harvey19 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 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. I'd put money on this covering horses as well as people. In this case the horse was used as a prop in the photograph and not just acting as it would do naturally. The owner may not agree with the way the horse was used and manipulated by the photographer and would not have given permission if asked for it to be used in such a way. Did the owner know the horse was to be used in a commercial way or thought it was just an amateur photographer wishing to take photos of the horse for their private use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 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. How does that work? (I'm interested, not saying you're wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 In this case the horse was used as a prop in the photograph and not just acting as it would do naturally. The owner may not agree with the way the horse was used and manipulated by the photographer and would not have given permission if asked for it to be used in such a way. Did the owner know the horse was to be used in a commercial way or thought it was just an amateur photographer wishing to take photos of the horse for their private use? Doesn't really matter once the photo is taken, it's now the property of the photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Doesn't really matter once the photo is taken, it's now the property of the photographer. But may not have the right to publish it without being sued. The photograph and copyright could be the property of the commissioning body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 They could, if there was a contract that said they would be, hardly relevant to the OP though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 They could, if there was a contract that said they would be, hardly relevant to the OP though. Actually it could be very relevant if the photographer expected the commissioning body to sort out the details of the shoot before he began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I wonder if there was insurance cover for the models or horse in case of mishaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Actually it could be very relevant if the photographer expected the commissioning body to sort out the details of the shoot before he began. From the way the OP was written it appears to be clear that they own the copyright for the images being used in the calendar. The owner of the horse does not, no trespass took place and so they don't really have any grounds for complaint do they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 From the way the OP was written it appears to be clear that they own the copyright for the images being used in the calendar. The owner of the horse does not, no trespass took place and so they don't really have any grounds for complaint do they! It all depends on whether full details of how the horse was to be used and portrayed in a calender on sale to the general public were communicated to the owner and their permission granted. It would appear that the photoshoot has been done by a well intentioned amateur photographer. Just as an aside what would have been the consequences if the horse had kicked one of the models in the head and killed her because it was not of a temperament to be used in such circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I've no idea, nor does it matter to the question at hand. What would have happened had the camera malfunctioned and the stables been burned down. Or if a Russian submarine had surfaced in the nearby stream and kidnapped the horse? Who knows... The owners permission is also not relevant at all, no contract was formed between them and the photographer, so no restriction can have been placed on the use of the photos. L00b has already said that this might mean that the stables are in breach of contract with the owner, and that this could somehow involve the 3rd party (although he never did explain how you can be bound by a contract to which you aren't party), but even then it won't alter who owns the copyright to those photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.