Photo ownership question

[jdbecks]

Hi all

If I was to take a photo of a group of dogs, and posted it on my website, could the owner of a dog request that it not be used or not give permission for it to be shown? if it was my photo taken by me. could there be any legal issues?

[Mr E]

Taken in a public place (or somewhere with no expectation of privacy), your photo to do with as you please.

[jdbecks]

it was taken on a private estate that was hired, where our dogs were selected for a photo shot, but during the day we all got together to take some photos, but the owner of the two of the dogs is demanding that it not be used on our website, as she does not want her dogs to be associated with our website, we had a failing out a few months back and always is difficult if opportunity arises.

the estate owners were not present during the photoshoot nor their dogs.. in our photos is just the people who's dogs were selected for the photoshoot, when we decided to take our own photos during a break in the day.

[Snapper7]

From you opening statement I would read it as: You have taken a picture in a public place and it is your copyright and you can do what you like with it. However if it was used in a way that promoted a product you could find that the you could get more bad publicity that you would want of it backfired. IE: Jamie Oliver is sponsored by Sainburys and A&other supermarket sticks his mug shot on their products. He could claim loss of reputation and good will from his backers under your attempt to make it look as though he backs your product.

From your second posting it is not fully clear if the owners of the dogs are also the estate owners. If they are and and bread dogs, it could be claimed that you are trying to pass off your dogs as being linked to theirs. This could cause you other legal issues that don't have anything to do with who owns the pictures.

But from what you say you own the pictures, the copyright to these pictures and I can not see how that can be challenged. But I think that if you gave me some more details of the situation I would be able to advise you better.

Questions:

What is your website for?
You might want to add a link for your website and point out which pictures are causing the falling out?
Are you a business, ie breeders?
Are they dog breeders?
Do you both breed the same type of dogs?
Are your dogs linked to their dogs in any way?
Why are they objecting to you displaying the said pictures?
Is the location ket to any real reason for the falling out?

If you want to email me off line you can do so from my profile.

[Simpo Two]

I figured out half the problem which probably affects the legal position:

jdbecks said:

our dogs were selected for a photo shot

should read 'four dogs were selected for a photo shot'. (shoot)


I'm not an expert (looks like the above poster knows more) but I'd say that the owner of the dogs lent/hired them to you for the express purpose of photography and knew what the photographs were intended for. Whether or not that permission can be withdrawn I don't know; perhaps dogs are not as important in law as people.

Of course it is highly unlikely (unless these are Crufts champions and the owner is a millionaire or lawyer) that anything legal will happen other than a C&D order. Hence I'd say you have two choices:

1) Post and be damned; take any flak and if you get a C&D letter you can always remove them. After all, you have already fallen out, what do you have to lose?

2) Play humble/nice guy and obey her demand.

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 7th November 19:23

[jdbecks]

Sorry for not making it clear,


my dog and 5 others were selected to be used for a photoshoot to promote a brand, the location was a traditional English manor house that was hired by the company, the other 4 owners and I, were selected to use our dogs.

but during a break, the other dog owners and I, decided we would take our own photos...and positioned the dogs and all took the same photo of them.

but because the photo came out really well, I thought it would look good on my website and decided to use it, it shows nothing else but the group of dogs standing next to each other.

[Snapper7]

Are you or them breeders?
It would also help me give you a considered view if I could also see a web link of how and in what context the pictures are used in.

Is it only one of a the whole group who has taken offense? And have you spoke to others in the group?

[Gemm]

jdbecks said:

but the owner of the two of the dogs is demanding that it not be used on our website, as she does not want her dogs to be associated with our website, we had a failing out a few months back and always is difficult if opportunity arises.

I think this is the key point to me. Regardless of legality, I wouldn't use them if they are demanding, out of decency.

Edited by Gemm on Monday 8th November 14:26

[Yellabelly]

You could always black her dogs out which would make a point to her and would add mystery to your website.
I did this last year with a photo I took of certain members of our family that was posted on facebook for all of them to see, I do not have a public view gallery, one person objected that she did not want her image posted yet she is all over FB and indeed has accounts for her two daughter aged 6 & 3!!! So I blacked her out, it caused great hilarity among the family and with friends who were shown the piccy. Eventually she came back to me all apologetic etc etc.

YB

[Simpo Two]

Ah yes, Option 3) Play silly buggers.

This does of course open up all sorts of ideas. How about fitting the offending mutt with alloy wheels?

[Yellabelly]

Simpo Two said:

Ah yes, Option 3) Play silly buggers.

This does of course open up all sorts of ideas. How about fitting the offending mutt with alloy wheels?

You grumpy old sod ! Having a bad year Simpo?

You could almost have written the Rules of Brainstorming:-

First rule of brainstorming - denigrate any other suggestion
Second rule of brainstorming - The only valid suggestion is mine
Third rule of brainstorming - If in doubt the second rule takes precedence



YB

[Simpo Two]

I was actually building on your own idea which I thought was very funny and provided an interesting way forward other than the dry boring appproach. Hardly grounds for an attack is it?

[minky monkey]

Blur out the faces of her dogs, like they do with undercover police officers...

Seems a bizarre thing to me tbh, why allow use of the dogs in the photo if you then get funny about where it's used. And, tbh, who would look at the dogs and think, ah that's so and so's dogs.

[Some Gump]

Replace dogs with images of toy dogs? Corky off of reeves + mortimer is a good start...

[RobDickinson]

minky monkey said:

Blur out the faces of her dogs, like they do with undercover police officers...

Seems a bizarre thing to me tbh, why allow use of the dogs in the photo if you then get funny about where it's used. And, tbh, who would look at the dogs and think, ah that's so and so's dogs.

I assume these are dog breeders or showdogs or something and having your dog 'advertised' on someone elses website wouldnt be ideal now would it?

[cottonfoo]

minky monkey said:

Blur out the faces of her dogs, like they do with undercover police officers...

If you decide to go this route please do this, but don't pixelate or blur them (which might be too subtle against fur), use SAS-style black bars across their eyes.

[minky monkey]

Aha!

Got it!

Post the photo up here and let the PHers go to work!

[Yellabelly]

Simpo Two said:

I was actually building on your own idea which I thought was very funny and provided an interesting way forward other than the dry boring appproach. Hardly grounds for an attack is it?

John, sorry you took offence, it did have a smiley wink on it I thought the wording "Play Silly Buggers" was showing your disapproval of the idea! mea culpa

YB

[xrrr]

In the world of stock photography you generally don't need a property or model release for an animal. In principle if the animal is not recognisable to anyone other than the owner then you should not have any restrictions on using the picture.

It is a bit off for the other owner to be asking you to remove the photo but they should not have allowed the dog to the photographed in the first place! I would keep it on your website just to annoy them for being an arse!

See here for some details:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.3

[Busa_Rush]

xrrr said:

See here for some details:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.3

The same piece of text contains the following:

"On the other hand, if you photographed the animals in a private settings, not in public view, such as a photo studio, you need to get a release because it's a private business transaction. And, in fact, this would apply to people, too. When you're engaged in a photo shoot that is private business transaction, privacy laws are now engaged, in which case, a release is required if someone wanted to publish the image for any kind of publication, editorial or commercial."

Which makes a case for the OP to need a release form as the photo shoot was a private, commercial arrangement which he (and others) took advantage of.

I'm not a lawyer but this is an interesting area of law.