Free artwork/photographs to use

[Lee]

re the above and other similar topic, I think previously it has been stated that if you take a photo and use it, the person that is in the photo still has the rights etc....but what about papers and gossip mags? They take and use images, and sometimes pr agents try to stop the publication..who owns these?

[JSR]

Now I've read what Matt has said, I'm tending to pull away from the site a bit, as well.

When I need photos for my other projects, I pay for them through a microstock site. Even though you can print out a "proof of license" form (different licenses cost different amounts), you still have to put some faith in the site for doing their bit of the work with the original photographer/designer (they won't, for example, let you have a copy of the model release form for privacy reasons but they say that they have such on file). They are very quick to protect the work if it appears where it shouldn't, so they seem reliable enough.

"Free" ones like the site we're discussing is something untested, so we need to approach with double caution. That doesn't mean we should fear every new site (everyone has to start somewhere), just that we should tread carefully. I registered with them and had a quick browse around. So far I have seen no "celebrities", no trademarks, no TV shows/films - such as the kind of things that litter eBay and more dubious sites. They just seem to be stock images of standard things like trees, the sky, clouds, animals, etc. All images are of a decent size (minimum 1280px along the shortest side), so they're not just web-images nicked from someone's website. There's no immediate reason to presume that there's anything wrong with the site, but if you're going to print a million mugs with one of their photos, it's probably wise to investigate further first.

[Matt Quinn]

re the above and other similar topic, I think previously it has been stated that if you take a photo and use it, the person that is in the photo still has the rights etc....but what about papers and gossip mags? They take and use images, and sometimes pr agents try to stop the publication..who owns these?

Sure I posted this elsewhere but...

No matter what the circumstances the photographer or their employer (if they're working as an employee) owns the copyright to the picture. If the celebrity is in a public place like the street then they can have no reasonable expectation of privacy. And despite all the bluff and bluster there is realtively little that can be done to stop publication...

Where it gets complicated is if the public place is in fact private ground - a park or a shopping centre for instance. It may well be a condition of entry that no commercial photography takes place. Likewise this will almost certainly be the case at concerts, book signings events etc - They can impose all sorts of conditions including 'rights grabs' where the promoters make it a condition of entry that copyright in any images taken at a given event is assigned to the artist and/or their management...

The net effect of THAT is some 'celebs' can't get the press coverage they need to promote themselves! - I recently declined an invitation to cover parts of 'T in the Park' because the rights grabs would have made the footage unsaleable...

But generally, in the UK if someone takes your picture in the street you DO NOT have ANY rights to it - Nor is there anything to stop anyone taking a picture; not of you, not of your kids and not of Madonna and her bairns if she's out wandering around with them.

The position is slightly different in the U.S. however... And unfortunately a lot of what is commonly (mis)understood about media law gets lost in translation...