# Photography laws, help please? (photo use and model release forms)



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

When i was twelve a photo was taken of me by a photographer named Iain Mckell at a festival, i had no idea who he was and he said that the photos were to be used in a private portifolio. Well three years later i find out that hes made a book named 'The new gypsies' with me in it, did a launch at the london school of fashion with my photo AND had allowed it to be printed in big issue magazine with a artical labelling me a a gypsy and saying that all gypsies shit in hedges! On top of that if you type 'gypsy' into google images my photo comes up!

I never gave him permission to use my photo and even if i had would he not have needed parental permission?

What would anyone suggest is a good course of action?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2012)

Why come to Urban to discuss this?


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

This wasnt the reason i signed up, i just noticed alot of people seemed to know there stuff about photography when i was looking through.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2012)

AFAIK the image is his to do as he pleases.


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> AFAIK the image is his to do as he pleases.


But not for commercial exploitation or misrepresentation (in many cases). He may have needed a model release form for that, although if a long time has passed since the photo was taken it's probably a bit too late.

*title edited for clarity


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Why come to Urban to discuss this?


What a weird question to ask. urban75 has got some of the most detailed discussions and resources about photography rights in the UK, so it seems perfectly logical to ask here.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 15, 2012)

editor said:


> But not for commercial exploitation or misrepresentation. He needs a model release form for that.



Is there an actual law about this or is it just what people do?


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

Also im fairly sure he has copyright on it, surely its not fair for him to copyright a photo of me?


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

If you take a photo of someone in the street and add an offensive caption, they could sue for defamation.


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Floppy Fairy said:


> Also im fairly sure he has copyright on it, surely its not fair for him to copyright a photo of me?


If he took the photo, the copyright is his. However, if he's using your image for commercial gain  - or to misrepresent you - then that may be a different matter.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 15, 2012)

I imagine this would be more to do with misrepresentation over the law regarding usage of you as a photographic model, I.e not having a model form/permission


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

editor said:


> If you take a photo of someone in the street and add an offensive caption, they could sue for defamation.



Okay, well i have plenty i could add to it including having to leave school due to the discrimination i was getting from the other kids after we studyed Iain Mckell in my photography class. Maybe i should go to CAB and see whata can be done about it all. Thankyou


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Yes, I should clarify that: a street photographer can publish a book of photos of people taken in the street without the need for a model release form.

However, if the images are used for advertising in such a manner that the person appears to be endorsing or promoting the product without their consent, then they could sue. The same applies if the image is published with a caption that misrepresents the subject in a defamatory manner.


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Here's a good description:


> #1 Reason You Need a Model Release: Advertising​*The only reason you need a model release is to use someone’s likeness in advertising. *If the way you use the image implies that they support or advocate you, your business or your product, then you need a model release. Otherwise you’re clear (according to all the lawyerly articles I read on the subject).​*You can sell the image without a release*, but the people who buy the image might need a release if they’re using it in a way that suggests the person in the photo supports or advocates something. So having a model release for an image you plan to sell makes it more sellable. But if you sell it without a release, and the person who buys it uses it for advertising, the _buyer_ is legally liable – not you. You didn’t use it. You just sold your work.​*You can post the image to sell without having a release*.​You’re not saying the person in it supports you – you’re just presenting a product to sell. If you want *to use an image in something that presents information*, for example in an article like this, *you don’t need a release*.​
> http://www.spectrumphotographytips.com/model-release-do-i-need-one.html​


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

And my age at the time? That must come into it somewhere?


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Floppy Fairy said:


> And my age at the time? That must come into it somewhere?


No.

If you're in a public place, then you can be photographed, regardless of your age. And that's as it should be, otherwise great social documentary photography like this would never exist:


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

This is one of my own photos. I don't need a model release form to publish it, or to include it in a commercial book of photography.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 15, 2012)

editor said:


> The same applies if the image is published with a caption that misrepresents the subject in a defamatory manner



This would be the only position they could take. However in my opinion I certainly wouldn't want to suggest being called a gypsy as defamatory as it says a lot about the way you look at a particular culture in a negative way.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2012)

It sounds to me that the issue here is not so much the photo itself, but the fact that it's accompanied by text which misrepresents you, and it is identifiable as being you (I assume).

eta: as people have said, not reading carefully here


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It sounds to me that the issue here is not so much the photo itself, but the fact that it's accompanied by text which misrepresents you, and it is identifiable as being you (I assume).


