UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[editor]

Agency takes down pictures after Network Rail complains:

What's going on? Network Rail demand Alamy photo removal

Network Rail have backtracked on their advanced fuckwittery:

Alamy have emailed contributors and posted to their forum:
“We wrote to you yesterday about images taken at the Network Rail owned stations.
Since then Network Rail have sought legal advice and they have changed their opinion. They have said they’re fine to sell editorially.
We’ll put these all back on sale with an editorial only restriction.
We have also advised Network Rail to update their photography policy to be in line with this.”

 

[Tig]

Now here's an interesting story. Guy in my area complaining about not being allowed to take photos of fruit in Aldi, although I suspect there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Now here's an interesting story. Guy in my area complaining about not being allowed to take photos of fruit in Aldi, although I suspect there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

Sounds bananas

 

[Tig]

Sounds bananas

Aldi are within their rights to ask him to stop taking photos and to leave. I'm suspecting he displayed 'attitude' when confronted and that's the real reason he's been banned. Quite why you'd go running to the papers though, is beyond me.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Tyneside lunacy:

Security call filmmaker ‘lunatic’ for defying nonsense photo ban

 

[CarryOn]

Hi everyone.

I took some photos of trains travelling and some UK railways are interested in my photos, for 'promotional' use, they say. They send me emails but no mention of payment for my work. I know photos are very good but I am not sure what's the regulation related to the copyright when you photograph trains. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Hi everyone.

I took some photos of trains travelling and some UK railways are interested in my photos, for 'promotional' use, they say. They send me emails but no mention of payment for my work. I know photos are very good but I am not sure what's the regulation related to the copyright when you photograph trains. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

You can photograph trains as much as you like; I think stations might have restrictions on commercial photography on their platforms but not amateur stuff. In any case the railways do not have copyright.

I doubt that they would pay you; I imagine they want the pictures for free. If you politely ask about payment I would imagine they will say "unfortunately we are not in a position to pay for the pictures", maybe adding something about crediting you. Personally I would not hand over pics for free to a PR department who are getting paid for this stuff themselves.

 

[CarryOn]

I photographed outside the rail stations - and photos are of great quality and professional level - that is why the want them; some publications also showed interest. I just haven't photographed steam trains before - although I do professional editorial, landscape and portrait photography. It is a small railway station, so probably will have to check if it is run by volunteers and stuff like that. I am a bit confused as to what should I do. Thanks for your kind reply.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I photographed outside the rail stations - and photos are of great quality and professional level - that is why the want them; some publications also showed interest. I just haven't photographed steam trains before - although I do professional editorial, landscape and portrait photography. It is a small railway station, so probably will have to check if it is run by volunteers and stuff like that. I am a bit confused as to what should I do. Thanks for your kind reply.

Well, if you photographed outside the station you have no legal issues. (Even inside, they wouldn't own the copyright, but they might sue you for breaching bylaws or similar... almost certainly not though.) You have copyright on those pictures and can sell them or not as you see fit.

 

[editor]

New update:

Find out what you can and can't take photos of in the UK in this exclusive Practical Photography guide. Watch Tim take to the streets of London to see how people react to photographers, and get the official lowdown from Inspector Malcolm Graham from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

Insp. Graham does suggest that while perfectly within your right to photograph certain subjects, that it can sometimes lead to unwanted, and undesirable confrontation.

Children are one prime example that he mentions, and it’s no surprise that parents will often be very protective of their children when cameras are around, regardless of what the law may have to say. Also, following a person to continually photograph them could see you potentially falling foul of stalker laws.

The fact is, you can still take pictures of them, but you just have to be a little bit careful about upsetting and annoying other people. That’s the biggest risk to photographers, I think.

– Insp. Malcolm Graham

The use of flash, Graham says, is not an issue providing you’re not firing them into the face of oncoming traffic, or similar such circumstances. Even tripods and light stands usually aren’t an problem unless you’re causing an obstruction on a busy and crowded pavement, in which case you may be approached and asked to move out of the way.

The police won’t have the right to stop you from photographing at all, unless you’re going to be arrested for an offence, associated or not associated with the taking of those pictures.

– Insp. Malcolm Graham

Security guards typically only have the power to ask you to leave and they have no rights to seize your equipment; nor do police unless you’re being arrested for a offence, even if it’s not related to photography. Nobody has the right to delete images or ask you to do so without a court order.

Section 44, thankfully is long since history and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act only allows the police to stop you and seize your equipment if they have reasonable grounds to do so (and the act of simply making photographs is not reasonable enough grounds). If you’re not actually a terrorist, you should have nothing to worry about.

