Photographers' rights? (1 Viewer)

[RockieRV]

Just read this on the BBC website, and am somewhat stunned.......

'Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby.

Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.

The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn't need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.
To be pulled out of a crowd is very daunting and I wasn't aware of my rights.

Full story here

 

[656]

I have a copy of UK Photographers Rights on PDF. If anyone would like a copy, email me vis this site and I will send one to you.

 

[N Luyetund]

Does it include the subject's rights Dave?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[moandick]

We all complained about the action of the papparazzi when they were chasing Princess Diana etc., etc., etc - so what is the difference between them and this 'Phil Dean' photographing Letitia Dean without her permission?

It surely is only good manners to ask your subject's permission before taking photographs - unless it has been made blatantly obvious beforehand that permission is not needed.

And the same goes for copying photographs taken by somebody else - it is a flagrant breach of copyright - we have obtained permission from every owner of every photograph we use in the BPG - and that is one of the reasons why we give the BPG away totally free to our members.

Taking other peoples property without their permission is theft - and that includes their photographs :Angry:

 

[artona]

Hi

How far does it go though. Just by taking a photo to include in your big pitch guide will be illrgal. There is an aerial photo on your front page. Its not reasonable to expect you to ask every caravan owner in case they object. The actress was being paid to be there, why should the public not take a momento


stew

 

[moandick]

Hi Stew

I hear what you say - but like many, many tourist attractions maybe the local Council were trying to recoup some of their investment in hiring Letitia Dean - by selling the ONLY permitted photographs of the event.

At a weddiing (which involved a TV personality) that I was involved with in Arley Hall in Cheshire, the Security Men actually confiscated every single 'visitor' camera on the estate and held onto them until the magazine published the 'paid for' photographs.

I do get seriously annoyed by over zealous Authorities banning parents taking photographs of their children in plays etc., etc., etc. but as you said where do you draw the line.

I recently phoned a site owner to ask his permission to use a 'sunset' photo on his website which I wanted to include on his advert in the BPG - he was utterly stunned as I was the very first person to ask his permission in several years - his photo had even appeared on TV without his permisiion.

I really do consider it exactly the same as if somebody was taking and using my car without my permission.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[N Luyetund]

let's focus on people, what rights does Jo Bloggs have to not be photographed?

At a recent event I was asked if I minded being photographed (he was a woodworking mag hack) , no, says I; will I have rights to use the image? No, says he, ### ### says I

Edit It contrasts with another experience where a freelance guy, working for the local paper, took pics and kindly sent me copies and permission to use them

 

[moandick]

Thoroughly agree, Graham - it is your right to say whether or not you agree to being photographed - and the 'shooter' should at least give you some 'pay back' if you agree - maybe that could be a couple of free prints or whatever - or maybe you could ask him for performing rights and a percentage of the royalties.

 

[artona]

Hi

Its a real hornet's web isn't it. Say you owned a campsite and in your advertising used a photograph of a very unusual RV that the owner had spent thousands of pounds renovating, say it was an airstream owned by Elvis Presley. You said the owner fulltimed there and as a result your campsite filled up for the whole year.

If you used the photograph without the owners permission could the owner rightfully claim some of the profit.

I was recently the official photographer at a dance comp and one parent was asked not to take photographers (not on my request). He then said he did not want me taking photographs in case his daughter was in one. I have advised the dance group that in future when they advertise dance comps they must include that there will be a photographer in attendance.

On the subject of the wood working Graham I think the photographer could have reacted a bit better but it is quite an emotional subject. He is there to earn a living and selling you a copy might be on his agenda. Out of interest how would you feel if he bought one of your woodworking bits and then copied it on a lathe or something. Copyright is a complex issue

I work as a photographer and it is getting harder and harder. People think that once they have bought one print off you then they have the right to have it copied for a much lower figure


stew

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[RockieRV]

Some interesting points here, however, what is surprising is that an individual was apparently singled out when others around him were merrily clicking away.

 

[Thepips]

And the same goes for copying photographs taken by somebody else - it is a flagrant breach of copyright - we have obtained permission from every owner of every photograph we use in the BPG - and that is one of the reasons why we give the BPG away totally free to our members.

I'm a bit confused by this. You give the BPG away? It can't be to get round copyright as you've just said you've permission to use all the images. Is there something I'm missing here?

Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake

Doug

 

[N Luyetund]

Out of interest how would you feel if he bought one of your woodworking bits and then copied it on a lathe or something. Copyright is a complex issue
stew

That's an easy one Stew, I'd be flattered and amazed at his skill

It's another well chewed bone of contention in the woodworking world... the best one could hope for would be some recognition as being the source of inspiration

If any pics of me have a commercial value then, yes, I'd like a slice of the action:Cool:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

There is a PDF of UK Photographers Rights available for free download Link Removed. Interesting that there are number of instances of "might", "could" and "sometimes"

It deals with the photographer's right though, not the subject's (apart from harassment & invasion of privacy). When I worked in data protection the question of taking photos/videos at school plays often came up - the Information Commissioner has guidance on that Link Removed which could be applied to other situations.

Graham

 

[Road Runner]

How about all these TV advert with kids in?

The worlds gone mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[N Luyetund]

The worlds gone mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite right John, we're just exploring the depths of one particular bit

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[moandick]

Hi Guys - sorry about that - I got ordered to take the cats for a walk - yes, you read it right - I had to take the CATS for a walk - it is a mad world......

Doug - as regards to getting around the copyright with having permission from the owners - it is not as easy as that, unfortunately. I have their permission to use the photographs and maps and text from their web sites etc., but what I do not have is the right to sell the end product and make a profit out of it - without paying royalties to the copyright owner. It costs a small fortune to print each copy of the BPG as it is - let alone consider paying royalties on top.

No, - I have permission to use the material providing I DO NOT SELL the end product - I have to be seen to be giving it away totally free. - And as other people who have seen my accounts will attest - I am very, very careful to ensure that everybody is under no illusion that the money they pay to join my club is just that - Membership subscription.

In fact - having to give it away free has helped the BPG immeasurably - instead of just Mo and myself looking for RV sites we now have over 800 members of our club looking for sites as well :thumb::thumb:

 

[Geo]

A rather flippant view but the answer lies in the job description,and definition
A photographer TAKES photographs, he don't ask for permissionoh:
Geo

 

[Thepips]

Doug - as regards to getting around the copyright with having permission from the owners - it is not as easy as that, unfortunately. I have their permission to use the photographs and maps and text from their web sites etc., but what I do not have is the right to sell the end product and make a profit out of it - without paying royalties to the copyright owner. It costs a small fortune to print each copy of the BPG as it is - let alone consider paying royalties on top.

No, - I have permission to use the material providing I DO NOT SELL the end product - I have to be seen to be giving it away totally free. - And as other people who have seen my accounts will attest - I am very, very careful to ensure that everybody is under no illusion that the money they pay to join my club is just that - Membership subscription.

In fact - having to give it away free has helped the BPG immeasurably - instead of just Mo and myself looking for RV sites we now have over 800 members of our club looking for sites as well :thumb::thumb:

That's absolutely fascinating. I'd no idea you could get around legal niceties of paying royalties in such a straightforward way. It may make a business idea I had some time ago viable again. I'm sure it must depend on the scale though. A number of subscription music sharing sites were hounded to death over royalties.
Many thanks for the explanation though.

Regards
Doug

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Road Runner]

Hi Guys - sorry about that - I got ordered to take the cats for a walk - yes, you read it right - I had to take the CATS for a walk - it is a mad world......

Doug - as regards to getting around the copyright with having permission from the owners - it is not as easy as that, unfortunately. I have their permission to use the photographs and maps and text from their web sites etc., but what I do not have is the right to sell the end product and make a profit out of it - without paying royalties to the copyright owner. It costs a small fortune to print each copy of the BPG as it is - let alone consider paying royalties on top.

No, - I have permission to use the material providing I DO NOT SELL the end product - I have to be seen to be giving it away totally free. - And as other people who have seen my accounts will attest - I am very, very careful to ensure that everybody is under no illusion that the money they pay to join my club is just that - Membership subscription.

In fact - having to give it away free has helped the BPG immeasurably - instead of just Mo and myself looking for RV sites we now have over 800 members of our club looking for sites as well :thumb::thumb:

Yes Dick asked me before using one of my picture as to whether it was OK:thumb:

 

[Jim]

I know of a couple of instances years ago where over-zealous, poorly (if at all) trained bodyguards have forcibly removed film canisters from photographers cameras and exposed the film to daylight. Interestingly these idiots have then been subsequently sued for assault and not the destruction of a latent image.

I always understood that in a public place a photographer could take photos of any member of the public and it is how that photograph might subsequently be used that might breach someone's rights. However, the recent raft of legislation in the shape of the human rights act and the data protection act make taking photographs a bit of a minefield. These acts are very poorly written, they are woolly and open to interpretation, unfortunately this means that the acts are slowly being hardened up with case law when people, mostly the unfortunate, fall foul of them and are prosecuted.

