Use of image

[SteveK]

21 hours ago, Combed20 said:

is it silly that this has really gypsy's kissed me off?

To be honest, yes!

Using a photo of an artist from a previous years event to promote this years is perfectly normal.

Reading between the lines - You sound like your nose has been put a little out of joint by not being invited to perform this year. You can't expect a promoter to have the same bill as last year. That's not how they work. Imagine Glastonbury 2019 having the same line up as 2018.

[fleabag]

Gotta agree with the consensus here. You did a great thing by playing at last years festy, and animals, like children, always need our help, so big back pat for that.

Forget the poster. Its just getting you in a frazzle over not much at all. You can do better and more important things with your time

[Count Bassy]

On 24/02/2019 at 08:11, King Tut said:

I'd just let it go mate. You seem to have built up a resentment over nothing there, and its poisoning you. Why don't you share their social media advertising, saying that you played at the festival last year and you wish them luck for this year. You get promo, the festival gets promo, the charity gets more money and you get a nice warm feeling that you've done some good in the world. Everyone's a winner baby!!

This

[BigRedX]

It might be worth finding out who the photographer is and asking them if they have given permission for the photograph to be used. IME promoters of this kind of event have zero idea of the ins and outs of copyright or IP.

BTW the notion that just the photographer owns the copyright to a photograph and the subjects of said photo have no rights at all is likely to be challenged and overturned within the next few years.

Edited February 25, 2019 by BigRedX

[mentalextra]

11 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

It might be worth finding out who the photographer is and asking them if they have given permission for the photograph to be used. IME promoters of this kind of event have zero idea of the ins and outs of copyright or IP

This was my first thought. But if the photographer decides to 'kick off' about it, the OP's band will become "the band on the poster that got the charity event shut down?" 

All publicity is good publicity, no!

[FinnDave]

I used to know the laws about photographic copyright inside out - I spent years on BBC TV News' equivalent of the picture desk, sourcing and clearing images for all the news and current affairs programmes. But I although I know the laws have changed over the years, I am not sure what those changes are now. I am fairly sure that using pictures taken during a public performance are fair game for re-use and copyright belongs to the photographer or the person/organisation that commissioned the shoot, unless a specific agreement to contrary was entered into before the event. Pictures taken of the band rehearsing, a non-public performance, in effect, could not be used. The laws about this changed after the famous paparazzi pic of the Fergie 'toe sucking' incident. 

[TimR]

You’ll probably find that the organiser just gave his mate a load of photos from the event to make a poster from. 

I doubt much thought has been given to it. 

There will be a reason why you haven’t even asked back? Ranging from you weren’t very good, the audience didn’t like you, you didn’t get on with the organiser, too fussy with the sound guy, took ages to set up, played too long, charged too much, your drummer started a fight, too loud, too quiet, the organiser has a mate who plays in a band who play the same tunes, they asked you but the email went to spam, or the singer forgot to reply...

Whatever, you won’t ever find out, but it might be worth reviewing last year to see if there’s anything you would approach differently.  

 

[martthebass]

3 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

There will be a reason why you haven’t even asked back? Ranging from you weren’t very good, the audience didn’t like you, you didn’t get on with the organiser, too fussy with the sound guy, took ages to set up, played too long, charged too much, your drummer started a fight, too loud, too quiet, the organiser has a mate who plays in a band who play the same tunes, they asked you but the email went to spam, or the singer forgot to reply...

Whatever, you won’t ever find out, but it might be worth reviewing last year to see if there’s anything you would approach differently.  

 

Or the organiser was an asshat.

[wateroftyne]

I might be reading this wrong, but it seems to be about a small festival, which raises money for charity, using photos - which it may or may not own - to promote this years' event.

It doesn't sound like the kind of thing to lose sleep over. No-one's going to be going on a holiday to the Maldives at your expense.

[Monkey Steve]

1 hour ago, FinnDave said:

I used to know the laws about photographic copyright inside out - I spent years on BBC TV News' equivalent of the picture desk, sourcing and clearing images for all the news and current affairs programmes. But I although I know the laws have changed over the years, I am not sure what those changes are now. I am fairly sure that using pictures taken during a public performance are fair game for re-use and copyright belongs to the photographer or the person/organisation that commissioned the shoot, unless a specific agreement to contrary was entered into before the event. Pictures taken of the band rehearsing, a non-public performance, in effect, could not be used. The laws about this changed after the famous paparazzi pic of the Fergie 'toe sucking' incident. 

