UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[exosculate]

http://www.mda.org.uk/cbasics.htm

Thanks for that, seems to correlate fairly well with copyright on novels.

So a photographic by someone who died in 1936 would be free of copyright.

 

[editor]

Check out this poor sod in NY getting grief for taking a photo:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fsd0

 

[laptop]

Thanks for that, seems to correlate fairly well with copyright on novels.

Since the 1988 Act it's been exactly the same. Words, images, musical composition: the same.

So a photographic by someone who died in 1936 would be free of copyright.

No.

Lifetime of the artist + 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the artist died.

 

[exosculate]

Isn't that 1936? Or maybe 1935ish?

 

[editor]

And here's a useful discussion about taking pics on the NY subway:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/newyorkers/discuss/72057594069761326

 

[laptop]

Isn't that 1936? Or maybe 1935ish?

Only if the photographer died in 1936.



Once upon a time a photographer said to me - and 60 other people in the room - "Look, if I could read I'd be a writer"

 

[editor]

And if anyone tries to stop you taking a picture of a building because they say it's 'copyrighted' slap them down with this (from the same site as the PDF doc)

In the UK, s.62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides, inter alia, that copyright in a building is not infringed by taking a photograph of it, nor by any distribution of any photograph of the building to the public (i.e. commercial use).

This bit deals with the issue of taking photos of kids:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53

 

[exosculate]

Only if the photographer died in 1936.



Once upon a time a photographer said to me - and 60 other people in the room - "Look, if I could read I'd be a writer"

Thats exactly what I said - and you're accusing me of poor reading ability.

You make me laugh.

 

[editor]

I should have shoved this in the security guard's face:

In the UK, the owner of a property does not also own image rights to the property. And it is not an infringement of copyright to take a photograph or make a film or video of a building. The owner of a property can place restrictions on photographs being taken from his land, but not from a public highway
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c5140

 

[Firky]

There is a certain degree of respect to be had however. For instance, say if I lived in a lovely thatched cottage, beautiful and well - picturesque. I would not want people taking photographs of it. The odd one I don't mind but say if I was minding my own business, pimms in the garden with a fine English Rose, I would not want some dreadlocked hippy or some mouthy skinny geordie clicking away trying to get that quintessential english garden photograph. It is give and take I feel. Respect your subject and they'll respect you.

 

[laptop]

Thats exactly what I said

So you do. I swear when I hit Reply it said "a photo taken in"... the common misconception...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So, I'm walking along Avemaria Lane (near St Pauls) minding my own business. It's quiet and there's barely anyone around.

Passing a car park, I take a snap from the pavement and am about to walk on when I hear a loud shouting:

"Oy! Oy! You! You with the camera!"

me: "'Scuse me?"

"Yes you - you can't take pictures"

me: "Err, yes, I can actually"

"Don't give me attitude. If I say you can't take pictures you can't"

me: "You're wrong, actually. I'm on a public highway and I am perfectly entitled to take pictures of anything I like thanks. That's UK law."

"Go on then, Take try and take another picture"

me: "I've already got the picture thanks"

(aggressively pointing his walkie talkie in my face) "Go on. Take another picture"

me: "are you threatening me?"

(louder and more aggressively) "Go on. Try and take a picture again. Go on"

me: "OK, if you insist." (takes another picture).
<pause>

(security man puts walkie talkie to mouth)
"Get me the flying squad"

*editor bursts into laughter and leaves.

There's nothing worse than officious twats with a smidgen of authority.

 

[editor]

There is a certain degree of respect to be had however. For instance, say if I lived in a lovely thatched cottage, beautiful and well - picturesque. I would not want people taking photographs of it.

Then don't live in a "beautiful and well picturesque lovely thatched cottage" or put a load of trees around your house to cover it up.

Asking people not to take a picture of a picturesque cottage in public view is like asking them not to take a picture of a pretty sunset.

We get loads of people taking pictures of my block because it's so ugly. Doesn't bother me.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Here it is:

Question: is that a public space?

It looks like the entrance to a loading zone/parking area, under a building.

 

[editor]

Question: is that a public space?
.

No, but the picture was taken from the public pavement (or 'sidewalk' or whatever it is you lot call the bit that runs by the road).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, but the picture was taken from the public pavement (or 'sidewalk' or whatever it is you lot call the bit that runs by the road).

I suppose the reasoning is that if it's visible from a public place, then there's no reason not to allow a photo of it.

If the owner of a private space has reason to want his property to not be visible, then it's his/her responsibility to take steps to keep it from public view, with walls etc.

 

[exosculate]

So you do. I swear when I hit Reply it said "a photo taken in"... the common misconception...

Its OK i forgive your bluntness.

 

[Firky]

Then don't live in a "beautiful and well picturesque lovely thatched cottage" or put a load of trees around your house to cover it up.

