# I'm slightly confused about this...



## NGH (May 21, 2020)

In a BBC article Grandmother ordered to delete Facebook photos a court has ruled that under privacy rules a Grandmother must take down and pay a fine for using pictures of her grandchildren (after a falling out with the kids mother).   Reason being "posting photographs on social media made them available to a wider audience, the ruling said"

But in another article Ex-McDonalds Worker Gets Getty to Stop Selling Photo of Her Used in Negative Articles  a woman who is the subject of a photo on Getty has struggled to stop its use (in generally negative contexts) because it "was being used in editorial coverage, not for commercial purposes

How do these two rulings not conflict?


----------



## 480sparky (May 21, 2020)

Different countries.


----------



## limr (May 21, 2020)

I would also say the ages of the people in the photos makes a difference as well.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 21, 2020)

Politics.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 21, 2020)

The law is an ass.......


----------



## weepete (May 21, 2020)

Yeah, the first is Dutch and the second in the USA. The GDPR can take precedence in Europe as (as far as I'm aware) photographs can be considered personal data, though it's conditional on the person being identifiable through other information. Photographs themselves are not automatically personal information. I suspect the judgement could be overturned on appeal, but it will depend on the laws in The Netherlands.

I'm pretty sure most of the public would rather have control of their own image in the modern age and I suspect there will be mission creep in Europe. I suspect we will see more decisions from courts in Europe like this. In the UK we've been conditioned by years of fear and mis-interpretation of the law by public bodies, schools, even the police took years to catch up. When my daughter was at school it was common to ban photography under the auspices of data protection, and that was before the GDPR.

The USA has stronger protection of freedom of expression, so I suspect that will continue. In the UK it will depend on the interpretation of the law. As far as I'm aware it doesn't change things much but one bad call in court could set a precedent. It's no longer as simple as public place means no expectation of privacy in Europe.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2020)

Different laws, different judges,different jurisdictions, different circumstances, different rulings.


----------



## compur (May 21, 2020)

NGH said:


> How do these two rulings not conflict?



They look very similar to me. How do you see them as conflicting?


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 21, 2020)

Did the woman sign a release for Getty to have used her photo in various ways? I'm wondering if they had permission for usage (in the US).

It's unfortunate the first situation seemed to have been due to a family conflct, but as mentioned laws are different in different countries.

And Petapixel's editor, whose background is not in journalism/media, tends to rewrite info. from elsewhere; I've read articles on their site that are sometimes incomplete or less than accurate. You might want to look at the original source of information.


----------



## NGH (May 21, 2020)

compur said:


> NGH said:
> 
> 
> > How do these two rulings not conflict?
> ...


Well one upheld the subject of the photo's 'privacy'; the other upheld the photo's owner to sell and share the image despite the subject of the photo's  'privacy'


----------



## NGH (May 21, 2020)

Thanks for the responses as always I guess in these things each case has it's own merits and as some of you say different countries see things in different ways.  Either way, things are changing in this area is seems


----------



## Overread (May 22, 2020)

Don't forget the court ruling on the family issue is likely more complex than purely photographic rights to image use. Family cases can get all kinds of vindictive and messy and complicated and sometimes what can appear an odd ruling in regard to one set of laws is done because of other laws being brought in from other areas. There's also aspects of mediation and resolution that can come into play.


----------



## compur (May 22, 2020)

In the USA, for the most part, photos of persons taken in public places do not require a release unless the images are used in advertising to sell a product or service. 

_"...a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization.  A model release would almost always be required if the use is for advertising.  *A model release is not needed for publishing the photo as news, or for artistic or editorial expression.*"
_


----------



## NGH (May 22, 2020)

Overread said:


> Don't forget the court ruling on the family issue is likely more complex than purely photographic rights to image use. Family cases can get all kinds of vindictive and messy and complicated and sometimes what can appear an odd ruling in regard to one set of laws is done because of other laws being brought in from other areas. There's also aspects of mediation and resolution that can come into play.



Good point, I hadn't really thought about it like that


----------



## kdsmithjr (May 24, 2020)

NGH said:


> In a BBC article Grandmother ordered to delete Facebook photos a court has ruled that under privacy rules a Grandmother must take down and pay a fine for using pictures of her grandchildren (after a falling out with the kids mother).   Reason being "posting photographs on social media made them available to a wider audience, the ruling said"
> 
> But in another article Ex-McDonalds Worker Gets Getty to Stop Selling Photo of Her Used in Negative Articles  a woman who is the subject of a photo on Getty has struggled to stop its use (in generally negative contexts) because it "was being used in editorial coverage, not for commercial purposes
> 
> How do these two rulings not conflict?


This is an age old question and legal libraries are full of rulings in the issue of how much privacy does one have and when are lines crossed? What seems clear yesterday might be muddied by a new ruling next week. Here goes....
Generally, if you are in a public place, you are free to shoot any thing....or anyone there. And if you keep the shot either on your camera, or in your desk drawer at home, you shouldn't run into an issue. However, a big however, is what you 'use' the shot for--or even intend to use the shot for. Sticking the shot in your desk drawer at home or on the camera memory isnt really a use; all you really have done is preserve a moment in a private place.  Particularly on digital...can you say you have recorded something; and arent' there laws about recording. Yes, there are...but most of those laws cover the use of the recording....not the recording itself...at long as there was no prohibition on recording something digitally,
Concern about whether or not you can take a photo generally boils down to your use of the photo and there are minefields of rulings on that...use. Generally, if you are paid or benefit in any way from a photo you took, any recognizable person in the shot gains some rights that could trample your right to benefit from what you shot. Unless something has 'news value'..and such value is debatable...plan on having a 'model release'..written permission from every recognizable person in your shot. Even friends and relatives? yes--UNLESS you receive no compensation whatsoever. Even your name below the shot can be considered something of value. Is there an airtight solution? Maybe. it involves...NO copies of your work to anyone....period UNLESS you asked for permission to shoot what you did. If you showed them what you shot on you camera monitor and they seem to like it. offer to send them an email copy. That establishes that you gave them some compensation in returrn for them giving you permission to shoot. But even that isn't airtight so, proceed with caution.


----------



## johngpt (May 27, 2020)

If I read the McDonalds/Getty story correctly, Getty decided after some years of sales to no longer offer the woman's photo for sale. There hadn't been any legal determination against Getty. It seems Getty decided to pull it as a sign of 'goodwill.'
Being the cynic, I'd say Getty was probably noticing diminishing sales and figured it could get a bit of good PR from pulling the image.


----------

