The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

If Paul's right, that must make crowd scenes an administrative nightmare!

I thought (from opinions in photography mags, back in the days of film) that if you could see it, from somewhere public or where you had permission to be, then you could photograph (or draw or paint) it, and the copyright to that image was yours.
If you wanted to make your face a Trademark, you'd probably have to be pretty careful about keeping out of the public's way - not easy unless you're a very rich recluse.
Even if C.Y. were such a type, the artist's get-out would probably be "Without the name (just a surname, no forename to ascertain just which Yates), and the association with tea and ghillie kettles, would you know who it was?"

Unless its copyright, any original work made in any medium or trade mark, which would prohibit use, it would be for the courts to decide, if persuade civilly by aggrieved party, but nothing in UK legislation to prohibit use...

PS....Exclude private property for photos etc, where permission of property or landowner required. Or vica versa, where property owner will take,use, store your image for security purpose....

My main concern is ... there's no collar ... so how do I wear a tie with it ??? (We really need a 'tweed' emoticon !!! )

If Paul's right, that must make crowd scenes an administrative nightmare!

Paul's right. 'Crowd scenes', however, will usually be a photograph taken in a public place where the photographer has a fairly wide range of permissions and rights, press photographers couldn't function without this. Although increasingly these paranoid days taking pictures in public places is often regarded as inherently suspicious behaviour.

This, however, is a very different bale of tweed: it's a specific likeness of (an obviously identifiable) person associated with their name. The maker of the image has the copyright it's true, but all that means is that someone else can't use the image without the maker's permission. But if the image is being used for any purpose such as marketing or is part of something offered for sale (as this apparently is) then the subject of the image has rights as well, including the right to forbid such use, unless that image is something which counts as being 'in the public domain' or the subject has given specific permission for that use (sometimes called a 'model release'). If I were CY I'd sue or at least ask for a percentage of the retail price.

The legal distinction between public and private places is not about needing an owner's permission to take photos in the latter (although you may need this), rather it is about individuals having a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in the latter (which you can't have walking down the street) and therefore any photographs of them in such a place requires their explicit permission (one loophole is the common practice of posting notices saying a place is under video surveillance so that, therefore, anyone who remains in such a place is taken to have given implicit permission by their behaviour).

Better off sticking to dead people: my range of T-Shirts featuring 'Great Matchmen who are no longer with us' will be ready to go soon, you will read about it here first. Reserve your shirts in advance now.

AshbyCut wrote:(We really need a 'tweed' emoticon !!! )

The closest I can find is

Snape wrote:

AshbyCut wrote:(We really need a 'tweed' emoticon !!! )

The closest I can find is

Splendid Snape, Sir !!!

PDuffield wrote:

Michael wrote:(the photographer or artist owns the rights)

The photographer or artist will own the rights, but I believe it is not legal to use a person's likeness for commercial purposes without their permission.

Paul

Now we know who is responsible for these T-shirts.....Black Bob.

Sad....

I'll stick to T shirts with robots on, far less complicated.

I think it's a secret business of Chris, to make some money on the side.