As I understand it (and it's an ever changing landscape) the current position is that a lot depends on how the photo was taken and it's purpose.  There are two conflicting interpretations of "human rights", that it is the photographer's right to photograph people in a public place, but also that the individual has the right to a private life.

As it applies here, it's not the copyright position per se, it's the ability to then use and potentially gain financially from that use - it's not that the subject owns the copyright, it's more that taking the photo is an invasion of privacy and the pictures cannot be used by anybody.  "Public area" is one point - was the subject actually in a public area, not just something that could be seen from a public area by the photographer (and long lenses are right out).  So you can take a picture of my house as long as you are on the pavement, not standing in the front garden, but if you are using a telephoto lens to catch me in the shower then you're in trouble.

A legitimately taken picture of a celeb in a public place can usually be published, but cannot be used to advertise something, because the celeb has a right to the use of their image for endorsements, not the photographer.  The changes that Big Red X hints at are interesting, and follow photographers suing celebs (notably Kardashians) because they have used paparazzi shots in their tweets, which breaches the photographer's copyright.  So the Kardashians are hitting back to argue that the snappers should not have use of their image to generate cash, or be able to prevent the celebs from using the image themselves for free.  hate to say it, but I'm pretty much on the side of the Kardashians here

I would suggest that in this case:

• The festival itself is not a public area.  The owner of that non-public area can allow or ban photographs from being taken (for instance you don't have the right to take photos in shopping centres, shops or restaurants, although they should post something to say that photography is not permitted, and if they ask you to stop taking pictures, the law is with them).  So there isn't necessarily any right to take the band's photos, but having had their photos taken the band may have limited ability to stop them being used
• The festival may have made it a condition of entry that they have the ability to use all images and film shot there, and that everybody in there consents to being filmed and the use of their image.  For bands playing that's usually something that they agree to as part of their fee and would be covered in the contract...if there is a contract
• The best argument from the band is probably that they did not consent to their image being used to promote something, but I think it's a stretch to argue either that they would be able to earn money for simply having their picture on a poster, or that showing their picture playing there last year implies that they will be playing this time.  Plus, as others have said, do they really want to be known as the band who kicked off about not using their image?  That's not going to get promoters queuing up to book them

 

[thepurpleblob]

IANAL - but I am a bit of a photographer. 

A picture taken in a "public" place (which a festival etc. near enough is) does NOT belong to the person in the photo. It's like me walking up to you and taking your picture in the street. If you're not happy about it - tough. It's not very polite of me but that's about all. 

You have no expectation of privacy at a festival.

Edited February 25, 2019 by thepurpleblob

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

It might be worth finding out who the photographer is and asking them if they have given permission for the photograph to be used. IME promoters of this kind of event have zero idea of the ins and outs of copyright or IP.

BTW the notion that just the photographer owns the copyright to a photograph and the subjects of said photo have no rights at all is likely to be challenged and overturned within the next few years.

The burglar who says his human rights were breached because you caught him on CCTV...

 

An interesting example of how people can be offended was featuring someone's forum (not this one) gallery picture (not of a person) in the magazine associated with the forum. Clearly covered by the forum T&Cs (which were expressly designed to cover this) but started a stink!

[BigRedX]

33 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

The burglar who says his human rights were breached because you caught him on CCTV...

As Monkey Steve says it's more likely to be to allow the subject of the photograph to use the photo for their own purposes FoC, which IMO is as it should be.

[Monkey Steve]

1 hour ago, thepurpleblob said:

IANAL - but I am a bit of a photographer. 

A picture taken in a "public" place (which a festival etc. near enough is) does NOT belong to the person in the photo. It's like me walking up to you and taking your picture in the street. If you're not happy about it - tough. It's not very polite of me but that's about all. 

You have no expectation of privacy at a festival.

sorry, but that's completely wrong - a festival is not a public place.  Just try getting in to Glastonbury without a ticket

[TimR]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

The burglar who says his human rights were breached because you caught him on CCTV...

 

An interesting example of how people can be offended was featuring someone's forum (not this one) gallery picture (not of a person) in the magazine associated with the forum. Clearly covered by the forum T&Cs (which were expressly designed to cover this) but started a stink!

Human rights aren’t signed away just because you acted illegally. Otherwise prisoners would be tested appallingly. 

If you set up CCTV you must comply with the law and if it films public areas it is subject to the Data Protection Act.  

