Bit of a tricky one this?

It depends on how you want to treat any money you get from the paper. If you consider it as compensation for breach of copyright the MOD can't do much, assuming the copyright does actually belong to you and not the MOD.
If you consider it as payment for the picture it is presumably subject to income tax and national insurance.
 
kevshore said:
I have mate.:lol: I shoot at Coningsby regularly. It's a cracking base. You'll enjoy it there..

Kev.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah I'm looking forward to the summer with all the BBMF practice displays. I'm starting a Photography club there too. Early days yet tho, OC Police has agreed to *** it.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
This is exactly why I put a copyright watermark on the photos I post online! Someone criticised me for that recently when I posted them on here, but the press are happy to steal pics. Be aware that in the past some papers have refused to cough up by claiming that they're publishing them 'in the public interest'.
Click to expand...

Deffo something I'm gonna look into. Never thought my pics would be worth stealing tbh
 
Stratman said:
It depends on how you want to treat any money you get from the paper. If you consider it as compensation for breach of copyright the MOD can't do much, assuming the copyright does actually belong to you and not the MOD.
If you consider it as payment for the picture it is presumably subject to income tax and national insurance.
Click to expand...

It's seeming more likely the copyright isn't mine unfortunately but I'll check it out to get a deffinite.

Not sure about the tax and stuff, something else I'll have to read up on.

Cheers :thumbs:
 
at the very least id be contacting the paper - giving the picture editor a piece of my mind before telling him to take it down.

as for the rest, i dont think its worth sending an invoice for all the reasons stated above.
 
kevshore said:
Once he takes payment, surely he has sold them? They will have an invoice to show that. :shrug:


Kev.
Click to expand...

No it's compensation or damages. Selling implies they were taken to sell on to a third party for money. They stole them and used them without his consent, they were never intended to be sold.
 
barneyrubble said:
at the very least id be contacting the paper - giving the picture editor a piece of my mind before telling him to take it down.

as for the rest, i dont think its worth sending an invoice for all the reasons stated above.
Click to expand...

Yep that's the least I'll be doing
 
swanseamale47 said:
No it's compensation or damages. Selling implies they were taken to sell on to a third party for money. They stole them and used them without his consent, they were never intended to be sold.
Click to expand...

I'd deffo never try and sell any images like that, not worth the hassle
 
I'm also with Hoppy on this. Copyright belongs to your employers the MOD!
 
I've just asked a mate of mine who is aircrew at Waddington. A Flt Lt. He seemed to be of the opinion that the copyright does belong to the MOD because although you were not in working hours, you were on MOD property taking pictures without authorisation.It's not like taking pictures on public property I suppose.:shrug:
He thought it best to remove any off the net and let it all die a quiet death. It really doesn't seem to worth persuing Sean.
Obviously he doesn't know who I'm talking about..;):D
The bit I'm trying to get my head around, is what about when they have base visits (which I've been to and take photos). Is that because we don't work for the MOD and that they restrict what we are allowed to see?
I suppose they could argue that they wouldn't have wanted images of the mothballed harriers taken. Guess we will never know.:lol:
All very odd.

Kev.
 
Just out of interest Sean, how ready are the aircraft to fly if needs be. Would it take much to get them back in the air?

Kev.
 
kevshore said:
I've just asked a mate of mine who is aircrew at Waddington. A Flt Lt. He seemed to be of the opinion that the copyright does belong to the MOD because although you were not in working hours, you were on MOD property taking pictures without authorisation.It's not like taking pictures on public property I suppose.:shrug:
He thought it best to remove any off the net and let it all die a quiet death. It really doesn't seem to worth persuing Sean.
Obviously he doesn't know who I'm talking about..;):D
The bit I'm trying to get my head around, is what about when they have base visits (which I've been to and take photos). Is that because we don't work for the MOD and that they restrict what we are allowed to see?
I suppose they could argue that they wouldn't have wanted images of the mothballed harriers taken. Guess we will never know.:lol:
All very odd.

Kev.
Click to expand...

Cheers KeV I'm thinking I should prob just leave it like you say. Thank your friend for me too :thumbs:

I totally understand your point about base visits. I've been to loads of family days were every man and his dog is taking pics. Not much gets hidden either really. At the end of the day it's just another aircraft that's been photographed for the last 60 yrs.

I saw another picture just like mine in my local paper taken from the Sun newspaper. I don't know if that one was done properly or not tho?
 
kevshore said:
Just out of interest Sean, how ready are the aircraft to fly if needs be. Would it take much to get them back in the air?

Kev.
Click to expand...