Photographing on the streets and the law in the UK - DIY Photography

 

[editor]

The photographer in the video has far more patience than me.

 

[RoyReed]

Not good!

 

[editor]

Not good!

That's fucking insane.

 

[editor]

More here:

Police have been accused of abusing their powers by a professional photographer who was detained under anti-terror laws after he was seen taking pictures of Hove town hall on Thursday. Eddie Mitchell was held for about an hour while police checked his camera.

It was eventually decided that there was no reason to believe that the press photographer, who works for outlets including the BBC, was a terrorist.

“I respect wholeheartedly that the police have a job to do,” Mitchell said, “but there should be clarity on people taking pictures in a public place – it is not a crime … As far as I am concerned, it is a total misuse and abuse of power.”

Mitchell declined to explain who he was or what he was doing to a passing member of police staff on the grounds that he was not breaking any laws. Both he and Sussex police agreed that the conversation was not antagonistic.

After he followed an instruction to go to the police station to give a statement, two officers detained him under anti-terror laws. “The police didn’t want to back down and neither did I. I just wanted to stand my ground,” Mitchell said.

He was detained under section 43 of the Terrorism Act, which gives officers the power to stop and search anyone “he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist”. Sussex police confirmed that Mitchell was approached while taking the pictures and searched under the Terrorism Act because he refused to “provide information or identification”.

A statement read: “As a result of the search, which included the camera equipment he was using, it was established that his activity was not suspicious and he was allowed to leave.”

The chief superintendent of Sussex police, Lisa Bell, defended her officers, saying their actions were “completely appropriate when the threat level is at severe”. She added: “If the man had identified himself, then the matter could have been resolved in minutes.” Mitchell claimed his identity was established quickly from his BBC pass and a credit card.

Sussex police were unable to answer questions on what, specifically, about Mitchell’s actions had provoked a reasonable suspicion that he was a terrorist and under what powers a member of its civilian staff had demanded an explanation and a statement from him.

Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall

 

[Pickman's model]

More here:


Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall

A) he should sue; B) should have a mass photo of Hove town hall

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh: the police have no power to detain for purposes of establishing identity

 

[sim667]

I'm after some advice really here.

Last saturday I was sitting down getting ready for a quiet night in, and get a panicked call...... there's a club night on and their photographer has blown them out. 6 hours work, 2 hours editing...... I said yeah sure, £150 inc expenses. Take it or leave it. They took it.

I went down, asked about what they wanted "just photos of performers and crowd shots"..... So I cracked on. I delivered the images but 4pm the next day, despite having not got home until 4 am.

I've delivered 77 decent quality images..... But I haven't been paid, and I've got a message today saying "aren't there any more photos?"

I haven't actually been paid yet, so if they're not happy with what I've provided, I'm willing to discuss why and what they're proposing to offer for payment instead. But I should say they can't upload any images for promotion until I'm paid, right?

Edit: oh hang on, I think there's been a problem..... she's already uploaded them, there's only a 3rd of them there.

 

[editor]

I'm after some advice really here.

Last saturday I was sitting down getting ready for a quiet night in, and get a panicked call...... there's a club night on and their photographer has blown them out. 6 hours work, 2 hours editing...... I said yeah sure, £150 inc expenses. Take it or leave it. They took it.

I went down, asked about what they wanted "just photos of performers and crowd shots"..... So I cracked on. I delivered the images but 4pm the next day, despite having not got home until 4 am.

I've delivered 77 decent quality images..... But I haven't been paid, and I've got a message today saying "aren't there any more photos?"

I haven't actually been paid yet, so if they're not happy with what I've provided, I'm willing to discuss why and what they're proposing to offer for payment instead. But I should say they can't upload any images for promotion until I'm paid, right?

Edit: oh hang on, I think there's been a problem..... she's already uploaded them, there's only a 3rd of them there.

*waits update...

 

[sim667]

*waits update...

I'd exported some as a lower res by mistake, so I've rectified that, and added about another 40 pics of people I hadn't put in originally because of all the gurn faces.

They're using the pics on social media, so I don't think they can really justify coming back to me and arguing about the price now. So lets see if they pay in the next 30 days as it says on the invoice.

Still my copyright, so if they don't pay they'll get a cease and desist from me, and then I'll take action to recoup my losses if not. I know in theory now they're on fb that she's granted the rights of ownership to fb, but I haven't give her express permission to upload them to fb either.

I'm trying to be cordial though as my company I run with freinds does a lot of work with them too.

 

[Cid]

They can't grant rights to fb if they don't have them... Which I suppose depends on the terms of your invoice, but presumably is contingent on them actually fulfilling the contract.

