UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[editor]

Thought I'd post this query here; was on holiday recently at the seaside and walked onto the local pier where there was a film being shot. We joined a small crowd of folk rubbernecking to see what was going on, some of them taking snaps with their phones. I had been taking a few photos further up the coastline and still had the camera (Nikon 1 J5) on the neck strap, but turned off and lens cap on; couldn't see anything particularly worth photographing (although apparently Eddie Izzard had been around earlier) and was about to go when a security chap came bounding over and bent down to me (was a big bloke; I'm not) and told me I couldn't use the camera here and he muttered something about my camera interfering with the crew's film cameras. I shrugged and told him I hadn't used the camera and was just going anyway; didn't notice him speak to anyone else taking photos. Any one know anything about this ? Have seen people using DSLRs/compact system cameras around film sets before with no issue..

He's talking total and utter bollocks.

 

[RoyReed]

Thought I'd post this query here; was on holiday recently at the seaside and walked onto the local pier where there was a film being shot. We joined a small crowd of folk rubbernecking to see what was going on, some of them taking snaps with their phones. I had been taking a few photos further up the coastline and still had the camera (Nikon 1 J5) on the neck strap, but turned off and lens cap on; couldn't see anything particularly worth photographing (although apparently Eddie Izzard had been around earlier) and was about to go when a security chap came bounding over and bent down to me (was a big bloke; I'm not) and told me I couldn't use the camera here and he muttered something about my camera interfering with the crew's film cameras. I shrugged and told him I hadn't used the camera and was just going anyway; didn't notice him speak to anyone else taking photos. Any one know anything about this ? Have seen people using DSLRs/compact system cameras around film sets before with no issue..

I've shot in film sets a couple of times. If they're actually filming, their microphones could pick up your shutter noise, which is why they would ask you not to take photos, but if you're in a public place and not causing an obstruction they can't stop you. Piers are sometimes private property, so they might have negotiated exclusive rights with the pier owner if you were actually on the pier.

 

[duncanh64]

I've shot in film sets a couple of times. If they're actually filming, their microphones could pick up your shutter noise, which is why they would ask you not to take photos, but if you're in a public place and not causing an obstruction they can't stop you. Piers are sometimes private property, so they might have negotiated exclusive rights with the pier owner if you were actually on the pier.

Thanks; he didn't mention anything about shutter noise and I could have easily turned that off; he seemed to be suggesting that using the camera could in itself interfere with their filming. They were had about half the pier cordoned off, we were on the bit closest to the Esplanade, all owned by the local council...

 

[RoyReed]

Thanks; he didn't mention anything about shutter noise and I could have easily turned that off; he seemed to be suggesting that using the camera could in itself interfere with their filming. They were had about half the pier cordoned off, we were on the bit closest to the Esplanade, all owned by the local council...

Well the camera interfering with filming (other than shutter noise) is absolute bollocks. If you were in a public area you can photograph whatever you want.

 

[editor]

This seems to reside in a dubious area of legality, given that this was Leicester Square.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This seems to reside in a dubious area of legality, given that this was Leicester Square.

View attachment 149232

Hah. I mean they have the same rights to film and take photos in public as anyone else, but if they then used that to defame you, I don’t think “you consented by being in public” is going to cut it as a defence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They actually wrote 'throughout the Universe'.

I very much doubt that putting that sign up changes their legal relations with anyone tbh.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

That's priceless

 

[Magnus McGinty]

They actually wrote 'throughout the Universe'.

I very much doubt that putting that sign up changes their legal relations with anyone tbh.

It’s a statement of discouragement.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?

(Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?

(Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)

Sure. There are some countries where there is copyright over architecture but not here.

ETA: some MOD buildings are excluded from this in case you were thinking of that....

 

[weltweit]

I took some photos one weekend focussing on a particular tree that was showing great autumn colours. The photos were awful and I was tempted to delete them immediately on getting them onto the computer.

However it turned out the tree was just outside an army base and the guards had noted my licence plate and informed the police. Monday am I had a knock at my door and two detectives asking me what exactly I was doing so near the base. In the end although I probably didn't have to I invited them in to see the images I had from that session which seemed to calm their fears and that was that.

I hadn't even realised the tree was outside a base!

 

[cupid_stunt]

Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?

(Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)

As FridgeMagnet has said.

Years ago I worked for 'Somerset Life' magazine, which carried regular features on Somerset villages, with truly beautiful photography, occasionally we would get a complaint from someone that we had published a photo that included their house, or even had it as the main focus of the photo.

Our response was always very polite, but basically boiled down to 'fuck off, you twat'.

 

[bill4725]

On Saturday I decided to take my new video camera out for a spin, just happened to coincide with the villages xmas lights being switched on. I set up in the town hall making sure I was right out of the way and in no way causing any obstruction (was in the sports hall area of the town hall that epitomises the very definition of a public space) and was very rudely asked to leave as I wasn't allowed to film in there because of children being present (I had actually arrived earlier then the opening time in order to get shots of the indoor faire without a sea of heads, incidently at the time of being asked to leave there wasn't a single child in the sports hall). being a public space, a free public event and the organisers being a community group who had hired the hall and the person telling me to leave not being a council employee could I have refused to leave and carried on filming. I did leave when asked but only as to not cause a scene. I want to write a letter of complaint to both the group involved and the town council but I want to be sure that I was in the right

 

[editor]

On Saturday I decided to take my new video camera out for a spin, just happened to coincide with the villages xmas lights being switched on. I set up in the town hall making sure I was right out of the way and in no way causing any obstruction (was in the sports hall area of the town hall that epitomises the very definition of a public space) and was very rudely asked to leave as I wasn't allowed to film in there because of children being present (I had actually arrived earlier then the opening time in order to get shots of the indoor faire without a sea of heads, incidently at the time of being asked to leave there wasn't a single child in the sports hall). being a public space, a free public event and the organisers being a community group who had hired the hall and the person telling me to leave not being a council employee could I have refused to leave and carried on filming. I did leave when asked but only as to not cause a scene. I want to write a letter of complaint to both the group involved and the town council but I want to be sure that I was in the right

If you're inside private property - and a town hall would count as that - then you can be asked to stop filming. The stuff about 'not being allowed to film children' is legally total nonsense if you're just filming for your own benefit.

