Legal questions

Heya's..

So, my situation...

It was my nieces 6th birthday the other week. I took some pics etc and put them up on my smugmug page.. Forgot to disable the buy option etc..

Someone has complained to my sister and asked that the photo's be taken down.. Since then, I have disabled the buy option (honest accident) and passworded the gallery for the time being.


What would you do ?

 

I'd tell them to HTFU, that person doesnt have a claim.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.. cept I have no fucking idea WTF HTFU means. LOL

STFU maybe.. but HTFU ? lol


I know legally they can ask.. but can't demand me to take them down.

I don't want to cause problems, but at the same time stand my ground.

 

This is what I've put as the subject for the gallery...

My nieces birthday.. Candid snaps of her friends and some parents.

A complaint was made and asked to have the photo's removed. I have simply passworded the gallery for the time being. I am unsure who complained, but I should make it clear that you do not have the right to demand photo's to be removed. The "Shopping cart" option was accidently left on this gallery by mistake. Has since been removed and is only a viewable gallery now. I am aware that I cannot sell photo's without the subjects consent.

I own the copyright, not you. Regardless if a child is in the picture, they are not demeaning photo's and the obvious intended use for them is not in any way derogatory.

If the person who complained would like to discuss taking copyright ownership of the pictures they want removed then please email me to arrange an agreement

 

H stands for harden.

Seriously I'd tell them where to go unless you want to continue to get walked all over.

 

"I am aware that I cannot sell photo's without the subjects consent."

Take that out, because you do have the right to sell a photo without the subject's consent in many situations, such as in an art gallery (same thing here), just not commercially exploit the image (such as in advertising which is when you need a release).


http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#child
"children are not afforded unique legislative protection when it comes to photographs, consent, privacy or defamation. As with adults you need a signed release for commercial use, but for non-commercial images — nothing."

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#commuse
"A photographer displays photos on their website and offers prints for sale. Non-Commercial — they are merely selling individual photographs, not using the people in them to endorse any product or service"

"Art exhibition sells prints or posters or postcards. Non-Commercial — they are not selling anything other than the photo itself. (However it will become a "commercial use" if the posters are used to entice people to visit the show.)"

"Photographs are sold for publication inside a book or magazine, but not as part of an ad. — eg. monographs, editorial illustration, celebrity gossip, tutorials, how-to articles etc. Non-Commercial."

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

I've since changed the description of the gallery.

 

I had a little runin with the local school adn copyright. They supplied me with some info, from what I remember if you take a photo of a child they own teh copyright toteh image.

This is from memory so take with a grain of salt, if I remember I will try to dig up the info..

MATT

 

who? the school or the child?

 

HTFU be this way -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

 

The child is the owner.

MATT

 

Without reading the whole thread, it is my understanding that if the photos where taken in a privately owned place, then you do not have the inherent right to 'display them at will'. A good idea would have been to ask permission from the group while you were there.

 

Follows my understandings of the situation.

 

We're not talking moral's here.

Should I have asked etc..


I can legally take pictures of children. Obviously not suspect or raunchy pics etc.. But happy, fun pics are perfectly fine.

Do I have a right to privacy in my home?

It is not illegal for someone to take photographs or use a video camera directed at your home.

It is not illegal for somebody to watch your home unless it amounts to stalking.
Considering that this is referring to me pointing the camera at a house that I am not visiting, or even know the tenants, taking pictures of children who are visiting my home is completely legal.


Is it legal to take photographs of children in public places?

It is not illegal for people to take photos of your children in public places without your permission. The press may also take photographs of children in public places without parents' permission. Laws exist to protect children from the misuse of films or photographs of them, including selling or possessing obscene material about children. Some organisations such as sporting clubs make policies about photographing children and the use of the photographs.


So it seems a good dose of HTFU is needed.



Togger's win..

/End thread

 

It shows how fucked up the world is becoming when people get shitty about pictures of kids having fun at a party....

 

And that would be my opening line in court... (if it ever came to it)

lol

 

Both of these comments would best be verified by a lawyer or solicitor that specialises in copyright law.

In the interim, the Australian Copyright Council's website provides numerous fact sheets on rights that you do and don't have.

Generally, photography on private property can be restricted by the property owner.
Copyright does not lie with the subject of the photograph, nor a land owner/property owner - in MATTATHOME's example, the school cannot lay claim to copyright of photos taken by him on their grounds, nor can the student, unless the photograph has been commissioned by the school or student, or other legal or contractual arrangements are in place.

You are able to do whatever you want with photographs you take, regardless whether they are taken on public or private land.

If a photograph is going to be used for commercial (i.e. sold, or to sell something), then a model/land/property release form is required, providing consent for the subject to be used for commercial purposes.

 

Biggest bunch of bs I've heard in a while, sounds like an invalid rights grab.

 

Keyword there, photography, not usage, as no agreement to the contrary was signed, also the photography was not restricted and allowed at the time, the restriction an owner can put in place is on the act, they'd SOL trying to renig after the fact.

 

As a person with little legal knowledge except 8 semesters in high school, this seems wrong.

If you are on someones property, taking a photo of a person, surely one of those parties would be able to stop you from doing anything with the photos unless they gave explicit consent?