I'd start by asking the photographer to correct the image caption in subsequent reprints and to issue an apology across appropriate media.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> This would be the only position they could take. However in my opinion I certainly wouldn't want to suggest being called a gypsy as defamatory as it says a lot about the way you look at a particular culture in a negative way.


This is a fair point really - but on the other hand if this publication does contain prejudiced stuff about gypsies, it might be an opportunity to publicly challenge that.

I wouldn't want to get into saying anything about this particular work of course, I've never read it or even heard about it before!


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> This would be the only position they could take. However in my opinion I certainly wouldn't want to suggest being called a gypsy as defamatory as it says a lot about the way you look at a particular culture in a negative way.



I dont look at gypsies in a negative way at all, and actually i did used to travel and have family who are horsedrawn, thats irrelevant. However this label effected my education and my life massively, and its more the way he has portrayed me through that label.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 15, 2012)

editor said:


> If you're in a public place, then you can be photographed, regardless of your age.



Is that still the case?

Or is there no law and just a lot of tabloid nonce related paranoia / hysteria when it comes to taking photos of kids?

I must admit I am wary of being visibly taking photos when kids are around...



sim667 said:


> This would be the only position they could take. However in my opinion I certainly wouldn't want to suggest being called a gypsy as defamatory as it says a lot about the way you look at a particular culture in a negative way.



I'm not sure that using the term 'gypsy' in itself is defamatory, but if it's in the context of something that is



Floppy Fairy said:


> saying that all gypsies shit in hedges



then it might possibly be.  (Obviously I'm not a lawyer.)


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Is that still the case?
> 
> Or is there no law and just a lot of tabloid nonce related paranoia / hysteria when it comes to taking photos of kids?


Yes, you can still take photos of kids - and anyone else - in a public place, but given the ludicrous levels of tabloid-fuelled paedo-fear, some common sense is needed.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 16, 2012)

Floppy Fairy said:


> I dont look at gypsies in a negative way at all,* and actually i did used to travel and have family who are horsedrawn*, thats irrelevant. However this label effected my education and my life massively, and its more the way he has portrayed me through that label.



Was the image taken when you were travelling then?


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 16, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Was the image taken when you were travelling then?


No, and it was at the big green gathering festival, so surely thats not a public place?


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2012)

Floppy Fairy said:


> No, and it was at the big green gathering festival, so surely thats not a public place?


It'll probably have taken place on private land, but then that doesn't necessarily protect you in anyway at all.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 16, 2012)

Floppy Fairy said:


> No, and it was at the big green gathering festival, so surely thats not a public place?



Even if the land is private it doesnt really make any difference, and that would be an issue that the landowner would have to take up with the photographer, it would in no-way affect defamation which is essentially what your trying to claim.

The problem is also that every picture in the book is posed, you have expressly given him permission to photograph you if you've posed. The image of you is his for usage in a not for profit capacity. However he is selling the book, its available on amazon, so he is profiteering out of it, however without a decent (expensive) lawyer you really aren't going to get anywhere, and what you'd get back of him would be negligible compared to what you pay out. Also once the case was settled he'd be allowed to start selling the book, with your photo in it anyway.

Realistically this may have affected you at school, but its not going to affect you in life, he's not a particularly well known photographer, whilst his images are decent enough the content of the book seems pretty uninformed. Beyond writing to him and asking him to remove you from the book and publish a statement saying you were misrepresented (which he is under no obligation to do), I think you're pretty stuffed on this. The CAB wont offer you much help if any, this is to do with copyright/libellous/defamation, all of which are more industrial laws/regulations, not really what CAB deal with. If you really want to push ahead my best suggestion would be to get a copy of 'Beyond the lens' published by the association of photographers, which covers pretty much every legal detail with regard to working as a photographer. From there you can work out whether you've got a choice.

In all honesty if i was the photographer and i happened to stumble across this thread and see what you'd been asking about, I would not be worried in the slightest.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 16, 2012)

The only way you'd get him is if you just happened to be the bloke who's been photographed stark bollock naked, and you just happened to be 17 at the time. Pulling him up on that though could ruin his career and have a massive impact on his life.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 16, 2012)

I've just noticed Kate Moss is in the book too 

I think the book is more a look at the styling and 'lifestyle', and he's put the fashion label of gypsy on it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

editor said:


> No.
> 
> If you're in a public place, then you can be photographed, regardless of your age. And that's as it should be, otherwise great social documentary photography like this would never exist:


could you edit to display the image?


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> could you edit to display the image?


The file seems to have vanished, so here's one by Cartier Bresson.


----------

