Jump to content

Threat of legal action over charity calendar


Recommended Posts

I was under the impression that if you take photos you own the copyright. Maybe if it was a famous horse she could claim that you infringed on her brand of whatever, but I can't see that being the case. It seems that the actual horse being used is irrelevant, and that it's not even named, so I doubt she has a leg to stand on.

 

You'd think she'd be happy that her horse was involved in something that helps a charity. Apparently not. Would she even know if the calendar was for sale? Maybe just ignore her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just deny its her horse, unless this horse had very distinguishing features, who'll know? when you've seen one horse you've seen them all.

 

It's probably a bit late for that seeing as the truth has already been posted on here by the OP. If it went to court and the OP argued what you're suggesting after having said the opposite on the internet they could be looking at perjury charges. If I were the OP I'd call the person's bluff and also publicise the fact that the horse-owner is undermining fundraising for good causes. It sounds like they're only interested in money so tell them to take it to court. They'd need a legal argument first and evidence which they may not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winnings to Multiple Sclerosis and Leukodystrophy research charity.
You might want to check the constituent parts of a contract, quisquose (in particular, look up 'consideration') ;)

 

PS: the lake is that-a-way ---> :hihi:

 

PPS: interesting to see the number of posters who are telling the OP that he/she should "just go to court" (and win or lose, irrelevant). Obviously, the 'advisers' on this thread are not the payers (of the OP's legal fees). The name of the game is to avoid court in the first place, and at least cost at that.

 

The best value-for-money option for the OP at this early stage is to call her bluff by asking her a pointed question of law (on what grounds are you proposing to sue me?). Simple as, because 'threatening to take legal action' (without any further specifics) is kindergarten-grade legal posturing, if that.

 

However, nothing in law is ever black and white, no matter how clear-cut the issue may look like at the onset. So you shouldn't simply rely on being 'right' in law, to avoid proceedings altogether. Because the horse owner might seek legal advice in due course, and her adviser (or the next, or the next, or the next...depends how stubborn she is about it, she'd eventually find one who-) might come up with a semi-viable argument (on paper at least), that would result in some non-trivial bother for the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about horse thieves and what they might do. Either that or a lot of horses have been harmed and then put yourself in the owners position.

 

So you're saying a photograph of a horse in a calender could prompt someone to steal said horse, therefore photographs of this horse shouldn't be used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying a photograph of a horse in a calender could prompt someone to steal said horse, therefore photographs of this horse shouldn't be used?

 

It happens, they circulate pictures and then steal to order. I know this isn't the case with the OP but I can understand the owner being worried. The stable near me phoned the police when they saw an amateur photographer taking pictures against a lovely country background.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to check the constituent parts of a contract, quisquose (in particular, look up 'consideration') ;)

 

PS: the lake is that-a-way ---> :hihi:

 

PPS: interesting to see the number of posters who are telling the OP that he/she should "just go to court" (and win or lose, irrelevant). Obviously, the 'advisers' on this thread are not the payers (of the OP's legal fees). The name of the game is to avoid court in the first place, and at least cost at that.

 

The best value-for-money option for the OP at this early stage is to call her bluff. Simple as. However, nothing in law is ever black and white, no matter how clear-cut the issue may look like at the onset. So you shouldn't simply rely on being 'right' in law, to avoid proceedings altogether. Because the horse owner might seek legal advice in due course, and her adviser (or the next, or the next, or the next...depends how stubborn she is about it, she'd eventually find one who-) might come up with a semi-viable argument (on paper at least), that would be of non-trivial bother to the OP.

 

Telling the OP to tell the horse owner to go ahead an sue is not the same as saying "go to court" since the horse owner will most likely give up before going to court since they have no case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.