{"id":3122,"date":"2013-02-22T12:40:51","date_gmt":"2013-02-22T12:40:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocialelement.agency\/?p=3122"},"modified":"2023-11-27T11:23:42","modified_gmt":"2023-11-27T11:23:42","slug":"using-photos-social-media-uk-legal-pitfalls","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocialelement.agency\/using-photos-social-media-uk-legal-pitfalls","title":{"rendered":"Using Photos on Social Media in the UK: the Legal Pitfalls"},"content":{"rendered":"

Many companies at some point have innocently uploaded a photo on their social media page that they didn\u2019t own, and shouldn\u2019t have used, to the extent that it\u2019s almost been seen as an online cultural norm.
\nBut this is changing. As technology gets more sophisticated, and people become more aware of the issues around copyright (and have the technical means to enforce their rights), it\u2019s important to understand how to stay on the right side of the law.
\nIn this post, I\u2019ll answer some of the most commonly asked questions about when and how you can use photos on social media sites. It’s important to note that this applies to use in the UK only.
\nIn a sense, the law gives photos \u2018special treatment\u2019 over other forms of copyright, recognising the high value and impact of a picture compared to words. (This high value is why we all want to use compelling photos on our social media pages and blogs.)<\/p>\n

I need a picture to go with my blog post. Can I upload one I\u2019ve found online? <\/b><\/h3>\n

The starting point of the law is that photos \u2013 like any other content \u2013 are protected by copyright. Copyright means, literally, that you have the right to stop someone else copying your work.
\nSo, if you\u2019ve taken an original photo (or created a design, or drawn a picture), you own it, and no-one can copy it without your permission. This is an automatic right, and you don\u2019t need a contract, a registration or legal advice to \u2018copyright\u2019 something. \u00a0Generally, if you made it, you own the copyright.<\/p>\n

