Greed

[Black Pearl]

The owners of the horse should be ashamed but I wonder how it will pan out.
I hope the holiday company tell then there is no claim and it doesn't affect the winner who I feel hasn't done anything wrong, legal, morally or otherwise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-animal.html

[Shadowman]

I wonder if the owner of the horse is also the owner of the buildings in the back and I guess could have a case there as well? I assume the horse owner does own the buildings, it's just that the one structure looks like an apartment building.

[Manfred M]

It would be interesting to have a legal opinion on this one. I know that UK and Canadian laws on this subject are fairly similar.

Taking a picture from a public place requires no permission, so the horse, buildings, etc, can be freely photographed if the photographer was standing in a public place when taking the picture. Where things get more complicated is the end use of the image. If Thompson Holidays publishes the picture as part of an advertising campaign for its "Blue Monday" program, I suspect that some kind of property release might be required, as this could be deemed commercial use of the image.

[John 2]

Your description applies to the UK as well Manfred. There is a difference between being able to take photographs in given place or situation and the rights that apply to the subsequent exploitation of the resulting image. Model release forms have always been a feature but in recent years, property release forms have become a feature as well, particularly when dealing with organisations like the National Trust. However, how that applies to a horse, I don't know. I suspect that a horse might be defined as a property.

[TonyW]

In Australia too, according to what I have heard and read, the horse owner wouldn't have a case.

[Rob Ekins]

It would be interesting to have a legal opinion on this one. I know that UK and Canadian laws on this subject are fairly similar.

From the article...

Wayne Beynon, partner and intellectual property lawyer at Capital Law, said that the owner of the horse does not have a legal leg to stand on.
'The father and child were on a public footpath (and not in the field) and so there is no issue of trespass,' he said.
'A photographer automatically owns copyright in the image and does not require permission of the horse (or its owner) to take the photo – much in the same way as photographers don’t require permission to take pictures of celebrities when they are out in public.
'The only issue from an intellectual property perspective is whether the father obtained his son’s permission, as owner of copyright in the photos, to use them in the competition – but given that young Jacob is getting a holiday out of it, I guess he’d say he gave consent.'

[Tronhard]

I can't believe how ill-willed people can be to ruin a child's happiness by demanding to share in the prize. If they felt they had an issue they should have taken legal advice before sounding off like that. so sad...

[Venser]

If Thompson Holidays publishes the picture as part of an advertising campaign for its "Blue Monday" program, I suspect that some kind of property release might be required, as this could be deemed commercial use of the image.

Just asked our trademark lawyer at work and he's certain the owner of the building has no leg to stand on. The building in question isn't a prominent part of the photo and is merely incidental to the overall photo.

[Manfred M]

Just asked our trademark lawyer at work and he's certain the owner of the building has no leg to stand on. The building in question isn't a prominent part of the photo and is merely incidental to the overall photo.

What about the horse? It is a significant part of the and is property, so I was thinking more of it than the building being the potential issue.

[Venser]

What about the horse? It is a significant part of the and is property, so I was thinking more of it than the building being the potential issue.

His answer was he thinks it's irrelevant. The reason is the horse is nondescript. If it were American Pharoah, it'd be a slam dunk for the horse owner.

Again, this was his armchair analysis spending two minutes reading the article.

EDIT - The photo was used solely for the competition and the travel company isn't using it in future ads, at least according to the article. There's a legal opinion in the article as well saying the horse owner is in the wrong and will probably be wasting her time.

[Shadowman]

What about the horse? It is a significant part of the and is property, so I was thinking more of it than the building being the potential issue.

My thinking is that the building would help identify the horse, otherwise a horse is a horse...

[tao2]

Ah think that the horse is irrelevant also ... but, if the horse owner owns the land and the buildings in the background and Thomson want tae use the whole image, even if it's only once - then, ah believe, in UK law, they have tae request permission (at the very least), since the land and the buildings are private property.

