L00b Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 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.Gawd, can I get a morning's work in peace? Did you look up joint tortfeasorship, C? The photographer/charity is not bound by the contract between the stables and the horse owner, but is 'jointly' liable, in equity, for whatever 'tort' is caused to the horse owner as a result of the breach of contract (in really simple terms: no photographer/charity in the first place = no breach of contract in the second place, so photographer/charity carry their share of the can). It's still go nothing to do with copyright (@ HeadingNorth ). In that context, interesting post by alchresearch, btw, about a facet of law I wasn't familiar with, and which is potentially quite significant here. My second bit of advice on here, echoes my second or third post yesterday, and derives from the comment immediately above: know what you don't know. In the present thread, without any further contribution from the OP, there are still way too many unknowns for anyone to provide any kind of reliable, reasonably authoritative legal advice (not that I or another would on a public forum, anyway, but just to highlight the issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I have now looked it up, but it doesn't seem to say that a 3rd party who isn't involved in and probably has no knowledge of a contract which (in this example) the stables might be breaching can be held liable for that breach. If the photographer was contributing towards the breach then it would seem to apply, but they aren't. The stable breaches the contract, the photographer isn't even aware of that contract (and can't be unless told about it). Thus the photographer isn't liable for a contract they aren't involved in. It's an interesting discussion even if nobody can give any specific legal advice to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 For example. I could form a contract with you L00b whereby one of us agree's not speak to another person for 24 hours. If a 3rd party then phones me up and I breach the contract by answering the phone and saying something, that 3rd party can't be held liable for my behaviour... And of course assuming that there is a breach of contract, the only remedy in a civil court is to prove actual damages. So what actual damages would the owner of the horse be seeking compensation for here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 For example. I could form a contract with you L00b whereby one of us agree's not speak to another person for 24 hours. Considering the week I've had...I wouldn't mind! If a 3rd party then phones me up and I breach the contract by answering the phone and saying something, that 3rd party can't be held liable for my behaviour.Unlikely indeed if the contract is as simple as that, but it would still depend (as always ) on what is at stake from our contract, and whether that stake is appropriated by the 3rd party, in whole or part, directly or indirectly, as a result of your breach. In the OP's circumstances, there is a pecuniary gain made from the 'horse loan' (so the 3rd party benefits from the hypothetical breach of contract by the stables). It would be different if the photos were never used for any commercial purpose. I'm stressing again that this is still unconcerned with copyright, btw (it's a different legal issue). And of course assuming that there is a breach of contract, the only remedy in a civil court is to prove actual damages.True, but to an extent: the damages bit (say, a symbolic £1) might well be entirely inconsequential, relative to the issue of costs (4 to 5 figures). So what actual damages would the owner of the horse be seeking compensation for here?That's what one of the things we don't know. That's one of the things which the existence of a contract (or otherwise) would help determine. Nothing black& white in law - ever. Only shades of grey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Put it this way, if someone thinks they have been taken advantage of, whether they are right or wrong, they are not going to be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymonk Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 Wondered if anyone had any advice to offer please. I'm being threatened with legal action over a "Calendar Girls" style horse riding calendar I am creating for charity. We borrowed a horse from a stables in North Yorkshire to do a shoot for the calendar. The stables (unbeknown to me at the time) gave us one of their customers horses for an hour, after asking the owners permission to do so of course. 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. The calendar is being printed right now. All proceeds are going to Multiple Sclerosis and Leukodystrophy research. What to do? There is no law that I know of saying you can't take photographs of animals, unless they are on the owners own private property, in which case you need the owners permission, but these were taken on land owned by the stables and anyway, she did give her permission in the first place, though it has turned out that she wasn't told of the nature of the shoot. The photos are at hottotrot.org/jessejames.htm andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 tell her to jog on, she hasn't got a leg to stand on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanteblue Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Sounds like a load of old Pony to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Tell her the photo was of a replica horse made of papier mache,painted brown with whiskers growing out of its anus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Wood Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Agreed - this is bluff. My thoughts: 1. you have copyright and in any case horses do not have any rights to privacy; 2. contact Facebook and tell them you are being threatened - people have been jailed for making threats; whilst this is unlikely to be the case here, I think Facebook will at least block misuse. 3. do not make any comment about who owns the horse - who can say you did not use a similar looking horse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.