Photobomb Horse Owner Demands Share Of Selfie Prize

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It turns out that the owner of this horse is a jackass. Whodathunkit?

Mitchell said: “I was really annoyed to hear he had won a £2,000 holiday and had used a picture of our horse without our permission. He should have asked for our consent. There should be some token gesture as it is our horse that has really won them the holiday,” she said.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,227
"I asked the horse for proper ID when I took the selfie. He farted and walked off."
 

Probleminfected

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,392
me me me me, mine mine mine mine, you can't have it, if I can't have it, I don't feel special... Blah, blah, blah...

People are pathetic...
 

pgwalsh

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
698
What a lot of people don't realize is the owner is attached to the other end of that horse. :p
 

Quix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
3,710
Owner of a photo is the photographer, not the subject. This idiot needs to get a clue.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,700
I like how they claim it was the horse and not the boy and his father that won the contest. Sounds like a jackass to me. Which means we have one parent in the picture with the donkey elsewhere
 

Wiffle

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
292
Who owns a horse in England? Here in the states, if you don't have the land for it, you have to pay for it to be housed. So either this jackass owns a large parcel of land in a tiny ass country, or he is paying for it to be housed. Either way, you know the owner has money, cause horses are not cheap to own. Maybe if he wants a 2,000 pound vacation, he should sell his horse.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,700
Who owns a horse in England? Here in the states, if you don't have the land for it, you have to pay for it to be housed. So either this jackass owns a large parcel of land in a tiny ass country, or he is paying for it to be housed. Either way, you know the owner has money, cause horses are not cheap to own. Maybe if he wants a 2,000 pound vacation, he should sell his horse.

I know plenty of people in rural areas that have horses with maybe 3/4 acre of land for it to run around in. There also are people in England that live outside of a city just like in the USA that can fit a horse on their land. From what I know they aren't exactly the cheapest to own unless you have a field and get your own grain.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
I know plenty of people in rural areas that have horses with maybe 3/4 acre of land for it to run around in. There also are people in England that live outside of a city just like in the USA that can fit a horse on their land. From what I know they aren't exactly the cheapest to own unless you have a field and get your own grain.

Pasture size is unregulated, but most places require you to own land. In my area it's 5 acres to have up to 3 horses I think and plus 1 acre per horse after. Yet I know people with 10, 20 or entire sections of wooded land and plowed fields than have a pasture less than an acre.

That said horse people either have money or are on the edge of dirt poor with little inbetween, and they are not cheap animals to have.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,289
Additionally in the telephone interview he revealed he makes his wife use his name when she submits jokes to Reader's Digest as well. He said it's the stationary with words on it that they would laugh at, not her thoughts. And he bought the stationary.
 
D

dceremuga

Guest
Owner of a photo is the photographer, not the subject. This idiot needs to get a clue.

^^ This. Even when you go get portraits, the studio/photographer owns the rights.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Owner of a photo is the photographer, not the subject. This idiot needs to get a clue.

The owner of the photo is the photographer, but the subject is entitled to make a claim if it's used for commercial purposes. Hence why photographers have release waivers.

Not exactly sure how that'd apply to animals though.
 

rigurat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
262
He should be fine if he had the holiday in another country, since these kind of things generally don't apply beyond the border.
 

N1GHTRA1N

Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
781
I've been to many places with animals. No one ever says you can't take pictures and I can pretty much guarantee that if you said "mind if I take a picture with the horse?" the answer will be "go ahead"
 

ecktt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
415
To be honest, the horse is the most interesting thing in the pic.
 

ShagnWagn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
1,233
LMAO

Fuck those people. They own horses, which means they can afford to let a guy and his kid get the prize of a pissy vaca.

I have horses in my family. If you own a horse, you can't afford anything else. An oversize ridiculously expensive pet.
 

wikid_one

n00b
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
5
I see no issue here. The photographer asked the horse if he minded, and the horse said neigh!
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
Owner of a photo is the photographer, not the subject. This idiot needs to get a clue.

I would just like to quote this for emphasis as many disagreed with me regarding tattoo ownership.