Asking people not to take a picture of a picturesque cottage in public view is like asking them not to take a picture of a pretty sunset.

We get loads of people taking pictures of my block because it's so ugly. Doesn't bother me.

What I mean is that you also have to respect people's right to not want to be photographed. I have often taken pictures at festivals and concerts and people have dodged out the way, not because tehy think they're going to spoil the shot, but because they don't want to be photographed. I think it is the same when it comes to people's property - hence the example of the cottage. However it is a different matter when it comes to public buildings or buildings that impose a prescence on the enviroment they're part of (like your manor).

FWIW I quite like your manor, but I like that kind of architecture!

I have come across some beautiful customised bikes and cars in Brighton and not everyone was happy about having them photographed because it was there pride and joy. Although I don't really understand why because they drive in public and get more views than my photograph ever would, I respect their choice if you follow?

I'm talking a load of shite cos am stoned init?

 

[editor]

What I mean is that you also have to respect people's right to not want to be photographed. I have often taken pictures at festivals and concerts and people have dodged out the way, not because tehy think they're going to spoil the shot, but because they don't want to be photographed.

Hold on - we weren't talking about photographing people which is an entirely different matter.

But if you you choose to live in a pretty house that's going to attract attention, you really can't complain when you get it.

 

[Firky]

Hhmm.

I think it is because when I was a wee lad my parents used to live in a very pretty house near a river, in the middle of a woodland. Often we'd get people just staring at the garden and the house, and well us! A house is a place of privacy, solitude and sanctury. I wouldn't want people taking photos of my house. Nor would I take a photo in a glaringly obvious way of someone's house.

Funny thing is I have no problems with sticking my camera in the face of strangers and police?

 

[dlx1]

tho it 2 days ago.

"Don't give me attitude.

But ok for the Security Guard to need to go on a people's Course.

Some of the Security at canary wharf just ask why taking photos. But never rulde
Have seen then in the passed guards asking tourettes

how if the ed had a proper hear cut you would get greef

edit: just read firky 10-02-2007, 08:41 PM post
Were abouts was you taking photos ?

 

[William of Walworth]

I've learnt a lot about the rules and regs from reading this thread. I've taken shedloads of festival-specific pictures since about 1999. Thuis was done, very amateurishly really, without me knowing anything, but it's surely mostly a matter of common sense and basic respect. I've taken pix of Travellers and (mostly) their vehicles, big groups of alternative dreaded tatted pierced types, 'alternative families' (including kids) etc. and I've never had any real bother. BUT I've always made a point (if it's not just a general crowd shot and if it included things in the way of portraits), of asking politely if it's OK. Usually it is.

And if it isn't I don't. (Or on about two occasions, I've apologised if not)

 

[editor]

fuck

From the FAQ:

Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned...

Persistently disruptive posters will be banned.

Repeated efforts to derail the debate could result in forum access termination.

 

[Firky]

edit: just read firky 10-02-2007, 08:41 PM post
Were abouts was you taking photos ?

eerr is it canada square? something square, next to the big fuck off statue in the middle

 

[Jonti]

I saw a lad last week at Paddington railway station having his details taken by one of those pseudo-cops, community officer types - he was protesting his right to take pictures and, quite reasonably i thought, also pointing out the absence of an clear signage to state that what he was doing wasn't allowed. The fed wasn't interested and told him to be quiet or he would have him arrested and his camera nicked. I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.

It's just silly, though, isn't it? Imaging and distribution technology just gets better and cheaper all the time. Trivial example -- camera phones are everywhere, and are likely to become even more common. And what about next year? There was a piece on the telly months ago about a guy that kitted himself out with wireless gear and a webcam. He was feeding the video and sound to a web site, so folks all over the world could, ahem, "share his experience". Quite an interesting project technically, even if the content was well dull!

Yep, I reckon we'll soon be able to get live feeds from Ed's walkabouts, so we can enjoy all the sights and sounds, all the wit and repartee, from the comfort of our own homes

 

[Ae589]

I hope I'm not repeating anything already said on here but...

"There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.

It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place.

These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession."

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

But I can't find any news of proposals.

 

[laptop]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

But I can't find any news of proposals.

Me either.

And when photographers want to howl, they frequently do so in, er, the direction of people close to laptop.

I'll ask.

 

[Paul Russell]

I just saw news of this petition on another board.

I haven't heard anything about these "proposed restrictions".

Shirley if there were any they would be all over

http://www.epuk.org/

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/

etc. etc.

Hopefully the petition starter has just got the wrong end of the stick.

Me either.

And when photographers want to howl, they frequently do so in, er, the direction of people close to laptop.

I'll ask.

 

[laptop]

It appears to be a misunderstanding of paranoia about photographing kids.

More as soon as I have permission to quote emails.

 

[Firky]

Its OK to have teenagers with their tits out on page 3 but heaven forbid we take a photo of some children playing.