 

[Road Runner]

How about all the CCTV wherever you go?

What rights have you there then?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

How about all the CCTV wherever you go?

What rights have you there then?

You have the absolute right under the Human Rights Act to see any video images that are taken of you. You just have to ask the council, give them a date, time & location. However when they show you walking down the High St, they are not allowed to show you the faces of anyone one else on the video so they have all spent a fortune on very sophisticated software, that masks everyone except you.oh:

 

[artona]

Hi


You CANNOT be serious



stew

 

[GJH]

I know of a couple of instances years ago where over-zealous, poorly (if at all) trained bodyguards have forcibly removed film canisters from photographers cameras and exposed the film to daylight. Interestingly these idiots have then been subsequently sued for assault and not the destruction of a latent image.

This is covered in the downloadable PDF - presumably the offence is assault arising from the use of unreasonable force.

I always understood that in a public place a photographer could take photos of any member of the public and it is how that photograph might subsequently be used that might breach someone's rights. However, the recent raft of legislation in the shape of the human rights act and the data protection act make taking photographs a bit of a minefield. These acts are very poorly written, they are woolly and open to interpretation, unfortunately this means that the acts are slowly being hardened up with case law when people, mostly the unfortunate, fall foul of them and are prosecuted.

HRA only applies to public bodies not private individuals and companies. DPA applies to all. Again the downloadable guidance is valuable - there is a lot of difference between one's image being photographed specifically and it being just an incidental part of a street scene.

You have the absolute right under the Human Rights Act to see any video images that are taken of you. You just have to ask the council, give them a date, time & location. However when they show you walking down the High St, they are not allowed to show you the faces of anyone one else on the video so they have all spent a fortune on very sophisticated software, that masks everyone except you.oh:

Almost true - but it is the Data Protection Act that you use not the HRA. This, of course, also means that you can ask the same question of companies (e.g. shops) which have CCTV recording equipment, not just councils.

Graham

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

Thanks Graham, I will have a read

 

[Thepips]

Dom Joly tried getting a copy of his image for his show Complainers. Incidentally I LOVED the bit where he clamped the clampers van.
Back to the plot, he requested the info under the DPA from 10-12 different organisations but only 1 was actually able to comply. It was quite amusing that the supermarket just kept shrugging their shoulders when asked!

Regards
Doug
ps I watch WAY too much TV

 

[GJH]

Thanks Graham, I will have a read

Best do it when you don't mind dropping to sleep Jim

The actual legislation (both DPA and HRA) is relatively straightforward if approached logically.

Problems have tended to arise with the DPA over the years only where organisations have invested too little in training their staff in using it. The provisions for protectiion of data apply sensibly and there are provisions for sharing data where it is properly warranted (e.g. the Ian Huntly case).

The HRA on the other hand, whilst being relatively strightforward, causes problems because it was the first big Act for New Labour and is too aligned to party dogma rather than the needs of the UK. In passing legislation to give effect to the European Convention on Human Rights, countries are allowed "get out" clauses, known as derogations, which enable the legislation to be tailored to be aligned to the traditions and national characteristics of each country.

Blair's government, unfortunately, allowed political theory to hold sway over the interests of the country. That is why, for instance, prisoners who receive insufficient drugs to prevent them undergoing cold turkey can claim damages because their human rights have been breached.

The current government could, of course, amend the legislation to close such loopholes - but that, of course, would mean admitting that they got it wrong in the first place.

Graham

P.S. This is not a pop at Labour just because they are Labour but purely because they got the HRA wrong and have the power to put it right.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Littlewheels]

I realise this is an old thread,however,the subject matter is still very current. I am about to get back into Photography and note another thread currently running with many Funsters being Photographers does anyone know the current situation regarding members of the public being caught in a shot without me being able to trawl the Internet.

Social Media has come along way since this thread also therefore it must be a whole new ball game.

 

[pyro]

As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent photography of others in a public area, for purely private purposes

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice

You will find this site interesting

Filming in Public

www.theiac.org.uk

 

[DBK]

I upload a few photos to Adobe Stock and Shutterstock and earn enough for a beer every six months.

They are very strict and if any face could be recognised you have to have permission from that person in the form of a Model Release. I had to sign one for my dog recently for a commercial shoot! The result is I can't use many images taken in streets as the people in them could be recognised.

The same also applies to notable landmarks. For example, you can post on here a photo of the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao but try using the same image in an advert and expect a knock on the door if you don't have permission to use the image even though you took it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}