Threat of legal action over charity calendar

[L00b]

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.

You don't know either, yet.

 

Neither does anyone else on this forum/thread, not even the OP.

 

By refusing to discuss and resolve the issue amicably with the horse owner before proceedings (if proceedings there were to be), the OP would breach CPR and expose him/herself to a cost penalty (increase of costs awarded against the OP if the OP loses, or reduction of costs awarded to the OP if the OP wins).

[upinwath]

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.

 

Rubbish. An owner knows their horse. None owners or non horsey people will have no clue about this.

[upinwath]

The stable near me phoned the police when they saw an amateur photographer taking pictures against a lovely country background.

 

That's just stupidity. Clearly that stable owner is a daft cretin.

It's perfectly legal to take photos in any public place. The cops, police or idiot stable owners can't do a thing about it.

 

As for the photos in question. I can't see there being much of a legal problem. The stable gave permission to take photos so there is little anyone can do.

[Cyclone]

You don't know either, yet.

 

Neither does anyone else on this forum/thread, not even the OP.

We do know that there is no case, at least as far as something like that can be known.

By refusing to discuss and resolve the issue amicably with the horse owner before proceedings (if proceedings there were to be), the OP would breach CPR and expose him/herself to a cost penalty (increase of costs awarded against the OP if the OP loses, or reduction of costs awarded to the OP if the OP wins).

I expect you're correct, it's tempting to tell someone who appears to be just trying it on to go jump though.

[alchresearch]

Almost twelve months on and the girl who owns the horse has just emailed me telling me not to use any of the photographs and to remove all photographs with her horse on from the website, Facebook, and the calendar, or she will take legal action against me! She's also been posting threatening messages on our facebook pages.

 

If she's serious she would have just used a no-win no-fee solicitor. Posting threatening messages sounds like a desperate act from a fool and will do her no favours.

 

Just reply back to her with all the facts and any printed evidence you have of permission and deals struck before the photos were taken, perhaps with a threat of legal action against her threatening behaviour.

[Conrod]

Firstly, she has no legal power to stop you using the photos whoever owns the horse - the part that matters is the copyright on the photos which you own. In fact, you don't even need permission from a person to use their photo in advertising, if you own the copyright on it (although advertising agencies and the like will often seek permission, there is no legal requirement for them to do so - although this point is debatable according to many websites, it has previously been upheld in court, in a case involving a relative of mine)

There have been plenty of cases of this.

 

Nobody owns the photons that bounce of them, or off their pets/livestock/house or whatever.

 

The only limitation somebody can impose is forbidding the taking of photographs on/in their own property or land/building which they control - other than that, anybody with a camera can photograph anything they want and the photo is theirs to do with as they wish.

 

If that weren't the case, the tabloids would all have gone bust decades ago.

[alchresearch]

The only limitation somebody can impose is forbidding the taking of photographs on/in their own property or land/building which they control - other than that, anybody with a camera can photograph anything they want and the photo is theirs to do with as they wish.

 

If that weren't the case, the tabloids would all have gone bust decades ago.

 

That's true. I've took some fantastic photos on private property that could have raked me in a fair sum over the years but because I didn't have permission I'm restricted from selling them.

 

However, the tabloids and media can reproduce them without any issue (and often without any credit or payment) because they claim "its in the public interest".

[L00b]

We do know that there is no case, at least as far as something like that can be known.

Are you a contract law specialist? Do you know much about vicarious liability and joint tortfeasorship? Do you have acces to Lexis-Nexis? Not having a go at you Cyclone, but the OP could be jointly liable with the stables, if the stables have breached their own contract with the horse owner - her consent given or not... It's not enough to know a reasonable amount about copyright and 'image rights', there's potentially a whole sh*t-pot full of further legal contexts/fields to consider

 

As I said, it depends entirely on how stubborn/resourced the horse owner is: if she gets the bit between her teeth (), she could try something on (I don't know what, in the absence of further specifics - but I err on the side of caution, so prepare for the worst), which might not necessarily have anything to do with copyright at all (which is the only context posters seem to have considered so far).

I expect you're correct, it's tempting to tell someone who appears to be just trying it on to go jump though.

Many have given in (to temptation), and burnt their fingers as a result

[Cyclone]

That's true. I've took some fantastic photos on private property that could have raked me in a fair sum over the years but because I didn't have permission I'm restricted from selling them.

 

However, the tabloids and media can reproduce them without any issue (and often without any credit or payment) because they claim "its in the public interest".

 

Where you take them doesn't really alter anything either, they can eject you if they don't want you to take photos, but once taken that photo is yours and only you own the rights to use it. They have no right to stop you or to force you to destroy it once taken.

[Cyclone]

Are you a contract law specialist? Do you know much about vicarious liability and joint tortfeasorship? Do you have acces to Lexis-Nexis? Not having a go at you Cyclone, but the OP could be jointly liable with the stables, if the stables have breached their own contract with the horse owner - her consent given or not... It's not enough to know a reasonable amount about copyright and 'image rights', there's potentially a whole sh*t-pot full of further legal contexts/fields to consider

 

As I said, it depends entirely on how stubborn/resourced the horse owner is: if she gets the bit between her teeth (), she could try something on (I don't know what, in the absence of further specifics - but I err on the side of caution, so prepare for the worst), which might not necessarily have anything to do with copyright at all (which is the only context posters seem to have considered so far).

Many have given in (to temptation), and burnt their fingers as a result

 

Given the nature of the initial contact it doesn't look like the potential litigant is an expert in contract law or that they've even contacted a solicitors, and the OP asked for advice, which as always worth the amount they paid for it.

I do find this stuff interesting though, so if you can explain how a breach of contract from the stables could impact on the photographer I'd be happy to read it and learn.