On 18 November 2010 14:31, Matt Wardman <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a strange one. > > I've used an image of Phil Woolas from his dodgy leaflet for a > satirical purpose (a mug), and the design has been rejected by the > online company on grounds of privacy and infringement of image rights: > > "Unfortunately we could not admit them for your shop because they > infringe on the personal rights of Phil Woolas. These basically state > that any image with his photo or name on it that does specifically > refer to his person must be authorized by him. "
That is nonsense of course. Otherwise the paparazzi would be out of business and newspapers would have a really hard time taking pictures. Sometimes taking or publishing a photograph of someone might be a breach of privacy, but that's contextual. If someone is standing on a soap box at Speaker's Corner then, no, if they are in their bath behind closed doors (and you used some stealth camera) then, yes, and other places and times will be on a scale of greys between the two. I doubt very much whether copying a picture of Phil Woolas could be a breach of privacy. Its unlikely to be a DPA breach (though there may be circumstances where that will be in issue, not here). > > My question: are election leaflets in the public domain, or does that In the sense that they aren't subject to copyright? Then certainly not. Of course PW probably doesn't have copyright in the photograph or the leaflet, but someone almost certainly will. Almost very work is subject to copyright for quite a while after it is created. There are very very few exceptions (bills being one of the few that spring to mind). > mean that the leaflets with rivals' photos and pics of rivals' > leaflets are technically illegal? Well, if a politician were to sue you for breach of copyright you might be able to defend it on the grounds of (i) fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review (if that's what you were doing - not a mug, but quite possibly a satyrical publication); (ii) public interest (leaning strongly on your ECHR right to free speech); (iii) there's an implied understanding by custom that this is what people are allowed to do with each other's leaflets (but you had better be able to back that up with strong evidence) - I've seen such a line argued but not successfully. > > I'd have thought that my mug is covered by parody/satire exceptions There are no parody / satire exceptions. > and/or news reporting of a matter of public interest. > Does not apply to photographs as Matthew has said (see s.30(2)). > It's a completely trivial dispute, and there are probably grey areas, > but I'd like to have a better idea what the legal position is. > I hope that helps. > Pics here if you are interested: > http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2010/11/16/spreadshirt-co-uk-we-wont-sell-offensive-phil-woolas-mug/ > > While I'm raising the legal question, does anyone know the formal > status of party logos. For example, there was a rash of "I agree with > Nick" stuff back in April and I'm thinking that *most* of those should > have had formal approval for use of the logo, but in practice it > doesn't matter usually: > > http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/04/20/i-agree-with-nick-t-shirtseverywhere/ > Well, they are artistic works, so subject to copyright and copying them would be infringing unless you could bring yourself within one of the exceptions (see above). There may also be trademark issues, but that would depend very much on how you used them. As a rule of thumb: *everything* is subject to copyright (this isn't true, but its an excellent starting point). > Are there any cases where one party has taken action over copyright in > another's leaflets? I can't recall any. The nearest I've seen was a DPA claim against statements made about a candidate in the other's leaflet. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
