Photos of people / children not in a public place

[Flash68]

As I'm sure many of us are at the moment, I'm going back through my older photos. I have a lot of photos from a sports club that I'm a member of. These are taken at events on private land and include adults and children. All the photos are in the context of the people participating in sport at organised events.

As I understand the law (UK law), photos taken in a public place are no problem (e.g. street photography). But these are on private land (with public access). Previously I've played it safe and not published any with identifiable people on private land as I had not obtained a release form (and now not possible). Am I being too cautious? Photos of people participating in amateur sport are obviously being used, do they all have releases?

For adults would it be sufficient to mark as containing people and for editorial use only? If so, does this also apply to images containing children?

I believe that schools have to ask for permission before publishing photos of children even for internal use in case any are subject to safeguarding issues. Would this also apply to children at a sports club and would this still apply retrospectively if the children would by now be adults?

[spacecadet]

As an individual you would not be subject to any rules binding the school, and there's no law about it as such. But I wonder whether any publisher would use them unreleased- they don't know the ages of the children- when there are plenty of released ones available (just search "sports day" on Alamy).

Unless they are of some particular interest I would wonder whether the effort was worthwhile. Any legal jeopardy for invasion of privacy would rest with the publisher, not you- but that's why they probably wouldn't be used.

[Flash68]

Thanks spacecadet - to be clear this is not school-related, it's a sports club for all ages, but point taken. Would the same apply to adults? ie invasion of privacy? Surely it's not practical to obtain releases for amateur sports events, I would doubt many team sport photos have releases for all involved.

 

[spacecadet]

Well I did the search and most of the images with children were released AFAICS.

There's a civil, not criminal, legal concept of expectation of privacy. You can't have one in public but you may be entitled to it in private. Obviously a professional footballer wouldn't at a stadium.

Anyway as I said the risk is usually the publisher's, not yours, although Alamy might be asked to remove an image, and they would. . As you say, releases aren't practical, but this could be the deal-breaker for this sort of image.

I'd need a pretty good reason to put up something like this.

[Flash68]

This is the approach I've taken by not using them previously (they were used by the club in the past but that is a limited use). As you say may not be worth the effort if they will not be used. Thanks

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

1 hour ago, Flash68 said:

As I'm sure many of us are at the moment, I'm going back through my older photos. I have a lot of photos from a sports club that I'm a member of. These are taken at events on private land and include adults and children. All the photos are in the context of the people participating in sport at organised events.

As I understand the law (UK law), photos taken in a public place are no problem (e.g. street photography). But these are on private land (with public access). Previously I've played it safe and not published any with identifiable people on private land as I had not obtained a release form (and now not possible). Am I being too cautious? Photos of people participating in amateur sport are obviously being used, do they all have releases?

For adults would it be sufficient to mark as containing people and for editorial use only? If so, does this also apply to images containing children?

I believe that schools have to ask for permission before publishing photos of children even for internal use in case any are subject to safeguarding issues. Would this also apply to children at a sports club and would this still apply retrospectively if the children would by now be adults?

Hi Flash

From your post  it seems the land owner has given the public permissive access. Considering no one objected to you recording events and no signs  stating no photography etc i think it is safe to presume this included permission to record events taking place on the land.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Flash68]

Hi Cee Dee, yes that's what I was thinking but spacecadet makes a good point that although it would not be illegal, publishers are likely to take 'safer' released images so might not be worth it.

 

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

1 minute ago, Flash68 said:

Hi Cee Dee, yes that's what I was thinking but spacecadet makes a good point that although it would not be illegal, publishers are likely to take 'safer' released images so might not be worth it.

 

Model releases are only required for specific uses. ie advertising products, they are not needed for artistic, editorial.

[Flash68]

So as long as I mark for editorial use only, publishers won't be bothered about a release? I can't see any way they'd be used commercially anyway.

