Threat of legal action over charity calendar

[Cyclone]

They can do something about it if you are on private land.

What exactly? Even if you were committing trespas when the photos were taken they have no remedy (unless there's some contractual thing that L00b can bring into play).

Remember this was a riding stable. There was a public right of way but the photographer was walking about the field to get the best shot. The police told the photographer he had to stay on the footpath. And yes if you were on my land taking photographs of valuable horses in my care I would think I had every right to call the shots.

On your land you could eject the person, but you couldn't do anything about shots already taken.

[Cyclone]

In my opinion the photographer will own the copyright but may not have permission to publish them if correct permission was not obtained before they were taken.

 

No permission is ever required to publish photos to which you own the copyright.

[Agbus]

What exactly? Even if you were committing trespas when the photos were taken they have no remedy (unless there's some contractual thing that L00b can bring into play).

On your land you could eject the person, but you couldn't do anything about shots already taken.

 

Seeing as it is a commercial money making project and seeing as often only only a small percentage of money goes to the people it is supposed to help and seeing as it is my property they are using and seeing as the owner may have been misled then in my opinion there is a whole can of worms out there.

 

Horses are hired out to be ridden and not used as free props in a commercial venture, and if the OP reacted to the owner in the same high-handed way as the majority of people are doing on here then I imagine the horse owner might get very angry.

 

Just my opinion, but I would like to see someone take advantage of you Cyclone and see what you would do,

[harvey19]

No permission is ever required to publish photos to which you own the copyright.

Prior to the photographs being taken a type of model release form should have been signed by the owner which detailed how the photographs were to be used.

The point is was permission given to use the horse in such photographs and for the photographs to be used in the manner they were.

[Cyclone]

Seeing as it is a commercial money making project and seeing as often only only a small percentage of money goes to the people it is supposed to help and seeing as it is my property they are using and seeing as the owner may have been misled then in my opinion there is a whole can of worms out there.

 

Horses are hired out to be ridden and not used as free props in a commercial venture, and if the OP reacted to the owner in the same high-handed way as the majority of people are doing on here then I imagine the horse owner might get very angry.

 

Just my opinion, but I would like to see someone take advantage of you Cyclone and see what you would do,

 

Tell you what, come over and take some photos of something of mine if you like. If you come on my land I can tell you to leave... And that's about it. That's all I can do. I can't stop you taking photos, I can't take your photos away and I can't stop you using them as you like since they're yours.

 

I see that you didn't answer the question I asked though. So I'll ask again, what exactly?

[Cyclone]

Prior to the photographs being taken a type of model release form should have been signed by the owner which detailed how the photographs were to be used.

The point is was permission given to use the horse in such photographs and for the photographs to be used in the manner they were.

 

There's no requirement for such a thing, not even with a (human) model.

[harvey19]

There's no requirement for such a thing, not even with a (human) model.

I think you'll find in the world of professional photography this is the way things are done to avoid problems such as are being encountered.

The photographer may consider themselves an amateur but they are making money from the photographs which puts it in the area of professional photography.

[Phanerothyme]

If it's true that you can lead a horse to a photoshoot, but you can't make it pose - then I think you can claim to have the horse's consent.

[Cyclone]

I think you'll find in the world of professional photography this is the way things are done to avoid problems such as are being encountered.

The photographer may consider themselves an amateur but they are making money from the photographs which puts it in the area of professional photography.

 

It probably is, but no such release is required. How do you think the tabloids manage to publish photos of celebrities... They certainly don't ask for permission!

 

http://www.thephotographypages.co.uk/2008/05/do-i-need-to-obtain-a-model-release/

 

Some information on the subject.

 

In the UK? No.

 

There is absolutely no requirement in the UK even to ask permission to take someone’s photograph, providing the photographer doesn’t harass the subject in any way.

I'd put money on this covering horses as well as people.

[alchresearch]

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.

 

If you attempt to profit from any form of trespass they can and will take legal action. Believe me I've been there and they weren't just scare tactics from a solicitor.

 

I was advised to either not publish or come to an agreement for royalties which the courts with favour the landowners terms, and I'd be liable for costs.