jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

There are legal issues here so if it's of concern you should consult a lawyer who is familiar with this area of law. Generally people may take pictures of people in public. However, if they then get financial gain from the picture it raises different issues. You would need to find out how Florida law handles that question. The real question is--is it worth it? Do you really care that they are on the advertisement for one month's news letter? Have they really gained much by using the picture on one month's news letter? Probably will not be enough damages to get any monetary compensation. Almost certainly not enough to cover attorney's fees. There are almost no other legal remedies it it's just been used once.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

On the face of it, there are legal issues here, but it can be more complex that it appears.

To begin with, I would think it necessary for the farm to have posted somewhere that the purchase of a ticket and entry to the farm implies consent to be photographed, Even with such consent, I'd think that a model release would still be required.

The liability for this last would depend on who actually took the pic. Were there posted signs or even verbal admonitions against photography on-site by patrons? If so, then the image would've had to have been captured by a staff photog. If not, it is possible that another visitor captured this image, and likely several others, and then submitted them to the farm with intent to license, In that case, A. the shooter would be responsible for securing any and all model releases, as the law clearly requires. Were you to submit an image such as the one described, any stock agency will require that a model release - and perhaps a property release - be submitted with the image before they'll even consider accepting it. And B. the farm would carry the same liability regardless of whether the image is captured by a staff shooter or a farm visitor.

Either way, someone dropped the ball.

Your son-in-law is well within his rights to be concerned about the publishing of images of his children w/o his consent. Has any harm been done? If the image goes no further, perhaps not, but it is still an illegal use. And what if the image had been captured by another farm visitor who plans to license it to anyone who'll pay the fee?

Still no harm, you say? I suppose that would depend upon who licenses the image and for what they'll use it. What if the image is licensed for use in the advertising of a product of which you do not approve? Or to a website which caters to those who get off on looking at pix of kids?

Boils down to the fact that ANY image containing recognizable facial images, or anything else that might serve to identify the person(s) in the image, used for licensing or advertising purposes MUST be accompanied by a model release.

I've an image of a bayfront beach, which includes a fellow running along the water line. He's backlit, and is nothing but a silhouette, and is in no way recognizable by any stretch of the imagination, but a stock agency expressed interest in the image, but refused to accept it unless I also submitted a model release. I questioned this, pointing out that there is no way to identify the man, but they said that HE could know that it's him and therefore, they'd need the release.

BTW, I no longer do business with that particular agency. Or any other stock agency, for that matter.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

As far as I know yes. You were a paid guest on their property and as far as I know they're perfectly legal in taking photos of visitors to their property and then using them for what ever purpose they see fit.

If you're serious you may want to see an attorney but that will cost lots of cash and may cause more problems than you want to deal with.

Nikonista Loc: England

It strikes me that the farm has behaved reprehensibly. It seems to be a small family business with low-level resources so if you get a good lawyer you should be a able to take them to the cleaners and if the settlement is good and appropriate they may even have to sell up in order to pay you. Result!!

Let us know how you get on please.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

If you're mad at them, see the following URL, understand it and the implications, and then decide what to do.

Some people would laugh it off. Some would nuke them, especially since they took the liberty of printing photos of minors. But here's the URL below and you can decide what to do.

BTW, most of the advice above is uninformed. I, by contrast, am very familiar with right of publicity law and litigation under it.

Here's the link to a discussion of FL right of publicity law, which is what the establishment violated:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-right-publicity-law

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

:thumbup:

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Many people, for either good or for paranoid reasons, do not want their own images and especially their children's images, published all over the place. In addition, some people would resent the organization's actions in using the images commercially without permission. It is, after all, a form of intellectual property theft.

For a summary of an interesting landmark case regarding right of publicity, see:
http://www.a-w.org/compuserve.html

photostephen

If you are really upset, you can consult a Lawyer (but make sure that Lawyer is in the State where the photo was taken and published). A Lawyer, not us photographers, would know if here are legal damages and actions to take.

Otherwise, write to the company, remind them that they did not have your permission to use your likeness for advertising, and that you want compensation. And them make the compensation something reasonable, like free admission, high quality copies of the photo etc.

Good luck!

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

You have to learn to "Just say no" !
:)

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

This is pretty straightforward - so if you contact the farm, send them a copy of this explanation.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Most states have a "right of publicity" law, which prohibits commercial use of someone's image without permission. The legal history of this type of law is most extensive in CA and NY and the other states have generally copied either the CA or NY law or used them as models. CA's law is CA CIVIL CODE section 3344 and there have been many cases involving both celebrities and ordinary people under that law.

JoeDigipix

I shoot "News" all the time. This was a newsletter not a billboard or whatever commercial use. News be it on public or private property needs no model release.

JoeDigipix

I shoot "News" all the time. This was a newsletter not a billboard or whatever commercial use. News be it on public or private property needs no model release.

Now if they write a book and you're in it...you have a case.

JoeDigipix

Sorry again folks, gotten get used to this quick reply posting. Is there a way to delete your own duplicate post?

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

I disagree. Based on the OP the photo may have been in the context or used for advertising. And FL's statute is quite broad: ""No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without ... express written or oral consent."

We haven't seen the newsletter but likely the newsletter is used to advertise the locale and events.

Many newsletters contain advertising and function as advertising as part of their purpose. This one is arguable, but again, we don't have all the facts.