opinion is that technically, uploading to a mobile disco page ("Hey - book my great disco") on Facebook is a breach. Uploading to a personal page ("Hey - look at this great party I went to") is not.

Sounds like you already know what to do ;)

[Corabar Steve]

The grey area here is whether by whacking them online you are exploiting them for commercial purposes. In which case model releases should be sought.
Wouldn't newspapers be in the same boat then? Surely a photo in the paper is there for commercial purposes, yet they don't seek releases from everyone in a crowd shot.

[Corabar Entertainment]

The grey area here is whether by whacking them online you are exploiting them for commercial purposes. In which case model releases should be sought.

My opinion is that technically, uploading to a mobile disco page ("Hey - book my great disco") on Facebook is a breach. Uploading to a personal page ("Hey - look at this great party I went to") is not.

Sounds like you already know what to do ;)I've considered the 'model releases / commercial aspect before, and, IMO, most general disco shots of gigs you've done don't breach.

[Vectis]

Wouldn't newspapers be in the same boat then? Surely a photo in the paper is there for commercial purposes, yet they don't seek releases from everyone in a crowd shot.

By "grey area" I meant that if there was one piece of the photographers code that a particularly arsey client might pursue, it would be that one.

[Corabar Entertainment]

By "grey area" I meant that if there was one piece of the photographers code that a particularly arsey client might pursue, it would be that one.

Agree completely with that! :)

[hammy]

My T&C`s sate that photos taken during the event will be used for web advertising etc etc, And also the usual "if you have a problem then I wont take them.

[djdave01]

ive now contacted the lady and await her responce. I'll remove the ones she asks me to, and will make more of a point of telling the crowds about facebook photos in future.

[Vectis]

will make more of a point of telling the crowds about facebook photos in future.

I wouldn't bother on two counts:

1. You have the organiser's permission (even if by way of an unread T or C)

2. You're there on behalf of your host(s), not to promote your own business. It's their special day, not your marketing opportunity.

[Corabar Entertainment]

I wouldn't bother on two counts:

1. You have the organiser's permission (even if by way of an unread T or C)

2. You're there on behalf of your host(s), not to promote your own business. It's their special day, not your marketing opportunity.Again, completely agree. Actually, you're probably inviting trouble making announcements.

[DazzyD]

The grey area here is whether by whacking them online you are exploiting them for commercial purposes. In which case model releases should be sought.

My opinion is that technically, uploading to a mobile disco page ("Hey - book my great disco") on Facebook is a breach. Uploading to a personal page ("Hey - look at this great party I went to") is not.

Sounds like you already know what to do ;)

As always, Martin is pretty much spot on. Taking the photos is not the problem (certainly not illegal) but what you then do with the images is significant. It they are purely personal then then there's no problem at all. If you are using them for commercial gain or to promote a commercial venture then it's not so straight forward. The reason being is that, in theory at least, a person owns the "intellectual property rights" for their own image and they can, to some extent, pick and choose what their image is used for. Some people might take offence at you using their picture to promote your business. I think, though, that most people couldn't care less. Some folk even get excited when they see their picture in print / on the website and tell their friends (good marketing opportunity!! ;) ).

An alternative to removing the offending pics is to pixelate, or obscure in another way, the image of the complainant. That way, you've taken action to rectify their complaint and they can't really take further action on the matter.



I wouldn't bother on two counts:

1. You have the organiser's permission (even if by way of an unread T or C)

2. You're there on behalf of your host(s), not to promote your own business. It's their special day, not your marketing opportunity.


Again, completely agree. Actually, you're probably inviting trouble making announcements.

Again, have to agree with Martin and Ang. It's totally impractical to get every attendee to sign a release form. Make it clear in your T&Cs that the client is signing a "block release" on behalf of all of their guests. No announcements needed then! :)

[BVD]

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

[Corabar Entertainment]

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)"

SteveIMO, You've highlighted the wrong phrase:
'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)Reads very different then!

[djdave01]

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.

[BVD]

I derive a fairly sizeable part of my income from photography (field events, gundogs etc) and I have to make sure I get a disclaimer signed by, or on behalf of, the landowner where the event is held to enable me to take photos.

In my opinion, someone, someday is going to be claimed against where images have been taken without their knowledge and then used for commercial purposes.

One question I would ask is, why do production companies go to the time and effort to pixel out peoples faces when showing videos taken on private property and shown on national TV? Not because they want to spend that time and money

Steve

[Corabar Steve]

One question I would ask is, why do production companies go to the time and effort to pixel out peoples faces when showing videos taken on private property and shown on national TV? Not because they want to spend that time and money
Isn't it because they usually do it on "Police Camera Action" style shows & the pixelated person is usually somebody accused of commiting a crime

[BVD]

Isn't it because they usually do it on "Police Camera Action" style shows & the pixelated person is usually somebody accused of commiting a crime

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

[katman]

The faces on most of the pictures I take are blurred.....

....they arent supposed to be but Im not a very good photographer :lol:

[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.mobilediscodirectory.co.uk/showthread.php?t=8275&highlight=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 :D

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.

[BVD]

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.

Apologies, never thought

Steve

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Apologies, never thought

Steve

Not a problem. :)

[Silver]

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

And a rough old one it is too! http://planetsmilies.net/winking-smiley-41.gif

[BVD]

And a rough old one it is too! http://planetsmilies.net/winking-smiley-41.gif

It certainly was when we had the gale earlier in the week :) :)

Steve

[Shaun]

And a rough old one it is too! http://planetsmilies.net/winking-smiley-41.gif


It certainly was when we had the gale earlier in the week :) :)

Steve

Yep, I see what you mean.

[Silver]

It certainly was when we had the gale earlier in the week :) :)

Steve

Tell me about it, I took my two Cockers for a walk in Delph Woods Broadstone and there were quite a few branches and a tree down.

Sorry, a tad http://planetsmilies.net/sign-smiley-444.gif

[BVD]

I was down Delph woods earlier with one of my Clumbers. A bit wet & muddy

Steve

[Silver]

I was down Delph woods earlier with one of my Clumbers. A bit wet & muddy

Steve

We should meet http://planetsmilies.net/shy-smiley-17312.gif I've a 2 year old worker and a 13 week old worker AND I'm probably about to buy a Canon 7D :D

[DJ Paulie]

Tell me about it, I took my two Cockers for a walk in Delph Woods Broadstone and there were quite a few branches and a tree down.

Sorry, a tad http://planetsmilies.net/sign-smiley-444.gif

You might want to edit that post as well, what with Google's recent result for search terms ! :Censored: