This post is perhaps a little off-topic, (but then as this blog doesn’t really have a topic per se) I figured it was fine to pop it on here.
I suppose I ought to add the disclaimer here and now that I’m not a lawyer, and I have no experience whatsoever of the law and indeed how the law differs from country to country.
Right, enough procrastinating, let’s do this.
You may be surprised to know (well I was) that the owner of a photo (in most instances) is the person who took the photo.
Sounds obvious, right? In the same way that a person ‘owns’ anything they write (e.g. I own this blog post); the person who takes the photo owns it.
There are however exceptions to this - for instance if an employee of a company takes a photo on behalf of the company, then the company owns the photo.
What I find a little troubling is that, for the most part, the subject of the photo has no rights. So if your friend takes a photo of you, they can do whatever they like with it - you don’t get a say. Now, hopefully your friends are lovely and wouldn’t ever do anything mean.
But what about your ’better half’? They might have some photos of you that, well let’s just say you wouldn’t want broadcast.
So what if your significant other becomes an ex? Hell hath no fury and all that. Just sayin’ 
So, what do you think? Is this fair? Or should the subject of a photo also have some rights about how their photographic image is distributed? Lemme know in the comments, loves.
on May 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
If you’re married on in a co-habiting couple you may be covered in the old what’s mine is yours and what’s yours in mine stuff and thereby you’d have a claim to half the photo (perhaps you could tear off the more revealing bit?)
Or if it goes to court the judge may award it all to you…..or you could do a bargin and wave your right to the toaster.
on May 16th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Ha! An excellent solution.
You take the shower curtain, bookcase, TV and toaster; I’ll take the naughty pics.
on May 17th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Actually, I think there’s a bit more to it than that. The UK rules that you’ve just described only apply on public property. If a photo is taken on private property without the permission of the property owner, then it is an invasion of privacy, which we have laws that deal with. So if you take a photo on my property without my permission, this is illegal (but only realistically matters if I object, of course).
As for fairness, a photograph is simply a visual record of something that happened, so if you have a problem with a photograph of you doing something, you shouldn’t've done it in the first place. Obviously morals don’t come into play.
What I think is more interesting/disturbing is how it’s now become against the law to photograph a police officer. They chose to do a public service/public interaction job, thus I believe they should have no right to protect their identity.
on May 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hi Dave,
Totally get where you’re coming from re the public v private property thing, but in instances like this I’d assume (for the most part at least), that it wouldn’t come into play.
I think that maybe your position on ‘if you’ve a problem with a photograph of you doing something, you shouldn’t have done it in the first place’ might be better substituted with ‘go ahead and do as you please - just don’t get photographed doing it.’
Re police officers? I didn’t know that was illegal…