 

[sim667]

They can't grant rights to fb if they don't have them... Which I suppose depends on the terms of your invoice, but presumably is contingent on them actually fulfilling the contract.

There's nothing alluding to terms on my invoice, I was planning on giving them an open ended license upon payment, at which point they were free to publish the images.

However they've simply proceeded to publish on receipt of the images, without payment first.

 

[Cid]

There's nothing alluding to terms on my invoice, I was planning on giving them an open ended license upon payment, at which point they were free to publish the images.

However they've simply proceeded to publish on receipt of the images, without payment first.

There will be stuff implied by the nature of the contract though. The law may be obtuse, but it's not so obtuse that it doesn't recognise things like a normal course of dealings. I have no idea of the details though; it's probably possible to argue that it was assumed the license was granted on a credit basis (the 30 day thing), but that's just a time factor. Once they've published the pictures they've accepted the contract and are liable to uphold their side of it. In basic principle obviously, it's probably horribly complex really - I'm sure they could try and argue stuff like not being satisfied with the images, but I'd think they'd be on a weak footing given that they used them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Once they've published the pictures they've accepted the contract and are liable to uphold their side of it.

This is key. I wouldn't worry just yet, in that it is normal not to be paid until a month after an invoice. And given the nature of the project, it would seem normal that they'd want to use the images straight away, otherwise what's the point of doing it?

This is where longer-term relationships are key, to build up trust. If your company does work with them, it's not in their interests to piss you off either. If they quibble over your fee, they're out of order, clearly.

 

[editor]

I'd exported some as a lower res by mistake, so I've rectified that, and added about another 40 pics of people I hadn't put in originally because of all the gurn faces.

They're using the pics on social media, so I don't think they can really justify coming back to me and arguing about the price now. So lets see if they pay in the next 30 days as it says on the invoice.

Still my copyright, so if they don't pay they'll get a cease and desist from me, and then I'll take action to recoup my losses if not. I know in theory now they're on fb that she's granted the rights of ownership to fb, but I haven't give her express permission to upload them to fb either.

I'm trying to be cordial though as my company I run with freinds does a lot of work with them too.

FYI:

In short, Facebook has a (broad) license to use your work, but there is no copyright transfer and Facebook does not own your images in any way

Does Facebook Really Own Your Photos? - Plagiarism Today

 

[sim667]

FYI:

Ah thanks, I had the wrong understanding.

 

[not-bono-ever]

To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.

The national trust are chasing commercial snappers for fees now it seems ?

 

[editor]

To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.

The national trust are chasing commercial snappers for fees now it seems ?

That is fucking ridiculous, but would like to see the story confirmed elsewhere. I'll message them for confirmation.

However, while charging for access to privately owned land and waterways is nothing new- even if in this instance, charging individuals, charities and commercial enterprises to climb, walk and paddle within the national park will ring alarm bells- Charging to capture an image within the park certainly rachets up the concept of ownership to a previously unheard of level. I understand that if ‘recognizable landmarks’ are included in an image taken by a commercial photographer, then this will automatically trigger a charge. I guess this could be anything from the summit cafe on Yr Wyddfa to a boat bobbing about on Llyn Gwynant.

As if to emphasise the point, The National Trust Photography Permits Secretary informed my photographer informant that the trust was ‘actively pursuing’ several landscape photographers for damages as they had taken photographs on the Trust’s Snowdonia estates without permission and were using these photographs as stock images. Of course, photographs and video footage taken within the SNP are not only being used in outdoor publications or in advertising features- witness the latest Skoda Octavia advert featuring Bradley Wiggins shot near Capel Curig and the Llanberis Pass. Photographs are also used for greetings cards, calendars and posters by professional photographers.

For every successful landscape photographer whose images might grace a calendar or coffee table book, there will be dozens of photographers who just scrape by a bare living through their craft. Charging an exorbitant £250-400 an hour will just not be an option in many cases for those who fall within this latter category.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Is that any different from, say, Network Rail charging a professional for taking pics inside a station though? (£250-400 seems well steep!)

 

[editor]

Is that any different from, say, Network Rail charging a professional for taking pics inside a station though? (£250-400 seems well steep!)

Amateurs are free to take photos on Network Rail stations and they certainly don't face fees if their stations appear in the background somewhere of a photo they manage to sell.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I think people assume that NT land and properties are public property. Its not the view as such but well documented legal area of where you are snapping it from. I don't think this is designed to catch out walkers with an Iphone, but taxing those on the private property and snapping the non public views for commercial purposes.

ETA, should be in the T&C you agree to when accessing NT properties I would imagine

ETA2 Photographic access | National Trust Images