The legal situation is clear...........

  Forum Editor 01:18 26 Aug 2004

A photographer automatically owns the copyright in an image he/she has created, and may publish it at will - even if the person in the photograph hasn't consented. This is the rule that enables newspapers to publish pictures of Film and TV personalities emerging from nightclubs a little tired and emotional. It's also the rule that means wedding photographers own the copyright of your wedding pictures - you don't unless you have arranged otherwise.

Images of children are no different - you may legally publish them without anyone's consent, provided you own the copyright, or have obtained a copyright licence from the original photographer or his/her agents or assignees.


Common sense dictates that you should proceed with caution. There's often a fine line these days between an inncocent image of a child and one which might appeal to paedophiles - and you should err on the side of caution. No decent person wants to risk offending a child or its parents by publishing images on the internet without consent, and it makes sense to ask first. A verbal consent is quite sufficient.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Google Home Hub review

Print legends Dan Mumford and Supermundane on making the leap from 2D to AR

How to watch Apple’s October 2018 iPad launch

OnePlus 6T : date de sortie, prix et autres rumeurs