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

5 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

So as long as I mark for editorial use only, publishers won't be bothered about a release? I can't see any way they'd be used commercially anyway.

The responsibility lies with the publisher of the image. Just mark them no model release. 

Here is an article that will help all with this subject.

https://improvephotography.com/48423/model-release/

Edited January 10, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Flash68]

Thanks. The article is for US law but I would think the principle apply in the UK.

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

6 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

Thanks. The article is for US law but I would think the principle apply in the UK.

This is correct, the responsibility is also with publisher in the UK. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[spacecadet]

37 minutes ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

it is safe to presume this included permission to record events taking place on the land.

OP already had permission to take photographs but in my view it wouldn't affect the expectation of  privacy unless those attending had waived it.

The question was about the individuals portrayed.

Edited January 10, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

Just now, spacecadet said:

OP already had permission to take photographs but it wouldn't affect the expectation of  privacy unless every individual attending had waived it.

The question was about the individuals portrayed.

And that query has been addressed correctly. Flash now knows he can upload his images and put them up for sale without falling foul of the law.

[Flash68]

I think for these old photos I'm going to play it safe and only use a few more generic photos. I take both points and it was why I'd not used them before. I'll definitely not use the ones with children (although they will be adults now and presumably any potential safeguarding issues will not apply). But I will check out this out in more detail for future photography. It would seem reasonable that anyone taking part in a sport that's watched by spectators would automatic relinquish certain privacy rights. They will know that they will be watched and expect to be photographed, and certainly these days would expect those photos to be published in some way even if just on social media. 

[Flash68]

Cee Dee, what I'm a little uncomfortable in this case is I am a member of the club. Certainly for events I may attend as a member of the public in the future though I would like to be able to sell photos without worrying about privacy issues.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Flash68

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

Just now, Flash68 said:

Cee Dee, what I'm a little uncomfortable in this case is I am a member of the club. Certainly for events I may attend as a member of the public in the future though I would like to be able to sell photos without worrying about privacy issues.

If you are concerned ask the club if its OK.  Maybe offer them some free prints for historical purposes.  There may be children in the photos who became professional sports players and you may be the only person with a record of them playing for the club.

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

It would seem reasonable that anyone taking part in a sport that's watched by spectators would automatic relinquish certain privacy rights.

That's why I said they may have an expectation of privacy. But being on the right side of an argument doesn't stop a solicitor's letter- and potential costs- arriving on your doormat in the first place. Hence the suggested abundance of caution.

The only sure cure would be a waiver applying to all participants. You see them on placards at events that are being recorded for TV If sufficientlly prominent they are binding. But that may be a step too far for the club.

6 minutes ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

If you are concerned ask the club if its OK.

I doubt that the club can waive the rights of participants retrospectively.

Edited January 10, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

14 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's why I said they may have an expectation of privacy. But being on the right side of an argument doesn't stop a solicitor's letter- and potential costs- arriving on your doormat in the first place. Hence the suggested abundance of caution.

The only sure cure would be a waiver applying to all participants. You see them on placards at events that are being recorded for TV If sufficientlly prominent they are binding. But that may be a step too far for the club.

I doubt that the club can waive the rights of participants retrospectively.

As already  established,  Flash does not need permission, the publisher of the images  needs the permission to use the images  for a specific purpose like advertising, they can be used in editorial, artistic without permission. If Flash marks them no model release customers can see instantly if they can use them or not.

 

The suggestion about contacting  the club was an idea to help Flash with his concerns.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

Flash does not need permission, the publisher of the images  needs the permission

But OP wants to know, not merely that he can offer them, but that his images are saleable. As I said some time ago that is debatable without releases.

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

Just now, spacecadet said:

But OP wants to know, not merely that he can offer them, but that his images are saleable. As I said some time ago that is debatable without releases.

It has already been established Flash can put these images up for sale. Whether they are valuable and worthy of purchase is for the customers of Alamy to decide.