JS If I decide to place that image with a picture agency/library to make money from then it is strongly reccomended that I get an MR signed by Mr540.
540 OK, but why?
The fact that a library may require it is a separate issue. They can ask for what they like.
Quote:
JS As a snapper I would have asked Mr540 if he minded me taking the piccy in the first place, most people don't mind, but it costs nothing to ask, and frequently will get you a better image.
540 Possibly, but a verbal agreement means nothing. The subject could claim he never gave consent.
Not wishing to pick holes, and I know zero about the law in this area, but a public place is a public place, and any recognisable face is a recognisable face. This would prevent pictures of a crowd being taken and used.
Or is there a separate requirement to not use images containing recognisable people in a context which might make them appear as dishonourable, etc? I could well understand that. But even if a photo library had a MR then anybody using that picture later needs to watch that. The MR does not consent to having oneself degraded, so to speak, at some later date, I assume
The MR requirement is pretty much an industry standard requirement. A MR basically allows the image to be used in almost any context, the 'model' is agreeing to its use, and if the image became 'iconic', the model can't return to ask for increased fees. If the image becomes 'iconic' Mr540 could instigate procedings to get recompense for his 'modeling fees'
if he hasn't signed an MR. The athena tennis girl poster being an example in case. The photographer retained the copyright and made a substantial amount of money from its publication as a poster, the girl, scratching her bum, didn't, having signed an MR as far as I'm aware. The MR protects the image library and the photographer, the same applies in the case of a book/magazine editorial team.
I ask the individuals I'm snapping out of politeness, it costs nothing and is often appreciated rather than shoving a camera in someones face. 'Recognisable' generally means its a close up or specific shot of an individual/s rather than a crowd/general scene. If you are in group of people it wouldn't normally be considered 'recognisable', however if that shot is cropped to show just you, then that's changing the context to 'recognisable'.
Your last point is one of the reasons for the use of MR's. Eg. a picture is taken of you holding a bottle of voddy sitting in the cockpit. The image is used in an article about 'drunk pilots' with a caption along the lines of 'Is boozing and cruising common amongst private pilots?' readers could make the link between your image and the bottle of vodka and assume you are a 'drunk pilot', the image and article could potentially be very damaging. Obviously the bottle may not be yours, it could be a gift you're taking to a mate, or
any other reasonable reason for having a bottle of alchohol, unopened, that you're not drinking, with you in the aircraft. It'd be a foolhardy editor to run that image in that context with no MR. They may however run it without the MR if there was other evidence that the picture was a true reflection of the individuals behaviour.
With an MR you'd have signed that the editorial use could be unrestricted. Game over if you don't like the context the image is ultimately used in in that instance. So assuming you'd signed an MR an editor could use the image of you holding the voddy with the caption above. The MR means an editor when they
buy/agree the use of the image that the model is agreeing to its use. Like any other commercial contract there are different types of MR to cover various uses, eg children, multiple/single use etc etc.
As I mentioned in my previous posts these are very general guides to the UK, based on my experience as a freelance snapper who has done magazine and newspaper editorial/sports coverage. If you need specific guidance seek legal professional counsel.