 

[cupid_stunt]

More here:

Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall

Blimey, I knew Eddie years ago, he's a big fucker, and always stands his ground.

Top man.

I bumped into Eddie a few weeks ago, turns out his Hove town hall experience wasn't the only one, he was arrested back in 2014 near Gatwick airport, for filming using a drone, despite having approval from the Civil Aviation Authority & permission of the land-owner.

Mitchell, a trained drone pilot who is also one of the few journalists with approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to commercially operate Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA), said he did not need to advise air traffic control as he was operating a drone weighing under 7kg at the time.

“I identified myself to police officers at the scene and said that I would be putting a drone up,” he said.

“Twenty minutes later, while I was flying it a sergeant arrived and shouted ‘get the drone down now’. I said that I couldn’t talk as I had it in the air. All three of them then came at me, ripped the controller from my hands and slapped cuffs on me.”

“All three of them tried to bring it down. They were passing the controller between them but it was all over the place.”

He added that drone was eventually brought back to the ground with a thud but after it had completed what he described as some dangerous manoeuvres.

Photojournalist arrested after filming with drone near Gatwick airport

It was a brief encounter, as he was in a rush, so I didn't find out what the outcome was, and if he got compensation.

The stupid thing is, he's a respected freelancer that supplies the likes of of the BBC, Sky, ITN, national & local newspapers with his work, and has helped the police & fire service by flying his drone over scenes of fires, etc. to help them to assess the situation.

ETA - oh, and this photo confirms what I posted before, that he's a big fucker, towering above the coppers!

 

[editor]

Power mad.

The new concert limits photographers to covering only the first three songs at a concert from the pit. It also states that all photos are shot on a “work-made-for-hire” basis, meaning the photographer agrees to transfer all rights (including copyright) to Grande’s company.

Finally, if photographers wish to use the photos they shoot for any purpose, including journalism, they must receive written approval from Grande.

As you might expect, photographers aren’t happy about this contract, and some pretty big organizations in the world of photojournalism are publicly protesting the policy.

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) has published a letter co-signed by 15 other groups, including the ASMP, AP, Gannett Company (USA TODAY’s owner and the largest US newspaper publisher), LA Times, and NY Times.

“This surprising and very troubling over-reach by Ms. Grande runs counter to legal and industry standards and is anathema to core journalistic principles of the news organizations represented here,” writes NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher. “While we understand your desire to maintain control over your client’s persona and intellectual property, we hope that you will appreciate our position.

“As representatives of independent and staff photojournalists along with the news organizations that they shoot for, we encourage your company and Ms. Grande to create an agreement that better recognizes and values the work of visual artists with the same respect we assume she has for the rights of musicians and the worth of their songs.”

https://petapixel.com/2019/03/27/ar...k-at-greedy-photogs-with-full-copyright-grab/

 

[Ponyutd]

 

[editor]

Brilliant stuff from Ken!

 

[cupid_stunt]

You sent me down a youtube rabbit hole.

The 'photography is not a crime' lot post some funny stuff TBH, they totally own the coppers.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Not one, not two, but three cop cars turn-up in this case , and the photographer fucked them all off.

 

[Ponyutd]

It's extraordinary how little they know, or pretend they don't.
They make themselves look proper dicks.

 

[weltweit]

Good that the photographer kept his cool and knew the law.

 

[dylanredefined]

Sure. There are some countries where there is copyright over architecture but not here.

ETA: some MOD buildings are excluded from this in case you were thinking of that....

They normally have signs prohibiting photography

I took some photos one weekend focussing on a particular tree that was showing great autumn colours. The photos were awful and I was tempted to delete them immediately on getting them onto the computer.

However it turned out the tree was just outside an army base and the guards had noted my licence plate and informed the police. Monday am I had a knock at my door and two detectives asking me what exactly I was doing so near the base. In the end although I probably didn't have to I invited them in to see the images I had from that session which seemed to calm their fears and that was that.

I hadn't even realised the tree was outside a base!

Well you made the weekend fly for the guard nothing
like a suspiscious vehicle to liven stuff up.

 

[editor]

Not one, not two, but three cop cars turn-up in this case , and the photographer fucked them all off.

"Can I ask what you're taking pictures of?"

"Anything I can see from a public footpath"

 

[cupid_stunt]

"Can I ask what you're taking pictures of?"

"Anything I can see from a public footpath"

On one I watched, it went as...

"Why are you taking photos?"

"Because I've got a camera."

 

[editor]

And my story from years ago: “Oy you! You can’t take that picture….”

 

[weltweit]

..
Well you made the weekend fly for the guard nothing
like a suspiscious vehicle to liven stuff up.

I did wonder why the soldiers on the gate didn't approach me at the time but on reflection they probably weren't permitted to leave their posts.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They normally have signs prohibiting photography

Yeah, I don't think identifying those few buildings that you can't legally take pictures of is going to be hard. Particularly as you'd likely be in a dismal field in the middle of nowhere to begin with, which should give you a hint.

 

[dylanredefined]

I did wonder why the soldiers on the gate didn't approach me at the time but on reflection they probably weren't permitted to leave their posts.

If your outside the wire unless you are an active threat. All they would do is record what they saw. They have no powers to question you or detain you.