I think I should be ok sharing this as it's what's in the papers anyway. As you probably know the aircraft were perfectly serviceable when taken out of service. I don't know exactly how long it would take to "un bag" them but man power may be an issue. I'd say at least a couple of weeks work on each jet sounds about right. Wouldn't be a problem if we still had 3 SQNs of man power.
 
Sean_m said:
Cheers KeV I'm thinking I should prob just leave it like you say. Thank your friend for me too :thumbs:

I totally understand your point about base visits. I've been to loads of family days were every man and his dog is taking pics. Not much gets hidden either really. At the end of the day it's just another aircraft that's been photographed for the last 60 yrs.

I saw another picture just like mine in my local paper taken from the Sun newspaper. I don't know if that one was done properly or not tho?
Click to expand...

The difference is, we're not talking about base visits, which are officially sanctioned and controlled - we're talking about taking pictures during privileged access through your employment.

And we're also talking about a principle, which is that employers have a legal right to protect their business and financial interests, which goes beyond paying a wage - and also extends outside work hours or work premises. It doesn't matter if the pictures are completely harmless, it matters that the employer should be the judge of that, so the law defaults in their favour.

Employers and employees both have extensive legal rights and responsibilities way beyond turning up for work, doing a job, and getting paid for it. That's the big difference between freelance and employee.

BTW I'm only talking about breach of copyright. Whether or not this is also against terms of employment or even the official secrets act is another question. That is employment specific, not a blanket legal copyright thing, sometimes covered in an employment contract. The reason why copyright is hardly ever mentioned in contracts is because contracts tend to only cover the exceptions to the legal default position (or else they would be several miles long). Anyone that uses a camera at work, or at work related activities, and needs to secure copyright should really get that clarified. Chances are that if it's just for your own personal use, there won't be a problem.
 
Dude. Just ignore all this rubbish about copyright belonging to MOD.

It may be true. Who gives a ****?

Just contact to the paper.

Tell them they used this without permission.

See what they say.

If they offer payment. Fine.

If not. Then just play dumb and pretend you didn't know MOD have copyright blah blah and drop it.

There is no harm in trying. :thumbs:
 
This working hours augment is interesting. When I was in then your hours were 24x7 but the forces graciously allowed you rest time.
Having said that I have literally thousands of photos from privileged access but the time lapse probably means they arent worried about them now.
I'd just have an informal chat at work on Tuesday. Hopefully you'll have an official photographer or person who looks after the publicity for the station.
Shame about the harriers. I worked with them for several years.
 
gun2dahead said:
Dude. Just ignore all this rubbish about copyright belonging to MOD.

It may be true. Who gives a ****?

Just contact to the paper.

Tell them they used this without permission.

See what they say.

If they offer payment. Fine.

If not. Then just play dumb and pretend you didn't know MOD have copyright blah blah and drop it.

There is no harm in trying. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

So, they cough up and the OP could be in a ton of mire..... Great advice "Dude" :shake:

Steve
 
gun2dahead said:
Dude. Just ignore all this rubbish about copyright belonging to MOD.

It may be true. Who gives a ****?

Just contact to the paper.

Tell them they used this without permission.

See what they say.

If they offer payment. Fine.

If not. Then just play dumb and pretend you didn't know MOD have copyright blah blah and drop it.

There is no harm in trying. :thumbs:
Click to expand...



Mmmm. It might be worth bearing in mind that he is still a serving member of the armed forces and has to live/work to their rules as such.
I still think it's best to let it die a quiet death. A £100 compensation cheque isn't worth the hassle that it could bring.

Kev.


Kev.
 
As a rule I ignore people who call me 'dude'. It's served me well in life.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone I've decided to put this one to bed. It just doesn't seem worth all the aggro that could come with it for the sake of a few quid.

Cheers again Kev for speaking to your friend for me :thumbs:

I'm still gonna have a chat at work on Tuesday with a few if the lads, see what they think?

Thanks, Sean
 
Hi,

I may be a bit late to this discussion.

Firstly, I do not work for the RAF but I do work on a site that has very strong links with the RAF and is covered by similar regulations. The site is covered under the MOD and official secrets act.

All the talk of who owns the copyright (it is the MOD by the way) is slightly distracting. The initial issue here is that you have a) taken a photo in a restricted area and b) then posted that photo on a public website.
Those actions have breached the official secrets act.

Now I know you stated the photo was taken for your memories:
"i wasnt doing anything wrong by taking some pictures for my memories"

and I know plenty ex service people who have similar photos, some very gory ones too but you then posted that photo to Flickr and into a particular group that you knew would generate more views, at that point the photo is no longer for your memories and that argument is no longer valid.

My advice would be to remove all 'suspect' photos from the web as the MOD may take a hard line as you are a current serving member of the RAF.

Paul.
 
