L
Larry
Guest
Legalities and copyrights apart photography raises all sorts of moral
dilemmas, for example one does not have any rights to ones own image, as
once that is in someones camera it is techically a work of art and under all
international conventions that I know of the copyright is the photographers
in that it is a particular choice of viewpoint, exposure, composition etc.
Even more curios is the hypothetical case of consent to have ones image
displayed publicly.
Let us suppose a child is photographed, in a family context and years later
the image turns up on the net, legitimately. Can that child have consented
at the time the picture was taken to an event that could not even be
concieved of by anybody at that time?
Well who even owns the copyright in the case of very old pictures ?
I recall many years ago, wanting to use publicity shots of an opening of a
Social services something or other in a newsletter. The shots would have
been historical and I doubt if individuals could have been identified. but
the Social Services declined to release any pictures because they said they
were no longer in contact with some of the people who might be in the shot
and so could not get there permission.
Now elsewhere on the web I have shots of autistic children taken in the
1960's , taken by a fairly famous photographer in the context of a newspaper
article I have reproduced. I had to get seperate permission of the
photographer to include the shots after I had got permission off the
guardian. Permission which was given straight away
On the other hand provincial newspapers will often sell photographs taken by
photographers contracted to them with little care over how they are to be
used, as indeed do stock libraries.
In the case of the historical open I do not think the Social Services were
as concerned as they claimed with the rights of those who were in the
pictures so much as they could not be bothered to serch out a picture for me
to use having better uses for there time.
But returning to my original musings, could I have consented when my parents
photographed me, to my own later use of those photographs on my website. I
seriosly don't think most families who put up the holiday snaps ever think
twice about such issues.
The problem is that there are some people who do look at and for pictures of
children in a different way to the vast majority of the population, as old
hands from this NG will know.
The idea of some perv leching at a picture of a much younger me cannot do me
any harm now, but I suspect with children who are still children it is a
different matter
--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes
"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The UK law on photography, as it currently stands, is actually fairly
> sensible in my view.
>
> If you can see it from a public place, you can photograph it. You
> don't actually need a model release or to justify your actions.
> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy where you can be seen
> from a public place. It doesn't always work out that way in practice
> of course.
>
> It gets a bit muddy when people start using 1200mm telephotos and
> monster enlargements to photograph people in their gardens, but that's
> a pretty extreme case affecting only celebrities and royalty. And who
> cares about them ?
>
> If parents are worried that a paedophile may be looking at a picture
> of their child and 'getting off on it' then logically they need to
> keep their kids indoors with the curtains drawn. If it was there to
> be photographed then the paedophile can 'get off' looking at it first
> hand.
>
> There are pictures of my daughter and of my friend's children on my
> (her) website. I didn't ask for my friends' permission, but did send
> them links to the photos. If they want me to remove them I will, but
> nobody has objected so far. As a family we get great pleasure from
> sharing pictures with people we don't see as often as we'd like.
>
> Maybe someone somewhere is thinking unpleasant thoughts about my
> daughter. I don't like the idea, but it wouldn't actually be doing
> her any harm. For all I know the bloke in the supermarket was
> thinking terrible thoughts about her yesterday. The act of
> photography makes no real difference to anything.
>
> Anyhow, what oil should I put in a Series 2 transfer box?
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Hobbs
dilemmas, for example one does not have any rights to ones own image, as
once that is in someones camera it is techically a work of art and under all
international conventions that I know of the copyright is the photographers
in that it is a particular choice of viewpoint, exposure, composition etc.
Even more curios is the hypothetical case of consent to have ones image
displayed publicly.
Let us suppose a child is photographed, in a family context and years later
the image turns up on the net, legitimately. Can that child have consented
at the time the picture was taken to an event that could not even be
concieved of by anybody at that time?
Well who even owns the copyright in the case of very old pictures ?
I recall many years ago, wanting to use publicity shots of an opening of a
Social services something or other in a newsletter. The shots would have
been historical and I doubt if individuals could have been identified. but
the Social Services declined to release any pictures because they said they
were no longer in contact with some of the people who might be in the shot
and so could not get there permission.
Now elsewhere on the web I have shots of autistic children taken in the
1960's , taken by a fairly famous photographer in the context of a newspaper
article I have reproduced. I had to get seperate permission of the
photographer to include the shots after I had got permission off the
guardian. Permission which was given straight away
On the other hand provincial newspapers will often sell photographs taken by
photographers contracted to them with little care over how they are to be
used, as indeed do stock libraries.
In the case of the historical open I do not think the Social Services were
as concerned as they claimed with the rights of those who were in the
pictures so much as they could not be bothered to serch out a picture for me
to use having better uses for there time.
But returning to my original musings, could I have consented when my parents
photographed me, to my own later use of those photographs on my website. I
seriosly don't think most families who put up the holiday snaps ever think
twice about such issues.
The problem is that there are some people who do look at and for pictures of
children in a different way to the vast majority of the population, as old
hands from this NG will know.
The idea of some perv leching at a picture of a much younger me cannot do me
any harm now, but I suspect with children who are still children it is a
different matter
--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes
"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The UK law on photography, as it currently stands, is actually fairly
> sensible in my view.
>
> If you can see it from a public place, you can photograph it. You
> don't actually need a model release or to justify your actions.
> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy where you can be seen
> from a public place. It doesn't always work out that way in practice
> of course.
>
> It gets a bit muddy when people start using 1200mm telephotos and
> monster enlargements to photograph people in their gardens, but that's
> a pretty extreme case affecting only celebrities and royalty. And who
> cares about them ?
>
> If parents are worried that a paedophile may be looking at a picture
> of their child and 'getting off on it' then logically they need to
> keep their kids indoors with the curtains drawn. If it was there to
> be photographed then the paedophile can 'get off' looking at it first
> hand.
>
> There are pictures of my daughter and of my friend's children on my
> (her) website. I didn't ask for my friends' permission, but did send
> them links to the photos. If they want me to remove them I will, but
> nobody has objected so far. As a family we get great pleasure from
> sharing pictures with people we don't see as often as we'd like.
>
> Maybe someone somewhere is thinking unpleasant thoughts about my
> daughter. I don't like the idea, but it wouldn't actually be doing
> her any harm. For all I know the bloke in the supermarket was
> thinking terrible thoughts about her yesterday. The act of
> photography makes no real difference to anything.
>
> Anyhow, what oil should I put in a Series 2 transfer box?
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Hobbs