\u00a0There are three circumstances in which you can use a picture:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. If you own it. In other words, if you took the photo (other than as part of your job) or bought the copyright (technically, an assignment).<\/li>\n
  2. If you have a licence to use it. This might be a private licence from an individual photographer or a collective licence. (Creative commons is a form of licence, and I\u2019ll address that as a separate point.) The licence terms depend entirely on the owner of the copyright, so check before you use it that the particular licence you have bought, or been given, covers what you want it for. For example, some stock photo licences only allow use for non-commercial activity or news reporting. So this would be unlikely to cover a company website or blog with paid advertising.<\/li>\n
  3. If your use of the photo is considered \u2018fair dealing\u2019 (or \u2018fair use\u2019 in the USA). This is a limited exemption and won\u2019t apply to any commercial use. So, if the photo is for a company website or blog with paid advertising, \u2018fair dealing\u2019 won\u2019t apply. In the UK there are two types of non-commercial use of photos that could be \u2018fair dealing\u2019: (i) research and private study<\/a>; and (ii) criticism and review<\/a>.\u00a0 Both require you to acknowledge the owner. For example, if you\u2019re writing a non-commercial blog post reviewing a film, and you use a photo (that you don\u2019t own) to go with it, that could be \u2018fair dealing\u2019 if you also give an acknowledgement to the copyright owner and their rights. Note: the \u2018fair dealing\u2019 exemption does not apply to photos used in reporting current events. This is the law\u2019s recognition of the high value of photos in current events.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In all circumstances<\/b>, you must consider the content as well as the copyright. Do you have the right to display the content? If not, you can\u2019t use it (for example, if the photo is of a famous person, a brand or another copyright work such as a painting).<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    If I find a photo in Google Images, is that ok to use? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    No, not unless you fall into one of the three categories of permitted use described above. And if you don\u2019t, you can get caught. Blogger and writer Roni Loren discovered the hard way that grabbing an image from Google Images can lead to a costly and emotionally draining legal battle. Ignorance isn\u2019t a legal defence when it comes to copyright.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    I paid a freelance photographer to take pictures for me. Surely that means I own them? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    No, it doesn\u2019t. Under UK law, the photographer retains copyright even if you paid them to take the pictures, unless you have a specific agreement to the contrary. You should always have at least a written licence from your photographer or, if you want ownership, then an assignment of the copyright so you become the owner.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    I employ someone who took some photos at an event we attended. Do I own the photos? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    Yes. If you employ someone full- or part-time, and part of their job is to take pictures for you, then you own the rights to those pictures. But if it\u2019s a contractor or a freelancer, you don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    I want to link to someone else\u2019s picture \u2013 is that ok? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    How the technology works is key here.\u00a0 Linking to an original picture is fine as that\u2019s not technically copying. Some technology will show a \u2018preview\u2019 of the picture (for example, if you share a picture on Facebook, you\u2019re always pointing people back to the original, rather than reproducing it onto your news feed) which can be copyright infringement.
    \nBut still take care with links.\u00a0 As technology advances this is a developing area legally (i.e. there are     some cases<\/a> because companies are feeling aggrieved at the loss of revenue).
    \nIf there is any more than a pure link (such as a thumbnail preview or copy of the title in the link) it may well be copyright infringement.\u00a0 And you still need to take care with the content of what you link to, as the UK Court has recently suggested website and blog owners have liability for any unlawful content they link to.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    My photo includes a brand logo. Does this matter? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    It might do. It really depends on your intent and the context. If you\u2019ve taken a photo of, for example, the McDonald\u2019s logo, and plastered it all over your blog promoting an alternative to McDonald\u2019s, you are effectively reproducing the logo, and that could be breaching copyright (and trademark) laws.
    \nIf you\u2019ve taken a photo of a high street scene, and there happens to be a McDonald\u2019s in view, that shows a different intent and context \u2013 you\u2019re not infringing the rights in the logo, but showing a picture of a typical high street.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    It can\u2019t be that much of a risk, can it? Who\u2019s going to know if I\u2019ve copied a picture? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    The risk involved depends on the value of the image. \u00a0This can depend on factors such as: how much the legitimate use of the picture would have cost; commercial damage from publication of the photo; and hurt feelings or upset if it discloses private information.
    \nThere are some uses that that have lower risk than others. For example, you might go to a festival and use a photo (owned by someone else) of a band performing on stage to illustrate your blog. That would be copyright infringement. But if the photographer sued you, and it turned out this photo was\u00a0 just one of thousands of pictures shared by non-professional photographers on a social networking site the damage from that copyright breach might be relatively low. If it was an exclusive gig with only accredited photographers in attendance and you copied one of these exclusive photos, the damages could be considerable.
    \nThe sophistication of web crawler technology means that it\u2019s getting easier to find who\u2019s copying photos online and to prove the copying. If you reproduce a high-value picture, you could be up against teams of lawyers dedicated to finding copyright breaches and extracting money from infringers.<\/p>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    Can I use a picture of a celebrity? <\/b><\/h3>\n

    If you don\u2019t own the photo, copyright applies in the normal way. But assuming you have copyright, there are other issues to consider.\u00a0 Whether you can use the photo depends on the content, context and the information revealed in each picture. There are three main questions to answer:
    \n1.<\/strong> Does the picture reveal private, confidential information which might cause offence to that person and has not previously been known or seen? If so, use with caution.
    \nIn 2004, the Daily Mirror<\/em>     published a picture of Naomi Campbell<\/a> leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. She claimed this was a breach of confidence, revealing previously \u2018secret\u2019 information about her. The courts will balance this against any public interest in disclosing the information. In the Campbell case, The Daily Mirror claimed this was the public interest in proving she had made misleading statements about not having a drug problem previously.
    \n2.<\/strong> Should they reasonably expect privacy? There have been a host of cases looking at the different contexts in which celebrities may expect privacy. These involve the UK Courts looking at breach of confidence as well as the European Court of Human Rights where they grapple with the balance between the right to a family life and freedom of expression:<\/p>\n