If a photographer owns the rights to the photograph does the tattoo artists not own rights to the tattoo ?
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
He would lose in court. Anything that is not human that can be seen from public grounds and is not concealed is considered public asset.

It would be like taking a picture of the Tower Of London, and winning a prize of that picture, and then the government claiming you owe them money for taking a picture of government building.
 

otherweeb

Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
860
“At first they thought I was winning £2,000 cash and said I should give them half, but it’s a holiday so they are not getting a penny. I’m not giving them the holiday either. They would have to come on the holiday with me – and that isn’t happening unless we’re both in a saddle together on the horse.”

...sigh....

Just FEEEEEEL the compassion!

...the world is screwed
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,847
If they were standing on public property when they took the picture, the picture is the sole property of the photographer, regardless of who or what is depicted in it.

The horse owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't understand why "The photographer ALWAYS owns the picture, even if you or your property are in it" is such a difficult concept to understand.

You don't own the right to your image, or the image of your property, and if something is visible from a public place, it is fair game. This is pretty much the way it goes in every western democracy.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,847
He would lose in court. Anything that is not human that can be seen from public grounds and is not concealed is considered public asset.

It would be like taking a picture of the Tower Of London, and winning a prize of that picture, and then the government claiming you owe them money for taking a picture of government building.

Spot on, except that it counts even if there IS a human in the picture.

There are typically some exceptions though. For instance, you can't use a picture of someone without their consent for profit. Competitions, and selling artwork usually don't count though. For it to be prohibited, you must be using a picture of a person close up as part of an ad campaign or in commercial literature, etc. They would have to be compensated for that.

Other than that, unless you have a contract with the photographer that says otherwise, the photo is the sole property of the photographer to do with as he pleases.

Now there are ways to take pictures illegally, in which the photographer loses these rights, like for instance, if there is trespassing, or if a picture is taken of certain secret military installations.

if you are in public view - however - and someone takes a picture of you, or something you own, you are out of luck. It is perfectly legal, and you have no rights to the picture. There is no expectation of privacy in a publicly visible place. This has been to the supreme court and back and is fully settled law, and is the same in most democracies worldwide.
 

ToddW2

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,018
What a pathetic excuse for a human! How could she even think her statements would make her not look like a fool.
 

Godlyfrog

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
74
What a pathetic excuse for a human! How could she even think her statements would make her not look like a fool.

I think it stems from the statement someone else made earlier: "horses are expensive to own." The owner is probably feeling the weight of paying for a horse and is looking for anything they can get their hands on to offset that cost. Someone who was financially comfortable would never have done this, IMHO.
 

patric

Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
665
The owner of the photo is the photographer, but the subject is entitled to make a claim if it's used for commercial purposes. Hence why photographers have release waivers.

Not exactly sure how that'd apply to animals though.

The owner if the photo is indeed the photographer and you're also correct that the subject is entitled to make a claim as well. Any time you take pictures with something recognizable in the background and use it for anything besides personal use, the photographer needs to get a signed property release form from the property owner. This includes buildings, land, pets, artwork, vehicles, etc. In this case the horse is recognizable, so they should've gotten a signed release before using the image.
 

Kinsaras

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3,614
A horse is a horse of course of course but clearly this horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,616
“At first they thought I was winning £2,000 cash and said I should give them half, but it’s a holiday so they are not getting a penny. I’m not giving them the holiday either. They would have to come on the holiday with me – and that isn’t happening unless we’re both in a saddle together on the horse.”

...sigh....

Just FEEEEEEL the compassion!

...the world is screwed

Why should he care one iota about them in this case?

The owner of the horse isn't owed jack and shit, and the prize winner stated that if it would have been money he would have shared, but it isn't money, it is an activity valued around that ammount, heck if i would be forced to pay 1000 pounds to take the holiday in this situation i wouldn't pay crap and miss the holiday instead.
 

jinhur

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
216
i kinda feel like the owner of the horse deserves something. like i'm sure even just a thank you card would have been enough.
just my opinion.
if it was me i would've preferred just a notification that was going to happen
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
They admit that its a holiday prize yet in the same sentence bitch about money.
Can you have any less holiday spirit than not just being happy for the winner?
 
Top