can my childs image be used without permission?

[Nicole]

After attending a wedding I have found out my year old childs image is being used on a Facebook page and website to promote the photographers work. The photographer has copywrited the images and I have also found out some pictures were entered into a competition which I cannot find any details of. I am also concerned that the photograph competition promoters now have a right to the image as this "photograper" would have had to give permission for the competition holders to publish the image and may have also had something in their terms of entry like any images entered become property of "unknown company".

[Daydreamer]

I don't think they can. you are their mother and you did not give permission for your child to be used in this way. I'd get some advice.

[Adolfo]

I have that pic on my bedroom ceiling right now.

[pgbollig]

The photographer holds the copyright to the photo, but you as the parent have a right to the privacy of your child's image. So, your basis to stop publication of the photo would be privacy, not copyright. If the photo was taken out in public, you may not be able to stop them. However, if the photo was taken at a private wedding or a private reception like at a rented banquet hall, it would seem you would have a very high expectation of privacy at the private gathering. Plus the fact it's a child probably helps you, and I assume you did not sign any kind of release form. The photographer's contract with whoever hired him cannot change or release your rights (because you did not sign the contract!). So your next step would probably be to have a lawyer write a "cease and desist" letter (a warning letter telling them to stop distributing/using the photo for commercial purposes or else your lawyer will have to file a lawsuit requiring them to stop). Usually this scares people into doing the right thing. If you don't know of a lawyer who can help, you can look for one here - try to find one who offers a free consultation: http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservice...directory/

[Tim]

Laws vary from country to country, but in the U.S. portfolios are considered editorial work, and therefore permission is not needed from anyone in the photos. Facebook pages, websites, and printed books all fall under the protection of editorial use, and no permission is required from people in the photos regardless of age.

There are different rules for advertising, specifically endorsements. For example, if the photographer were to run an ad on Facebook or in a magazine, they would need permission from any recognizable person in the photo.


The photographer absolutely has the right to enter images of people into photo competitions without permission from the people in the photos. If the contest organizers plan on using the photo for any type of advertising purpose, they would need permission from recognizable individuals in the photos. Most competitions do not require copyright transfer of the images. The contests where the image becomes the organizer's property are usually limited to physical copies of the images, and the the copyright of the image itself.


Edit:
As the other person said, you can try contacting a lawyer, and they will basically repeat when I am saying and tell you that the law is on the photographer's side. You can try to threaten the photographer with a lawsuit barring him from using the photos. However, if it goes to court the photographer will win. His constitutional right to free expression is protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution does not include any right to "privacy," from private citizens.

It is irrelevant where the photos were taken, as long as your child didn't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which would not exist at a wedding, unless the photos were taken in a bathroom, which I am guessing is not the case.

[Eric Lefebvre]

All those uses (being used on a Facebook page and website to promote the photographers work and entered into a competition) do not require a model release in most countries.

It’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

Even if the images become the property of the contest owners, without a model release they are somewhat limited in how they can use the image. They can use them in an exhibit as art, for news reporting ... but they could not use the image of your child for an advert supporting a product or ideology.