We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
photo of us used to advertise hol cottages
Comments
-
LuciferTDark wrote: »devonpaul I don't know why but I'm sure I've met you before somewhere, you both seem vaguely familiar.
Probably disappeared in a canoeing "accident" five years ago."She is quite the oddball. Did you notice how she didn't even get excited when she saw this original ZX-81?"
Moss0 -
not my best side0
-
i think they should have asked you first i hate people clicking away without permission.:footie:0
-
Thinking about it if there were such a law to prevent it then there'd be no existence of paparazzis would there?"She is quite the oddball. Did you notice how she didn't even get excited when she saw this original ZX-81?"
Moss0 -
good point i have always thought that they should have to ask to take photos, if they had to then diana would still be alive today im sure. They should have had permission to take her photo and dodi's that night its wrong.:footie:0
-
Having finally managed to view the brochure I can see why the OP is a little narked about it, I would be as well I think. I wonder if any of the people in that brochure realised they would be in it?
That said, the bird on page 57 is a cutie
0 -
superscaper wrote: »Thinking about it if there were such a law to prevent it then there'd be no existence of paparazzis would there?
This comes under news/editorial and not commercial use.0 -
UK law is very weak in this area so unless you want to take it to the high court there is nothing you can do about it.
As above.
Theoretically, the photographer should get a signed "release form" from everyone in a picture, before being able to claim the copyright of the picture and then be able to sell the picture and copyright to the publishers of the brochure, magazine, newspaper or whatever. In the real world, however ...The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in my life.
0 -
This comes under news/editorial and not commercial use.
Still the same law (or lack of) that allows their existence in this country though. Taking photos of someone in public without their permission and then using the photos for commercial gain. I don't see that much of a distinction."She is quite the oddball. Did you notice how she didn't even get excited when she saw this original ZX-81?"
Moss0 -
I thought if someone takes your photo for commercial use they have to have your permission in advance, unless you're a public figure in which case it's open season all year round.Winnings

01/12/07 Baileys Cocktail Shaker
My other signature is in English.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