Interestingly, there is someone else on here who has just left the Army and has setup as a Tog and crested a website containing loads of images of frontline operations in Afghanistan to showcase his work.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=316724

Apart from no longer serving in the MoD, how is this different from the OP?

Not disagreeing with anything said here regarding the OSA, just curious.

Maybe the OP could contact the other member for advice re images taken whilst serving?
 
Coming in on the OSA I have to say a generic image of decommissioned harriers in a hanger is hardly lightly to be a major breach, you can get identical pics at most airshows or from the road at many bases, it's not exactly showing the working of the avionics on the latest F35 or anything.
 
hzv5wk said:
Interestingly, there is someone else on here who has just left the Army and has setup as a Tog and crested a website containing loads of images of frontline operations in Afghanistan to showcase his work.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=316724

Apart from no longer serving in the MoD, how is this different from the OP?

Not disagreeing with anything said here regarding the OSA, just curious.

Maybe the OP could contact the other member for advice re images taken whilst serving?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information i have contacted him to see if he can help clear up my situation :thumbs:

swanseamale47 said:
Coming in on the OSA I have to say a generic image of decommissioned harriers in a hanger is hardly lightly to be a major breach, you can get identical pics at most airshows or from the road at many bases, it's not exactly showing the working of the avionics on the latest F35 or anything.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason i thought i wasn't doing anything wrong :shrug:
The aircraft have been de-commisioned and are all wrapped up :bonk:
 
I too was going to raise the point of the hundreds of photographs and videos from Iraq and afghan.
And also another member here who frequently post photos of him in his Hawk flying around the country. No-one seems to have mentioned copyright to him.

There was a thread on another forum about ASDA refusing to print certain photos from these places. Not because of copyright, but because they contained weapons. Does this now mean any photo printing place that has printed photos from UK bases around the world taken by the soldiers whilst on ops has breeched the MOD's copyright and are open to being sued?
Sorry but I don't buy that.
 
hzv5wk said:
Interestingly, there is someone else on here who has just left the Army and has setup as a Tog and crested a website containing loads of images of frontline operations in Afghanistan to showcase his work.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=316724

Apart from no longer serving in the MoD, how is this different from the OP?

Not disagreeing with anything said here regarding the OSA, just curious.

Maybe the OP could contact the other member for advice re images taken whilst serving?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm not too sure on the regulations around photo's while on operations, but the main difference is where the photo's were taken, see below.

swanseamale47 said:
Coming in on the OSA I have to say a generic image of decommissioned harriers in a hanger is hardly lightly to be a major breach, you can get identical pics at most airshows or from the road at many bases, it's not exactly showing the working of the avionics on the latest F35 or anything.
Click to expand...

This on the face of seems a valid point, but, just because other photo's have been taken from within (possibly with correct permission) or from outside the base (public property) does not mean that the OP's photo's have not breeched the OSA and the site regs.

To clarify a little, because of where I work I am aware of certain things that I cannot discuss with anyone outside of work. I am also aware of certain things that have appeared in the press (general press but more often specialised) and therefore could be considered to be in the 'public domain' but because of where I work and the OSA/contracts I still cannot discuss those things outside of work. I know it seems a bit nonsense but those are the regulations.

Strange you should mention the F35, that one comes under other particular regs too, being American, for gods sake don't do anything dodgy with that one.

TCR4x4 said:
I too was going to raise the point of the hundreds of photographs and videos from Iraq and afghan.
And also another member here who frequently post photos of him in his Hawk flying around the country. No-one seems to have mentioned copyright to him.
Click to expand...

I have seen his shots, really cracking ones, I have always assumed he has had the correct permission.

Paul (hoping to be vague enough!)
 
Well I've been in contact with cheesy and I can't clarify until tomorrow but it would seem the copyright is actually mine. Pure and simply because my trade in the RAF isn't that of a photographer, I'm an aircraft technician.

So hopefully :thumbs: for me :D
 
Like I said Sean the copyright issue could be the least of your worries
 
Sean_m said:
Well I've been in contact with cheesy and I can't clarify until tomorrow but it would seem the copyright is actually mine. Pure and simply because my trade in the RAF isn't that of a photographer, I'm an aircraft technician.

So hopefully :thumbs: for me :D
Click to expand...

That makes no difference - the pictures are directly related to your employer's business, so they own the copyright.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying there, is that people employed as photographers don't own theor work and its use is strictly controlled, whereas anyone else can photograph what they like without permission, they will own it, and they can do what they like with it :nono:

I really don't know what the consequences are - you might even get a pat on the back given the subject (and a 'please ask first next time'). Maybe not. The point is, you don't own the copyright so you can't go invoicing newspapers unless the rights holder gives you permission.
 
