Your Privacy and Copyright Law
January 3rd, 2009
Glowsticking.com recently posted an article about Media Permissions which is disseminating patently false information. They are saying that if somebody posts a video or photo of you online, and you want it taken down, that person is required by law to comply. Not true.
If you are at a rave or night club, and somebody shoots video or stills of you, that person becomes the sole Copyright beneficiary. They do not need your permission to post the photographs or video online. You do have some conditional rights, if:
- The video or photograph is being used in a way that implies your endorsement of a product or service, such as for an advertisement.
- The video or photograph is being used in a way that is libelous (implying something about you that isn’t true).
So what about your privacy? Well, the problem with that is when you go to a party attended by hundreds of people, all toting cell phones with built-in cameras and video capability, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, if you don’t want a video of you drunk in a short skirt to get on the net, don’t go to a public place in a short skirt and drink — especially if there are photographers hovering about. Take a look at The Photograhper’s Right, written by attorney Bert P. Krages II.
If you find a photograph of yourself being used on an advertising billboard, you have some recourse, because model releases are required for commercial use such as advertisements. For non-commercial uses, such as posting to Flickr, you can politely ask the photographer to take it down. Often, they will comply just out of respect. Just remember, they’re not legally obligated to do so, and reporting them isn’t going to help.
Some people mis-read the “commercial use” exception in the law. They assume that all commercial uses are prohibited. In the media world, use is divided into commercial and editorial not based on whether or not the photographer is getting paid, but based on whether or not the license is being purchased for advertising, or for use in news / article contexts. Editorial uses (magazines, newspapers, etc…) do not require model releases. This is a fundamental doctrine of any democracy, where freedom of the press is an essential building block of the constitution, and model releases could get in the way.
Tags:
Glowstickers getting in the way of your constitutional rights? lol
What ever happened to common courtesy and respect?
Just because its not illegal to do something that makes it ok? If somebody asks you not to use them then why wouldnt you take it down?
Keep on fighting the power bro!
Nice photographers will happily comply with your wishes if you ask politely. But they’re not legally required to, so if you approach them in a threatening manner or try to cause trouble for them with their hosting provider, you’re not likely to get any traction.
If have a picture of my girlfriend in a nightclub and somebody that’s in the background sees it and complains I’m fairly unlikely to take it down. If they didn’t want to be seen there, they shouldn’t be there. Not really my problem.
Good article…making a few questions pop up in my mind.
Like…what about photos of people in public places? My step-sister (a professional photographer) always carries release forms and refuses to post anything on her personal website (not for profit) unless she has a signed release. Since she’s not making profit, is she just being paranoid? Or is she technically at risk because her personal website could be construed as technically advertising her professional business?
I ask because I’m always afraid to take photos of people in public (in the city).
She’s in the clear, but it doesn’t hurt to have the releases, just in case somebody wants to license the images for commercial use!
Just to be aware – this is NOT necessarily true of European privacy laws (Germany in particular). Even for private enterprise, if I were to take a picture in a nightclub – and put it on line – should someone in that photograph not want to have it online, then I would have to take it down – or face being sued here in Germany.
You should add a disclaimer to this that this may be the law in some locations – but not all.
Great article and spot on !
I have a blog post at my website that deals with right to privacy and use. It is at http://www.imagefusionstudio.com/blog/law/7/
Rose – Most countries are bound by international copyright treaty that is at least somewhat similar to American law, but even in places like California, there are some personal image protections that complicate matters. If this issue effects you directly, I strongly suggest that you get in touch with an IP attorney who is familiar with your local laws.
Dave,
There is widespread ignorance of IP laws that should be corrected, to be sure. Sorry to hear about your entanglements. If somebody else claiming ownership of my copyrights and selling them for two bucks a pop, I’d be a bit miffed myself. That’s an easy court win if they’re in the US. I think it’s pretty clear that their infringement devalues your rights managed stock portfolio, which will make them liable for lost sales… particularly if you can document a dip in average income per image per year, compared to the rest of the stock market on Alamy (which publishes the stats openly, I believe!). Talk to your lawyer and take down those impostors. Claiming work that isn’t yours is clearly a crime that deserves to be prosecuted.
- Eric