[thepurpleblob]

4 hours ago, Monkey Steve said:

sorry, but that's completely wrong - a festival is not a public place.  Just try getting in to Glastonbury without a ticket

What does having a ticket got to do with it? It's public in that they let the public in. If I take my phone and photograph you or a band, it it any different to being in the street? 

[Monkey Steve]

55 minutes ago, thepurpleblob said:

What does having a ticket got to do with it? It's public in that they let the public in. If I take my phone and photograph you or a band, it it any different to being in the street? 

Yes. It is not a public place. I don’t understand what you are not getting here, it is not public land and you do not have any right of entry

[Stub Mandrel]

6 hours ago, Monkey Steve said:

sorry, but that's completely wrong - a festival is not a public place.  Just try getting in to Glastonbury without a ticket

A shopping mall is 'private land' as well, but it still counts as a 'public place' as far as photography and privacy law is concerned unless a sign specifically prohibits photography.

5 hours ago, TimR said:

Human rights aren’t signed away just because you acted illegally. Otherwise prisoners would be tested appallingly.

I didn't say they should be, however I was thinking about CCTV within private property*. There are people who want are CCTV banned.

There is very clear guidance from the ICO, which is probably much less draconian than people think:

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-being-filmed/

 

*Burglars should not worry about internal CCTV, it is still legal to set a mantrap within your hose between sunset and sunrise to deter burglars in England.

[tauzero]

It must be nice to be in a band that's instantly recognisable by everyone who sees the poster.

[TimR]

11 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

A shopping mall is 'private land' as well, but it still counts as a 'public place' as far as photography and privacy law is concerned unless a sign specifically prohibits photography.

Quite. 

A public event doesn’t become a private event just because you have sold tickets. 

The tickets are on sale to the general public. All they do is limit the number of the general public attending and give you right to reserve admission. 

The area becomes a space accessible to the public and is no longer private. 

[Monkey Steve]

13 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

A shopping mall is 'private land' as well, but it still counts as a 'public place' as far as photography and privacy law is concerned unless a sign specifically prohibits photography.

 

1 hour ago, TimR said:

Quite. 

A public event doesn’t become a private event just because you have sold tickets. 

The tickets are on sale to the general public. All they do is limit the number of the general public attending and give you right to reserve admission. 

The area becomes a space accessible to the public and is no longer private. 

Both completely wrong.

a shopping centre is a private area. As you seem to recognise, they can ban photography, which they cannot do if it is a public area.  However, most will choose not to ban photography, because, really, who cares? The same applies for shops, restaurants, anywhere you go where you do not have a legal right of access because it is not publicly owned property.

frstivals are not public events. They are private events, on private land, and you have to pay to gain entry.  Just because you sell tickets to members of the public does not make them a public event on public land.  Included in the Ts & Cs for purchasing a ticket you will agree both to be photographed, and that you will not use any photographs taken for commercial purposes.  So you can take photos and have your photo taken because those terms have been agreed to by all parties,  not because it is a public area where the law allows it.

[TimR]

@Monkey Steve

Private land that is accessible to the public remains private land. However you do not stop being a member of the public just because you are on private land. There are a whole host of laws that still apply in exactly the same way. 

[Monkey Steve]

17 hours ago, TimR said:

@Monkey Steve

Private land that is accessible to the public remains private land. However you do not stop being a member of the public just because you are on private land. There are a whole host of laws that still apply in exactly the same way. 

Yes, but that has got absolutely nothing to do with your right to take a photo.  

You only have a right to take photos if you are on pubic land, and even then there are restrictions.  If you are not on public land you have no such right - the fact that this is largely a petty restriction that is not worth enforcing in the age of smartphones does not change the law and give you the right to take pictures when on private land.

[TimR]

45 minutes ago, Monkey Steve said:

Yes, but that has got absolutely nothing to do with your right to take a photo.  

You only have a right to take photos if you are on pubic land, and even then there are restrictions.  If you are not on public land you have no such right - the fact that this is largely a petty restriction that is not worth enforcing in the age of smartphones does not change the law and give you the right to take pictures when on private land.

Yes, but what is being discussed here is the use of the image and the right to privacy. 

I would suggest that at a festival, the landowner is not going to ban photography and performers waive their right to privacy when out in the crowd and performing on stage. 

It’s all about expectation and what your average person would deem expected.

[FinnDave]

1 hour ago, Monkey Steve said:

You only have a right to take photos if you are on pubic land, and even then there are restrictions.  

If you are taking pictures on pubic land, then you had better make sure you have the consent of the model, and if you then want to publish them in any media, you will need a model release.