AFAIK, even if a private building is in a public area then, regardless of where the image is taken from; if the image (of the building and its private area) is tae be used commercially , permission has tae be obtained from the owners.

Ah think it more likely that the horse owner, like most others, simply rents space in the field and stables, so nae claim.. she's a tube either way...

[John 2]

A couple of links that cover the subject - specifically for the UK.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/u...srights-v2.pdf

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photog...buildings.html

The first is not an easy read but is fairly comprehensive. The author (Linda MacPherson) is a solicitor active in this particular area. The second covers buildings in particular.

The only more recent development that I have come across is that of what has become known as "Image rights". The reference to "Image" is not a reference to the photographic image but to an individuals persona or in the case of a building, its iconic status. However, this is not a change in the law. You are still able to take photographs (there are some exceptions - see below) and you will be the copyright owner. It's a recognition that where you have taken photographs of someone or something who's "image" has a commercial value, you cannot exploit that photograph for commercial gain no matter where it was taken without the individual's or property owners permission (i.e. back to model or property releases). The taking of the photograph and its exploitation are two separate issues. The precedents in UK Common Law that I have seen cited are actions brought by Wayne Rooney (and other footballers) and Jessica Ennis.

The exceptions I referred to generally are installations like defence hardware/installations, Defence contractor establishments and Nuclear Power Stations that are covered by the Official Secrets Act which prohibits the actual taking of photographs, and public spaces where under local by-laws, photography is not permitted.

[Venser]

Just found this:

Animals do not share the same rights as humans, much to the dismay of PETA. So, photos of animals invariably do not require releases. The "exceptions", such as specific and well-known animals, are protected, not because they are "animals", but because their likenesses are trademarked. An advertiser can't use a photo of Lassie, the famous TV dog, in an ad without a release from whoever owns that trademark. Of course, it'd be incumbent on a litigant to prove that the photo is attempting to leverage the name and "goodwill" of Lassie as a form of promotion. In this case, the claim would more likely be that the ad said something that wasn't permitted, and the photo wouldn't really be that much of a concern.

If you're looking to make a calendar of cute animals, and you're using candid photos you took in public, you are free to do so without releases from the animals' owners.

On the other hand, if you photographed the animals in a private settings, not in public view, such as a photo studio, you need to get a release because it's a private business transaction, where the person who paid for the session did not give up his right to privacy—and that right includes his presumption his actions (of being photographed with or without props) is not to be made generally available.

There are substantially further limitations on when a release is necessary for buildings or other property, because "things" don't have rights. Things are protected by "copyright", and its extremely difficult for a photo of a copyrighted thing to violate that copyright. In fact, it is impossible for a photo by itself to violate the copyright of something—rather, it's the text associated with a photo that might. For example, the text with an image of the Transamerica building being used in an ad that might suggest the owners of the building advocate some other, unrelated idea, product or service. That would violate the building's copyright and its trademark.

[IzzieK]

Some people! When and if they think they can make money out of inconveniencing others, it is no-hold bars. They will want their share...even if the shot was an accident, as in this case. 'Nuf said.

[SuffolkGal]

I guess it's just a good job the horse didn't push the shutter release - unlike a certain gorilla ...

[Tronhard]

I read recently that PETA lost the case because animals cannot claim ownership of their own image.

[SuffolkGal]

i read recently that peta lost the case because animals cannot claim ownership of their own image.

"peta" ... ?

[Tronhard]

"peta" ... ?

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals www.peta.org

They brought a civil action against the photographer who got the shot of the primate as a "selfie." Their belief was that since the animal had operated the shutter it was the owner of its own image. Apparently in the judgement the result was that animals have no copyright over their images, unless those specific animals have been protected under law by a human - as was previously mentioned for Lassie. Legal opinion seems to believe the same principle applied to the image of the horse.

[IzzieK]

Yes, PETA -- Pain Extracted Through A (nether section of humans and/or creatures' bodies) .'Nuf said.