Is it okay to destroy your own photographs if ... ?

<p>Simon: I'm sorry you've had this problem. It must be awful when you discover people have been using your photos without paying you. In America, there is a substantial penalty that people have to pay beyond the actual value of the use of the photo when copyright laws are violated. That's mainly for commercial use rather than let's say for some person who uses your photo for their computer desk background. But regardless, it has to be a sore point when this happens to you. </p>

<p>It's happening to most of us, not just me. In America unfortunately there are extensive 'fair use' laws that legalise most of it. There are moves to bring this in to the UK too (at the moment we have something called 'fair dealing' which is less extensive and more defined than the US 'fair use' exception, which is very vague).</p>

<p>On the (significant) plus side, in the US the additional penalties for copyright breach can be much higher than in the UK, but only for registered images where statutory damages are available, particularly where the use was 'wilful'. So on the rare occasions when you can get damages in the US, they tend to be very much higher than the UK.</p>

<p>Of course, even when you can get damages, they tend to be very small because the market for photography has been undermined and therefore imagery has a very low value, so it's usually not worth suing unless you are a content aggregator (ie. someone aggregating large volumes of other people's content on a pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap basis). </p>

<p>There are rare occasions when the courts can get annoyed and award significant amounts of statutory damages (in the US, sadly this doesn't happen in the UK) in favour of the individual, such as the (most notable case) of Morel vs Getty/AFP. But that's very rare.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is 'your' photograph in some cases (or all cases?) not entirely 'yours'?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a couple of weeks I've been pondering this part of Julie's original initiating post, particularly in light of some of my photos of family, friends and people I meet and photograph in public.</p>

<p>And I'd have to say that those photos are not entirely "mine".</p>

<p>Those photos were taken with the participation of the people depicted - either by consent or because they happened to be there and I photographed them. Many of those photos are records, not my creations. Beyond whatever minor bit of personal vision, perspective or skew I might impose merely because I happen to be holding the camera and mashing the buttons, the photos cannot be solely my own because I didn't stage the scene, gather the participants or arrange the elements.</p>

<p>I may hold the copyright and enjoy certain benefits accrued to that peculiar concept. But those people contributed to the image and they have a certain stake in the results.</p>

<p>At times when I browse my various boxes of family photos I'll encounter an oddly scissor-cropped print and realize that someone has been excised from the family history. Was it a fit of pique, or perhaps jealousy? Is that excised image now part of some bizarre montage in another reality? An ex-husband's head pasted onto a horse's rump? An ex-wife sacrificed and reduced to ashes in a nighttime garden exorcism? Who was this person and how did he or she fit into the family history scheme, subject to revision at whim? How many software-enhanced genealogy records will be filled with family gathering snapshots featuring a ragged square hacked out where an ex-someone-or-other used to be?</p>

<p>So I'm not sure I have the right to destroy photos of people.</p>

<p>However my infrared photos of mushrooms are mine-mine-mine-all-mine and I'll do with 'em as I please.</p>

<p>Bunny trails aside... As I understand it (philosophy aside), whoever is holding the camera owns the photo. Period.</p>

<p>Google about the monkey selfie and you'll find out that even if a Monkey is holding the camera, the camera owner does not own his photo.</p>

<p>The original question was not about "for hire" (for which a person may legitimately surrender ownership of their photos as per contract). </p>

<p>You can delete any photos you take that you own that you want. You legally own them if you shot them on your own and were not working for hire. I think that's true beyond the US...</p>

<p>As some have said, if it is yours legally, you can destroy it.<br>

I believe, though, that there are some (rare) cases where it would be morally wrong.<br>

If you owned the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination, I think it would be wrong to destroy it. <br>

I suppose more generally, if you have evidence that would clear someone accused of a crime, and withholding it might convict an innocent person, you shouldn't destroy it. I am less sure, but probably also if you have the only evidence that would convict someone.<br>

I might also believe that some pictures might have appropriate artistic value that one shouldn't destroy them, though I am not sure I know of a good enough example. That is, that they morally (for some reason) belong to the public, even if they legally belong to you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paul Muad'dib</p>

<p>If you are being offered some pay for the photographs, then you might consider taking it, or hold out or advertise for a later better offer. </p>

<p>If it is a dispute about value, then the market may be settling it.</p>

<p>If you feel you had an agreement to do work for one price, and having done it you are now offered a lower price, then I tend to agree that delivering that work and being cheated is less good for you and for society than forgoing any income from it - and if you can sell it to someone else at any time in the future for anything at all then your loss is ameliorated.</p>

<p>The situation is unclear.</p>

<p>I think that if you had an agreement that you would take pictures then some sort of contract to produce them on payment of a consideration might be inferred, in which case destroying them - or demanding an increased price - might look bad. But in the absence of a real contract with an agreed price, if you are short of storage there is no reason to retain them forever.</p>

<p>In the UK the 'ownership' of an image is vested in the person who fired the shutter providing they were not working for hire and they did not sell/assign the Copyright to the image to another person/organisation etc.<br /> Given this, it is perfectly acceptable for any copyright owner to dispose of the image as they see fit. Moreover, if someone wanted to use an image to support something they did not agree with they are also perfectly entitled to decline supply of the image(s). Any agencies that I submit work to have this philosophy which is broadly understood and enforceable in law. I had once occasion to force a national publication to delete and stop using two of my images as I disagreed with their use which I had not agreed to. I did not even need to use a solicitor as they were aware that I was the copyright owner and they could not argue.<br /> My understanding is that the situation is a bit more complicated with wedding photography (someone can chip in here as I don't do weddings).<br /> Of course, if you have taken an image of your Granny/Mother/Wife etc. and someone in the family or a friend wants a copy then you still have a personal dilemma even if Copyright legislation is on your side!</p>

<p>Has the case of same-sex wedding photography come up yet? </p>

<p>There is a case in Seattle where a florist refused to do flowers for a same-sex wedding, and I believe lost when sued.</p>