Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Copyright 17-Feb-2005 At 4:30:58 PM Ronny

Message

On 11/02/2005 M8iswhereitsat wrote:
>
>The guy on the Nestle lable had (I gather), an arrangement with them that
>seems to have been later ignored by the company. In the absence of an 'arrangement'
>does the subject of a photograph have any rights? (The girls complaining
>about phone-camera pics taken of them on a Sydney beach seem to think so!).

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe the way it works is that as a basic rule the subject has no rights over a photo taken of them.
This may vary under certain circumstances - like where someone is particularly well recognised and hence use of their face on a product is in effect claiming that they are endorsing the product, or where the photo is used in a manner that may be slanderous or something, or where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between the photographer and the subject.
Of course there's nothing to stop anyone forming such a contract - its just that without one the subject has no rights over the work.

>If you travel in places like PNG the locals often request payment if you
>photograph them... This opens up the 1st world vs 2/3 world debate but
>its still a valid (and interesting) viewpoint.
This is really just a case of the locals having something to sell - ie the tourists all want an authenitc local looking photo so show ppl back home - and the locals want something for providing that service. The key question is can someone legally prevent their photo being taken? If they could the papparazzi wouldn't exist - so i'm assuming not.

>If they accept a payment, does this lead to negating their rights?
This will all depend on what rights they have in the first place, and what part of those rights they intend to sell for the payment they recieve. I think that as subjects generally have no rights to begin with, any payment they can negotiate will normally not affect the ownership of the copyright. This is of course unless they explicitly negotiate some rights into the deal.

>Does the law differentiate between 'family snap' type photography (albeit
>dangerous/difficult to obtain image), and 'commercial' photography when
>it comes to image subject claims or photographers copyright?
I'm pretty sure there's no difference here, except that in the commercial situation its more likely that there will be some sort of contract worked out to apportion the rights to the photo, whereas the happysnap just remains the property of the photographer.

Of course all this only refers to the strictly legal situation, and says nothing about whether its a good idea to buy your mates beers for posing for photos - which is purely a matter for personal ethics.
James

Oh, BTW, this is all completely off the top of my head, so don't rely on it for anything important.