A Photo You Do Not Have the Rights To

Sharing and reposting are different acts

Every platform has a function for passing on somebody else's post, which keeps their name on it and links back to them.

That is fine, it is what the function exists for, and the original poster has agreed to it by using the platform.

Downloading the image and posting it from your own account is a different thing entirely: the attribution is gone, the post is now yours, and the original creator has not agreed to anything.

The platform makes both equally easy, which is why the distinction gets lost, and it is the whole of the issue.

Where small businesses get this wrong

• Reposting a customer's photograph of your work.
• Using a photograph somebody tagged you in.
• Saving an image from a supplier's account.
• Reposting a review screenshot with a photograph in it.
• Taking a photograph from a search result.
• Reusing a professional shot without checking the terms.

The second is the most common and the most misunderstood, since being tagged feels like an invitation and is not permission to republish.

Being tagged is not permission

Worth stating clearly because the assumption is nearly universal.

Somebody tagging your business in their photograph is telling their followers who did the work, which is generous and is the extent of it.

It does not transfer any right to download the image and use it in your own material.

The practical answer is easy: reply to the post and ask. Would you mind if we used this photograph on our page.

People say yes almost always, they are pleased to be asked, and the exchange is public, which incidentally serves as a record.

That takes ten seconds and removes the question entirely.

The customer's photograph of your work

The case that arises most often for a trade, and it has two separate questions in it.

The photograph belongs to whoever took it, so using it needs their permission.

And what is in the frame may be their property or their family, which is a second question about what is depicted rather than about who owns the image.

Both are answered by asking, and asking once covers both if you are specific: may we use this photograph on our website and social accounts.

Where the answer is yes, note the date and where the permission came from, since a reply in a message thread eighteen months ago is difficult to retrieve.

A worked example

A business reposted a photograph a customer had taken of a finished installation, cropping out the customer's account name to make the image fit.

The customer saw it, and was not upset about the use but about the removal of their name, having taken some care over the picture.

The business apologised, credited them, and asked properly.

The customer was then happy to have it used and took further photographs on later visits.

The cost had been the cropping rather than the use, which is a distinction worth understanding: attribution resolves a great deal that permission alone does not.

They adopted a rule of asking in a public reply and crediting in the caption, which has produced more customer photographs rather than fewer.

Professional photographs have terms

The case with a genuine financial risk attached.

A photographer engaged for an event, a product shoot, or a property listing retains copyright unless the agreement says otherwise, and the licence usually specifies where the images may be used.

Which means images taken for a brochure may not be licensed for social, and images licensed for one year may still be on your page in the fourth.

Read what you agreed, and where nothing was agreed in writing, ask before reuse.

The same applies to photographs from a supplier or manufacturer, which are usually provided for promoting their product rather than for general use.

This is a general description rather than legal advice, and the terms in your own agreement are what govern it.

Credit does not replace permission

A common misunderstanding worth separating.

Adding a name or a link is good practice and it is not a substitute for asking, since crediting somebody does not create a right to use their work.

It does reduce the chance of anybody objecting, and it is what most people actually want when they complain.

So credit everything, and ask as well.

The reverse assumption, that a photograph found online is usable if attributed, is the one that produces demands for payment.

Fix what is already there

Since most businesses have accumulated some of this.

Look through your last year of posts and identify anything you did not take and cannot account for.

For each, either establish permission, credit it and ask retrospectively, or remove it.

Asking retrospectively is usually well received, particularly with a customer, and removing is quick where the original poster is untraceable.

The same audit applies to your website, where an image added years ago by a previous supplier is the version most likely to produce a letter.

An hour, once, and then a habit of asking prevents it recurring.

The counter-case

This can be applied more anxiously than the risk warrants.

A small local business resharing a customer's photograph with credit is at negligible practical risk, and the relationship rather than the law is what is actually at stake.

Using the platform's own share function is genuinely fine and requires no permission at all, which covers a large share of what businesses want to do.

The cases that carry real risk are professional photographs, stock images, and anything commercial used without a licence, which is a narrower set than the anxiety suggests.

Share natively, ask before reposting, credit everything, and check the terms on anything a professional took.

The rules

1. Use the share function rather than downloading.
2. Treat a tag as generosity, not permission.
3. Ask in a public reply, which records it.
4. Credit in the caption, always.
5. Check the licence on professional photographs.
6. Note the date permission was given.
7. Audit the last year once.

Step one resolves most of this without any conversation at all, since the platform's own function carries the attribution that removing is what causes the offence.

Sourcing images for your site is covered in using a photo you did not take.

Frequently asked questions

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.