Photo rights and online posting...

DennyCrane · Dec 17, 2009

It might be different if she were claiming ownership of the animals and/or attempting to sell the pictures. But as it sits, I don't think there's any cause here for her to remove the pictures. If they really bother you, you could simply ask her to remove them. If it gets ugly, I would back right off and talk to the forum's moderators... but in my humble opinion, there's no harm done here.

And as always, I'm not a real lawyer, I just play one on TV.

FrankLamont · Dec 17, 2009

She can do that without citing whose dog/horse it is. Unless it was taken on your private property, you don't have a say, really.

Josh66 · Dec 18, 2009

FriedChicken said:
Unless it was taken on your private property, you don't have a say, really.

Even then, there is nothing that can be done now. It's too late...the "damage" is done. All you can do is forbid her to take pictures on your property in the future.

KmH · Dec 18, 2009

O|||||||O said:
FriedChicken said:

Unless it was taken on your private property, you don't have a say, really.

Click to expand...

Even then, there is nothing that can be done now. It's too late...the "damage" is done. All you can do is forbid her to take pictures on your property in the future.

A key for people is if there can be a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' Animals have no rights.

It almost sounds like the photographer is the property owner? Or just another customer of the property owner?

If there would be any issue at all, it would be over whether a 'property release' would be required or not, and that wouldn't kick in until the image was used for commercial purposes, if it even mattered then.

It's my understanding, in the entire history of photography, the number of court cases involving photography and property releases can be counted on one hand.

Mike_E · Dec 18, 2009

Ask your lawyer for legal advice, never someone you don't know.

They're going to tell you that the photographer owns the rights to the photo in all cases unless they were contracted to "work for hire". The only time a photographer needs a release to show a photo (aside from slander/liable or public humiliation without journalistic merit) is if it is being used for commercial purposes.

$.02

Josh66 · Dec 18, 2009

From what the OP has posted so far, I think it IS her property and the other party was using it.

The issue here isn't whether or not animals have rights, the issue is whether or not a third party has the right to take pictures on your property - and that is entirely up to the property owner.

I wonder if the OP will reply, or if we've scared her away...

skieur · Dec 21, 2009

Mike_E said:
Ask your lawyer for legal advice, never someone you don't know.

They're going to tell you that the photographer owns the rights to the photo in all cases unless they were contracted to "work for hire". The only time a photographer needs a release to show a photo (aside from slander/liable or public humiliation without journalistic merit) is if it is being used for commercial purposes.

$.02

Now that the OP is totally confused by this post, let's keep it simple. The photographer has the legal right to do what he wants with the photo. (period). No qualifications! No, ifs, ands, or buts!

skieur

Joves · Dec 21, 2009

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.

skieur · Dec 23, 2009

Joves said:
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

FrankLamont · Dec 23, 2009

KmH - the reasonable expectation of privacy comes in when it's taken from public land of something deemed private.

Since the owner of the horse allowed the photographer to shoot the horse (...photography, ie), the photographer can now do anything non-commercially.

But I'm sure a kind request for some sort of solution is easily done.

skieur · Dec 23, 2009

FriedChicken said:
KmH - the reasonable expectation of privacy comes in when it's taken from public land of something deemed private.

Since the owner of the horse allowed the photographer to shoot the horse (...photography, ie), the photographer can now do anything non-commercially. /QUOTE]

"non-commercially" is not accurate. An artistic or editorial use for money is allowed. The question is only whether an advertising use requires permission.

skieur

FrankLamont · Dec 23, 2009

"non-commercially" is not accurate. An artistic or editorial use for money is allowed.

Yep, too general, sorry. Personal advertising, etc. use is not allowed, but singular works and such is permitted, etc.

Mike_E · Dec 23, 2009

Forget everything I said except only asking a lawyer for legal advice.

skieur · Dec 25, 2009

Mike_E said:
Forget everything I said except only asking a lawyer for legal advice.

That is incorrect too. The OP does not need advice. The OP needs information. No one here has quoted any law that requires a photo release for the use of a pet photo by a photographer, therefore it would seem that NO release is necessary.

How simple can things be?

skieur