HoppyUK said:
That makes no difference - the pictures are directly related to your employer's business, so they own the copyright.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying there, is that people employed as photographers don't own theor work and its use is strictly controlled, whereas anyone else can photograph what they like without permission, they will own it, and they can do what they like with it :nono:

I really don't know what the consequences are - you might even get a pat on the back given the subject (and a 'please ask first next time'). Maybe not. The point is, you don't own the copyright so you can't go invoicing newspapers unless the rights holder gives you permission.
Click to expand...

With this being MOD, you may well be "safe" at the moment, but as soon as money exchanges hands, it could be a completely different ball game. Taking photo's for your own interest is one thing, making money from said photos is a different matter indeed.

Steve
 
HoppyUK said:
That makes no difference - the pictures are directly related to your employer's business, so they own the copyright.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying there, is that people employed as photographers don't own theor work and its use is strictly controlled, whereas anyone else can photograph what they like without permission, they will own it, and they can do what they like with it :nono:

I really don't know what the consequences are - you might even get a pat on the back given the subject (and a 'please ask first next time'). Maybe not. The point is, you don't own the copyright so you can't go invoicing newspapers unless the rights holder gives you permission.
Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing with where you get your information?

The reason im asking is that basically it's wrong. I've been researching documents and talking to people at work who know what they're talking about (including the professional RAF photographers) and I have it in black and white (an official MOD document) that the copyright belongs to ME!

Being on MOD property isn't an issue at all. The only way the copyright would belong to the Crown is if i were a professional photographer employed by the RAF/MOD to take the shots.

I'm assuming that the comments you've made are all just your opinion?
 
Well, the key point under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 would be whether you were taking the photographs 'in the course of your employment'.

There is precedent in both directions.

The case for the RAF owning copyright is, indeed, weakened because Sean's primary job function is not the creation of intellectual property. I seem to understand that you're a mechanic of some sort? (on a complete aside, my grandfather was a mechanic in the RFC during WW1 :))

Your boss could own your Facebook profile

A discussion of the topic worth a read: Who is the First Owner?

Either way, if you have it 'in black and white' in a document that forms part of your contract of your employment that you own the copyright, then that overrides the default position in the CDPA 1988.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
PaulF said:
Personally, I'm not too sure on the regulations around photo's while on operations, but the main difference is where the photo's were taken, see below.



This on the face of seems a valid point, but, just because other photo's have been taken from within (possibly with correct permission) or from outside the base (public property) does not mean that the OP's photo's have not breeched the OSA and the site regs.

To clarify a little, because of where I work I am aware of certain things that I cannot discuss with anyone outside of work. I am also aware of certain things that have appeared in the press (general press but more often specialised) and therefore could be considered to be in the 'public domain' but because of where I work and the OSA/contracts I still cannot discuss those things outside of work. I know it seems a bit nonsense but those are the regulations.

Strange you should mention the F35, that one comes under other particular regs too, being American, for gods sake don't do anything dodgy with that one.



I have seen his shots, really cracking ones, I have always assumed he has had the correct permission.

Paul (hoping to be vague enough!)
Click to expand...

;) I'm not as far out of the loop as some people think.
 
Musicman said:
Well, the key point under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 would be whether you were taking the photographs 'in the course of your employment'.

There is precedent in both directions.

The case for the RAF owning copyright is, indeed, weakened because Sean's primary job function is not the creation of intellectual property. I seem to understand that you're a mechanic of some sort? (on a complete aside, my grandfather was a mechanic in the RFC during WW1 :))

Your boss could own your Facebook profile

A discussion of the topic worth a read: Who is the First Owner?

Either way, if you have it 'in black and white' in a document that forms part of your contract of your employment that you own the copyright, then that overrides the default position in the CDPA 1988.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the links. Fortunately I didn't put my pics on facebook, they were on flickr and copyright set accordingly.

I've heard that facebook t's & c's says you give up any ownership of your images when you upload, not sure tho u don't really put much on it?

I bet your grandad had some stories :D

Sean
 
Sean_m said:
talking to people at work who know what they're talking about (including the professional RAF photographers)
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

How did you get on matey, did the paper ring you back this afternoon?

(It's Graham from the photo section btw :D)
 
Circuit Hero said:
:thumbs:

How did you get on matey, did the paper ring you back this afternoon?

(It's Graham from the photo section btw :D)
Click to expand...

Yes mate just got off the phone from the picture editor. I hope it's not Andy winding me up :lol:

He gave me the sob story of how it was an accident and he's since tried to contact me via flickr blah blah. He's full of s*** basically and scared I'll take it further which I told him I will if we don't reach any compensation agreement. He's off to beg the editor not to sack him now and see what they can come up with. I'll prob hear off them tomoro or Monday :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top