AIBU to object to my son's photo being on a photographer's flyer without permission?

DitheringSJ · 2017-05-08T22:04:50+00:00

My son made his First Holy Communion two years ago. Photos were taken in our church on the altar (which I find inappropriate) by one of the catechist's husbands who runs his own photography business. A website code was distributed so that parents could view the whole range of photos from the day and purchase them if they wanted to. There were no Ts&Cs to adhere to. So yesterday somebody from my church attending this year's First Holy Communion ceremony was handed a flyer featuring a big close up of one of the photos taken of my son to promote their services. Whilst is it somewhat flattering surely this is not appropriate and they should have asked for consent?

NatashaRomanov · 08/05/2017 23:09

The photographer retains the copyright, but I think would need a model release form to use the image to promote his business.

springflowers11 · 08/05/2017 23:11

Did you sign a photography consent form at any time/

Coastalcommand · 08/05/2017 23:13

No one needs to sign any consent forms. The photographer owns the copyright.

AuntMarch · 08/05/2017 23:14

The photographer we used in my old work place (day nursery) sent letters to parents if she wanted to use an image for promotional purposes. In school (where I now work) we have to have permission to use images on our website.
The photographer may just be ignorant to the safeguarding implications, and I have to admit I am not sure the same "rules" would apply but my initial reaction is that you should definitely have been asked. In fact, that nursery photographer used to send a free print of the image she was using to parents who said yes - that would have been a nice gesture from him!

lottiegarbanzo · 08/05/2017 23:17

Did you have any choice about the photographer being there?

WorraLiberty · 08/05/2017 23:19

It's a bit rude not to ask but to be honest, he might have forgotten which child belonged to who.

I wouldn't say it's not appropriate though particularly.

Original poster

DitheringSJ · 08/05/2017 23:20

No photography consent with the photographer, I didn't even order any photos from them in the end as I thought they were overpriced.

I am familiar with signing consent forms for nursery/school/football clubs regarding use of photos but I'm adamant that there was no consent in this case. It's not just a background photo, it clearly features just him.

OP posts:

Boredwithmyname · 08/05/2017 23:33

I would certainly complain, point out that you did not consent to him using your DS's photo for advertising (or any other) purpose and ask him to remove it. If you feel very strongly you could complain to the church too.

SabineUndine · 08/05/2017 23:36

I would complain. It's usual to get written consent from parents for kids under 16. Once they are 16 they can give consent themselves.

akkakk · 08/05/2017 23:42

it has nothing to do with safeguarding, or ownership of copyright, and everything to do with model releases and consent for commercial use. no consent is requird for news or non commercial use, but it is required for commercial use...

ask the photographer to destroy all leaflets, including retrieving any that have been issued as he has no model release and no permission to use that photo to promote his business - and yes, it is that serious a misuse of the photo.

prh47bridge · 09/05/2017 00:06

It seems to have become popular belief that model release forms are a legal requirement. They are not. Under UK law, unless the photo was taken in a situation where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy the photographer is free to use the photo as they wish. No consent is required regardless of whether it is for commercial or non-commercial use. It is good practice to get permission before using a photo of a child in case there are safeguarding issues but there is no legal requirement to do so.

By all means complain if you are unhappy. You may be able to persuade the photographer to withdraw the leaflet. But you cannot force him to destroy all leaflets, let alone retrieve any that have already been issued.

paddlenorapaddle · 09/05/2017 00:22

Actually that only applies to adults children are deemed to be unable to consent it must be a parent or guardian in the absence of a parent or guardian all children automatically become wards of the state. Whereby the state automatically dissents even in public places. This is a revision to stop peodo's taking pictures of children in parks etc but would apply in this instance

Snotgobbler99 · 09/05/2017 00:23

it has nothing to do with safeguarding, or ownership of copyright, and everything to do with model releases and consent for commercial use. no consent is requird for news or non commercial use, but it is required for commercial use...

As a commercial photographer, this is my understanding of the law as it stands. He might argue that it was a 'public' event but publishing pictures of children without permission/a model release is a big no, no.
At the very least he should, while at the event, publicly announce at that he might use images for publicity and anyone who doesn't wish to be included in this should let him know. Imagine if the pictures revealed the location of a child under protection from an abusive parent or similar?
I occasionally shoot semi public events with adults and even then I always seek permission if I later wish to publish images for gain or publicity - that sometimes means actually tracing people and asking them retrospectively.

Either ask him for payment in compensation or tell him to desist using the images and to withdraw them forthwith, it's up to you. If he gets difficult, simply tell the police. And complain to your priest - you'd have thought that the catholic church would be hot on this kind of thing by now...

Original poster

DitheringSJ · 09/05/2017 00:46

Thanks all, good to get the advice from other photographers.

My son is quite self conscious so to have his photo on leaflets handed out to 50+ children in his school drumming up business is a bit much.

I will definitely approach the photographer about this and inform the church in case of a future safeguarding issue.

OP posts:

akkakk · 09/05/2017 13:06

It seems to have become popular belief that model release forms are a legal requirement. They are not. Under UK law, unless the photo was taken in a situation where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy the photographer is free to use the photo as they wish. No consent is required regardless of whether it is for commercial or non-commercial use. It is good practice to get permission before using a photo of a child in case there are safeguarding issues but there is no legal requirement to do so.

This is wrong. Otherwise anyone could be used to endorse any product. So I could take a photo of this poster in a public place according to their thinking and then use it to endorse any product whether they were totally opposed to that product or not - gambling / alcohol / drugs / sex industry / anything... of course not - by using a person in a manner where their presence in the image makes up a significant part of the image a model release is required...

the subtle difference is that a photographer could for example use an image as part of a portfolio or gallery (e.g. here is our work) and that would be a presentation of the child as subject of the photo - but put them on an advertising leaflet and by implication the parents are endorsing the photographer - and for that there is no permission without a model release...

this is absolutely basic business 101 for the photographer and not acceptable

for context - I am a top Nikon NPS photographer (their selective professional programme) and have tutored and mentored family and children photographers around the world over the last 10+ years...

Cheby · 09/05/2017 13:33

Surely they can't use it for advertising without permission? Otherwise you could just take a picture of a celebrity out in public and use that image to advertise your business. That's not ok so it's not ok for us normal people too.

sarahconnorsbiceps · 09/05/2017 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

prh47bridge · 09/05/2017 16:54

Otherwise anyone could be used to endorse any product

Using someone to endorse a product without their consent is passing off which is a breach of intellectual property rights. Simply putting an image on a leaflet does not necessarily imply endorsement. If the image is clearly just an illustration it would be very difficult to persuade the courts that people looking at the leaflet would think the any individual featured in the image was endorsing the product.

I would agree that getting a model release form is a sensible precaution and, if I were advising the photographer, that is the advice I would give. But that is not the same as saying it is a legal requirement.

Original poster

DitheringSJ · 22/05/2017 22:40

So I finally got a response from the photographer after sending an email approx two weeks ago.

They admit they should have asked from a professional perspective but claim that images taken remain the property of the photographers who reserve the right to use the image to promote their business. There is somewhat of an apology and 'goodwill' offer to provide me with a digital copy of the photo for free.

OP posts: