Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Download the MP3 (right click and choose to save)
If you want to get them as they are released subscribe in iTunes or RSS
In a first for PhotoLegal, on the last episode of the current series, No. 7 we enjoyed the company of a returning guest, Kate Day from the Daily Telegraph who joined us to answer your questions. We also recorded this episode ‘as live’ with no significant editing in preparation for the possibility of broadcasting the show as we record it from September which we’re going to look into over the short break before we start the next series at the beginning of September. That’s providing we’re not in jail, although Kate has agreed to post bail!
In the news:
- Police fall foul of intellectual property law (PhotoLegal exclusive!)
- National Portrait Gallery takes on a Wikipedia user for image theft
- The British Journal of Photography launches a campaign against persecution of photographers by law enforcement agencies
We answered these questions:
- Chris Westcott – what are reasonable actions a photographer can take to prevent illegal deletion of images by the police, and what should a photographer do if images are forcibly deleted?
- Jason – Can a police officer confiscate a memory card?
- Do you need a model or property release to take images of domestic or farm animals?
- Paul – if someone refuses to sign a model release, am I obliged to delete the image?
- Clive – what is HDR?
- If a police officer suspects you of committing an offence, can they confiscate a memory card as evidence?
- If I’ve posted an image on a community site, then someone in one of the photos is convicted of a serious offence, should I take them down?
- Images on my screen look different when viewed on another screen or when printed – why is this?
Links:
Contacts
- PhotoLegal is on twitter and facebook as well as this website (www.photolegal.com)
- Kate Day writes the Telegraph Photography blog and can be found on twitter and flickr
- Darren can be found on twitter, at his wildlife photography blog and on the Canid website.
- James can be found on twitter, and Everys Solicitors, along with their twitter feed
- Phill can be found at his daily photoblog website, on twitter and his favourite Friendfeed
Tweet This Post 
Digg This Post 
Ping This Post 
Stumble This Post
the download isn’t working at the moment.
My apologies – I posted an incorrect path to the file but it’s now sorted. Thanks for letting me know.
I have a query regarding the response to one of the questions discussed in this podcast.
22 mins in Kate introduces a question re: street/public photography and the way to respond to a refusal from a member of the public to sign a model release.
The response from another member of the team is given as being from a “common sense” rather than “legal” point of view. It’s certainly not the legal position as I understand it, but I’m confused as to how it’s common sense.
“really, you should be deleting the image”
Why?
As far as I am aware the refusal to consent to a model release means only that the image can not be published commercially. In other words, the photographer is in the same position they would have been in if they’d simply never bothered to ask for a model release. The photographer still owns the image though and is under no obligation to delete an image simply because they can’t use it for commercial purposes, OR because the subject of the photo has refused a model release.
It doesn’t stop the photographer publishing and using the image for non-commercial or artistic purposes, does it? e.g. I could upload a photo I’ve taken in the street to Flickr or my own website without a model release.
the response went on:
“it gives them the privacy that they have clearly requested, and you’ve kind of put yourself in the position by asking for the release, of taking away any doubt as to whether or not they were happy about the photo being taken. You can’t say there was any ambiguity about it. They’ve said “I don’t want you to have taken my photo”, so really you need to delete it in that situation. Certainly don’t publish it”.
This seems to me, from my layman’s point of view, to be confusing issues of privacy and of the legal issues surrounding model releases.
A model release isn’t a statement of happiness about the taking of a photo, but an agreement assigning rights over the image for commercial use. Is it not?
On the issue of privacy: If the subject of the photo was out in public then they can not reasonably expect privacy from being seen by people or their camera lenses. They have no right to say that somebody can not take a photo of them in public, as long as the taking of such images doesn’t constitute harrasment (which a single candid photograph can not be) or blocking a public right of way, trespass, or any other crime. In fact as I understand it, the taking of such photographs can be done even if the subject is in a private place (but visible from a public place).
I understand that the point being made may have been from the point of view of keeping everyone “happy”, and of discouraging aggressive paparazzi style behaviour, but if I’ve just taken the best photo of my life I’m not going to delete it simply because I was refused a model release. I just (probably) won’t be able to sell it.
This is a really important distinction which I feel it’s necessary to clarify, as it suggests an obligation on photographers which I strongly believe doesn’t exist. Others could confuse this advice with a plethora of other issues such as the recent and much criticised law re: photographing police, and generally the rights of other people to control what you “should” or should not delete.
Each individual is free to make their own choices as to how they might respond in that situation. There’s only one good reason for deleting an image and that’s because YOU want to. What leads you to WANT to delete that image will be based on a variety of circumstances and moral standpoints that can’t always be distilled into a simple catch-all policy.