Photo rights and online posting...

[Joves]

Actually she can post the photo of your animals. Now if she was to attempt to use them for commercial purposes then, you would have more rights. In that case you would have to allow your animals images to be used that way, which means you would have to be compensated or, have the right to refusal of them being used. That is how I understand it.

I am not sure that you are correct. A person's image cannot be used for advertising purposes without a model release, but I know NO law, that extends that to pets as well. If you do, I would like to see the law.

skieur

Ah but the photo was taken in a private area and, not from a public are. The place it was taken is private property or a private business where the boarders are to expect reasonable privacy. Now she can use the images on her website but, cannot use them commercially at all without a release. Model Releases section 8.3. With that said had she been able to shoot it from a public area (roadway,sidewalk,ect) she could use it commercially without a release, but, she did not shoot it from a public area so, to use it for anything commercial she needs a release.

 

[KmH]

Ah but the photo was taken in a private area and, not from a public are. The place it was taken is private property or a private business where the boarders are to expect reasonable privacy. Now she can use the images on her website but, cannot use them commercially at all without a release. Model Releases section 8.3. With that said had she been able to shoot it from a public area (roadway,sidewalk,ect) she could use it commercially without a release, but, she did not shoot it from a public area so, to use it for anything commercial she needs a release.

8.3 says images of animals don't need a release.

From your link: (My emphasis)

Animals do not share the same rights as humans, much to the dismay of PETA. So, photos of animals invariably do not require releases. The "exceptions", such as specific and well-known animals, are protected, not because they are "animals", but because their likenesses are trademarked.

and public/private property doesn't feature at all in this instance.

So, according to Dan Heller (is he an attorney?), she could use the image anyway she wants including any commercial use including advertising, unless the property owner had her horse trademarked, which isn't likely.

 

[Joves]

Ah but the photo was taken in a private area and, not from a public are. The place it was taken is private property or a private business where the boarders are to expect reasonable privacy. Now she can use the images on her website but, cannot use them commercially at all without a release. Model Releases section 8.3. With that said had she been able to shoot it from a public area (roadway,sidewalk,ect) she could use it commercially without a release, but, she did not shoot it from a public area so, to use it for anything commercial she needs a release.

8.3 says images of animals don't need a release.

From your link: (My emphasis)

Animals do not share the same rights as humans, much to the dismay of PETA. So, photos of animals invariably do not require releases. The "exceptions", such as specific and well-known animals, are protected, not because they are "animals", but because their likenesses are trademarked.

and public/private property doesn't feature at all in this instance.

So, according to Dan Heller (is he an attorney?), she could use the image anyway she wants including any commercial use including advertising, unless the property owner had her horse trademarked, which isn't likely.

No the property they were on is not public property. They lease boarding space and, is therefore private property. THere is a difference when shooting on private and public property.

 

[KmH]

Not once the image is made!

 

[skieur]

Ah but the photo was taken in a private area and, not from a public are. The place it was taken is private property or a private business where the boarders are to expect reasonable privacy. Now she can use the images on her website but, cannot use them commercially at all without a release. Model Releases section 8.3. With that said had she been able to shoot it from a public area (roadway,sidewalk,ect) she could use it commercially without a release, but, she did not shoot it from a public area so, to use it for anything commercial she needs a release.

8.3 says images of animals don't need a release.

From your link: (My emphasis)

Animals do not share the same rights as humans, much to the dismay of PETA. So, photos of animals invariably do not require releases. The "exceptions", such as specific and well-known animals, are protected, not because they are "animals", but because their likenesses are trademarked.

and public/private property doesn't feature at all in this instance.

So, according to Dan Heller (is he an attorney?), she could use the image anyway she wants including any commercial use including advertising, unless the property owner had her horse trademarked, which isn't likely.

No the property they were on is not public property. They lease boarding space and, is therefore private property. THere is a difference when shooting on private and public property.

Dan Heller was vague or not quite correct in a number of areas. He said for example that a photo could not be used if a law was broken. Well, that depends. Trespassing may be illegal, but taking pictures isn't and so the photographer owns the photo and related rights despite the fact that he may have been trespassing. Court rulings in New York have confirmed this. On the other hand, shooting child porn is illegal, so obviously any photos are used as evidence by the police and then destroyed.

Basically on private property, you can take photos and use them as you see fit unless you have been told otherwise by the owner or representative before you took the photo. Taking photos of people on private property for advertising purposes requires a model release.

Although "association" of a person with something via photography can lead to a law suit, the burden of proof is on the plaintif. The first requirement is identification/recognition. Most viewers should recognize the person for there to be any case. The second needed "proof" is the "association" or "negative connotation". Would the average person see the image or make the association in that "light"? The third area is "display"/"distribution". Would many or even any of the person's associates likely have seen the image? In all but very obvious cases, it would be difficult to successfully sue for "association" in a photograph.

skieur

 

[JohnMF]

Seriously people... I think we have under estimated the severity of the situation here. Posting pictures of horses on the internet can be dangerous. You don't know who's looking at these pictures online, and there's always a chance some pervert could try and 'groom' it....

heheh