Student posters with celebrity pictures on them OK?
justabeginner
university. In order to draw more potential members to it, I was
hoping to put in some pictures of celebrities who practice the martial
art.
However, I am unsure if this breaches any copyright issues or not.
Could anyone clarify the position of the law on this?
Jonathan Bryce
If you took the photograph, or you have the permission of the person who
took the photograph, then you will not be in breach of copyright law.
Don Aitken
It depends on where you get the pictures from. The copyright may
belong to the photographer, or, if they are taken from newspapers or
magazines, to the publication in which they appeared. Most
photgraphers are happy to see their pictures get additional
circulation, provided that they get a credit, but publishers may be
less obliging. The only way to find out is to ask. Alternatively, you
could just go ahead, and hope nobody complains, which is what a lot of
people do, although it is legally risky.
It is also a breach of the ASA rules to use someone's image for
advertising purposes without their consent, but I think this probably
only affects you if you use commercial poster sites.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Richard
It depends what pictures you use. Where do you intend to get the
pictures from? If from the internet why not e-mail the site owners and
ask them if they own the copyright and can you use the pictures as you
have just described. If they say yes and yes then you can use the
pictures.
In reality you will probably have no problem using any published
picture for a limited run of posters that you are not selling. After
all what harm would it be?
Richard
a
Photos are artistic work for copyright purposes and I have always been
told that, unless assigned elsewhere (like to a publisher), copyright is
with the photographer and/or the model.
Agents sometimes put out publicity photos with a "use however you want"
licence but if yours don't say that then they probably aren't.
Obvious reference:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm#mdiv4
a
> circumstances where the contractual obligation makes it clear someone
> else is the copyright holder.
I've always thought that too but other people have told me different and
I've been meaning to ask the question here.
With models two people (the photographer and the model) are, arguably,
collaborating in the work and therefore have join ownership under
section 10 of the Act.
Many professional models consider that they own full copyright unless
they've signed a release. I'm not sure if that is legally correct.
Similarly many photographers consider they have copyright.
My theory is that an implicit part of the contract between the model and
the photographer is that unless a model release is signed the copyright
is assigned to the model and the photographer is granted a limited license.
I'm sure this must have been hammered out in front of a judge at some
point. Would anyone point me at a reference?
> It gets a bit tedious when the photograph
> is of something which is itself subject to copyright,
English Heritage seem to think they own copyright to photos of buildings
under their control. I've no idea how they justify that. I'd like to
seem them try to collect royalties on pictures of Stonehenge!
Philip Powell
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>a <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>> Photos are artistic work for copyright purposes and I have always been
>> told that, unless assigned elsewhere (like to a publisher), copyright is
>> with the photographer and/or the model.
>
>circumstances where the contractual obligation makes it clear someone
>is of something which is itself subject to copyright, but a picture of a
>celebrity won't fit into that category (although I think Beckham was
>trying to establish copyright of all images of himself).
Following on from that, what is the position with regard to a negative
that has been sold on - assuming the subject itself is not copyrighted
[such as a work of art]?
Does the new owner of the negative have full rights over the negative?
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
Stephen Maudsley
"a" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:41b09eaf$0$16582$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > It's better to say copyright rests with the photographer, except in
> > circumstances where the contractual obligation makes it clear someone
> > else is the copyright holder.
>
> I've always thought that too but other people have told me different and
> I've been meaning to ask the question here.
>
> With models two people (the photographer and the model) are, arguably,
> collaborating in the work and therefore have join ownership under
> section 10 of the Act.
>
> Many professional models consider that they own full copyright unless
> they've signed a release. I'm not sure if that is legally correct.
> Similarly many photographers consider they have copyright.
>
> My theory is that an implicit part of the contract between the model and
> the photographer is that unless a model release is signed the copyright
> is assigned to the model and the photographer is granted a limited
license.
IANAL but my understanding is that copyright can only be assigned by a
written document, I infer from that that it is not possible to have an
implicit contract concerning copyright save for what is in statute (and any
associated precedents perhaps?). For any other subject, unless it is
something created by a person who owns copyright, the copyright resides with
the photographer. So is the model considered to have created the photograph?
a
> that has been sold on - assuming the subject itself is not copyrighted
> [such as a work of art]?
>
> Does the new owner of the negative have full rights over the negative?
At my local library there's a book called "a user's guide to copyright"
or something similar which discusses this in the context of an archive
purchasing material. It says that rights are not automatically
transferred and that the purchase should be accompanied by an agreement
about what rights are granted.
That wasn't what I was looking for at the time, so I wasn't really
paying attention and may have remembered or interpreted wrongly.
It also says that copyright is an area that most lawyers find too
complex and leave to the specialists, so I've got no hope.
a
> written document, I infer from that that it is not possible to have an
> implicit contract concerning copyright save for what is in statute (and any
> associated precedents perhaps?).
A trip to the library to read Halsbury's confirms this.
> For any other subject, unless it is
> something created by a person who owns copyright, the copyright resides with
> the photographer. So is the model considered to have created the photograph?
Everything I can find points at the photographer and only the
photographer. Performers rights are well defined and do not include stills.
What little there is on BAILII suggests that the usual conventions are
derived from a duty of confidentiality and common law, not from
copyright statute.
Philip Powell
<a@b.c> writes
Thanks. I've managed to find similar on the net.
As you say, seems very complex so I'm none the wiser - yet.
Steve
When I studied IP for my LLB I remember the subject being a bit of a pain
but not incredibly complex. Indeed I found it one of the easier modules to
get to grips with. Indeed modules such as Equity & Trusts are far far harder
to get to grips with. All IP law takes is a bit of time and effort.
Steve
Philip Powell
<bond_youkno...@yahoo.com> writes
Perhaps I should have added- IANAL (-: