Photographing other people's children in a public space

[Glenda]

Found this article interesting, particularly where it states Southbank is owned by the South Bank Corporation and a lot of it is private property.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-16/what-law-says-about-taking-photos-of-people-in-public/9641488

[ricktas]

Happens a lot. Publicly accessible spaces are not 'public'. Many forecourts of buildings sit on land owned by the building owners, rather than being public land.

[ricktas]

The article also fails to discuss where a photographer takes your photo and then sells that photo for commercial gain. Ie. A photo of you, taken in a public space, is then sold by the photographer and used in a coca cola billboard campaign around the country. You could sue over this, as the implication is that you like Coca Cola, and that you drink it. When in fact the opposite might be true.

The ABC article does not mention this scenario, and you have rights about your 'likeness' being used to promote a product, without your permission.

[Hawthy]

This was an interesting discussion on the local ABC that I actually participated in by sending a text. The panel consisted of a professional photographer, a lawyer and an ethicist. At one stage, they discussed the copyright issues of the macaque monkey who snapped a selfie after a photographer left cameras in their area hoping for just that. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had sued the photographer claiming that because the monkey had pushed the shutter button that it owned copyright. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

In jest, I asked what would happen if a person set up a motion sensor camera in the bush and a Tasmanian Tiger set it off. Given that neither the photographer nor the tiger had physically pushed the shutter, who owns the copyright? There was some conjecture about just how much the photographer had contributed but in the end they agreed that some photos - such as a current shot of a Tasmanian Tiger - should remain in the public domain.

If you have time, listen to the entire broadcast on the website. Interesting stuff.

[ricktas]

This was an interesting discussion on the local ABC that I actually participated in by sending a text. The panel consisted of a professional photographer, a lawyer and an ethicist. At one stage, they discussed the copyright issues of the macaque monkey who snapped a selfie after a photographer left cameras in their area hoping for just that. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had sued the photographer claiming that because the monkey had pushed the shutter button that it owned copyright. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

In jest, I asked what would happen if a person set up a motion sensor camera in the bush and a Tasmanian Tiger set it off. Given that neither the photographer nor the tiger had physically pushed the shutter, who owns the copyright? There was some conjecture about just how much the photographer had contributed but in the end they agreed that some photos - such as a current shot of a Tasmanian Tiger - should remain in the public domain.

If you have time, listen to the entire broadcast on the website. Interesting stuff.

If I had photo and video of a Tasmanian Tiger, it would not be going on the net. If you wanted to see it, you could fly to Hobart and see the print and video in a specially designed gallery, where you could pay $50.00 to take a look, and no electronic devices allowed. :D

[Hawthy]

If I had photo and video of a Tasmanian Tiger, it would not be going on the net. If you wanted to see it, you could fly to Hobart and see the print and video in a specially designed gallery, where you could pay $50.00 to take a look, and no electronic devices allowed. :D

Aha! But the argument was that copyright might (and I stress might) not rest with you.
Plus $50 is a bit generous. A bit more, I think. $200 or so


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dacar]

Interesting discussion of a topic which is still developing.
My question, prompted by Rick's scenario - If I take a photo in a public place and people are recognizable do I need a model release to enter it in a competition if the competition organizers claim the right to use the photo in advertising? this comp is run by QORF (http://www.visioningtheoutdoors.com/photo-comp/)and they require model releases. Surely if you are photographed swimming or rock-climbing then a photo of you doing that is not a mis-representation.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Glenda]

Interesting discussion of a topic which is still developing.
My question, prompted by Rick's scenario - If I take a photo in a public place and people are recognizable do I need a model release to enter it in a competition if the competition organizers claim the right to use the photo in advertising? this comp is run by QORF (http://www.visioningtheoutdoors.com/photo-comp/)and they require model releases. Surely if you are photographed swimming or rock-climbing then a photo of you doing that is not a mis-representation.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.

As far as I am aware if you use a photograph for commercial purposes you do require a model release which is probably why the comp organisers are requiring one.

[ricktas]

Interesting discussion of a topic which is still developing.
My question, prompted by Rick's scenario - If I take a photo in a public place and people are recognizable do I need a model release to enter it in a competition if the competition organizers claim the right to use the photo in advertising? this comp is run by QORF (http://www.visioningtheoutdoors.com/photo-comp/)and they require model releases. Surely if you are photographed swimming or rock-climbing then a photo of you doing that is not a mis-representation.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Yes, as per Glenda.. for the reasons I stated above.

Think of it this way round Dacar, I take a photo of you, sitting eating a Macca's on a seat at the beach. Now about 12 months later, weight watchers or someone contact me and want a photo of a fat bloke eating Macca's. I remember the photo I took, dig it out, and then one day soon you are driving somewhere and there is a huge billboard with your image shining out for all the see (perhaps you are on the back of a bus). With the word "Before" written above your head. Would you be happy about this?

Or alternately, I take a photo of you sitting at the beach, shirtless, with a can of coke sitting next to you. you are a personal trainer and your entire business model is built up on being healthy, muscular...not consuming junk. 12 months later, there you are on a Coke advert, promoting how fit people can drink coke too. Turns out the can of coke sitting next to you was empty and was left there by someone else, you had just sat down, next to it. It wasn't yours.

Third scenario, I go rock climbing, but I have also am the victim of domestic violence, and have moved state with two kids, and changed my name. My ex doesn't know where I am. Suddenly I am front page advertising, saying xyz is a great place for rock-climbers. My ex now knows a general area to try and find me and the kids. Yes I love rock-climbing, but no, I don't want to be the face of rock-climbing.

Getting a model release, and telling the model what the purpose of the photo is for, in writing, goes a long way to not being sued. Because if the 'model' doesn't want to be associated with Weight Watchers, Coke, Rock Climbing or QORF they can then make an informed decision to decline being your model.