Help with legality.

Spuff said:
So presumably you already knew the answer to your original question if there had already been a staged shoot and you intended to take photos where individual identity was obscured?
Click to expand...
I already knew anyway - I said I was looking for a document to show it is legal...how the thread has got to where it is now is beyond me :thinking:

I didn't intend on not showing faces and did get faces in some shots where appropriate. There has been a lot of assumptions in this thread...some decent discussion but yeah...a lot of assumptions.
 
Entering private property without permission or justifiable cause is trespass... the act of photography is not (but it could be a violation of privacy). The owner of private property has the right to control activities on their property, that includes taking pictures. By default, the visitor has no "right" to do anything and the owner does not have to list what you cannot do. You do not have the right to take pictures on private property even if you have been granted access to the private property (generically). "Ignorance" of the law does not negate the law, but it is a consideration in determining "level of offense" and "degree of harm." That's the reason for "no photography" notices; not to remove a right you otherwise have but rather to eliminate any claim of ignorance.
(It's the same as copyright notices and TOS's that list what is not being conveyed...)

You can take a picture *of* private property, and individuals on private property if taken from a public location. BUT, you may not be able to display/sell those photographs. In the U.K. you have these new laws about privacy and one concern is making public where an individual lives (address), that could be done simply by showing them and the building if it is distinct enough or includes street signs, address numbers, etc (at least I believe this also applies in the UK). And for advertising purposes the CAP code says the photographer (end user) should get permission prior to such use of these types of images. When it comes to the law, you ought to read "should" as "will/must" unless there are extenuating/justifiable reasons not to.

These laws are very similar in every country I have researched...
 
BTW, posting a notice is the same as "getting permission" just the same as "the small print" is when you attend an event. Maybe even better if they are prominent enough. The club *could* put it in some clause on page 8 of the membership contract.... that would seem even less "moral" to me (but perfectly legal).
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
I think that simply entering someones property/land without permission is trespass. Of course trespass itself is not a criminal offence.

Steve
Click to expand...

That is also not true. If you have free and open access to a property/land then simply entering without direct permission is NOT trespass.
 
Can't wait for somebody to raise the question of whether you need to get Gold's Gym's permission for the first shot.

Answer: maybe....
 
jakeblu said:
Whilst i am a bit ambiguous about the value of the thread the same cannot be said for the photos, some good shots there Phil

Steve
Click to expand...
as above
not having read the whole thread, has this been resolved?
I thought it was fairly simple.
permission from the owner/ done
permission from the individuals if they are clearly identifiable/ not required
permission from the individuals if they are shown as identifiable?/ volunteer and model release

I was part of the same sort of thing for the uni sports centre. they needed 'old people'/non-students in the centre. I was asked, volunteered, I signed a model release and that was it to help out my local uni.
I only wish that I'd got some sort of tan before attending!
 
JonathanRyan said:
Can't wait for somebody to raise the question of whether you need to get Gold's Gym's permission for the first shot.

Answer: maybe....
Click to expand...
the same could be said for any branded gear, such as the shoes and shorts. interesting question though. I think that that's the gym's problem, not the photographers.
 
Phil Young said:
74943_10153535107445305_1054558201_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Jesus, the noise on that is quite high. What ISO?
 
DizMatt said:
the same could be said for any branded gear, such as the shoes and shorts.
Click to expand...

Yes it could. Gold's was the only one I could easily recognise. Also, they own an actual gym chain so could conceivably object to being used to promote another gym. (Unless Phil was working for them, obvs...).

Photoshop could easily remove the logos but I bet people who knew these things could easily name the brand of shoes or shorts.

DizMatt said:
interesting question though. I think that that's the gym's problem, not the photographers.
Click to expand...

Probably - though the gym might reasonably expect a photographer to be acting as an expert here. In fact it's unlikely to be a problem for anybody. But given the level of paranoia about this, who knows?
 
DizMatt said:
the same could be said for any branded gear, such as the shoes and shorts. interesting question though. I think that that's the gym's problem, not the photographers.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they would welcome the free advertising. It's not as if they are being misrepresented.


Steve.
 
inkiboo said:
That is also not true. If you have free and open access to a property/land then simply entering without direct permission is NOT trespass.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily true and depends greatly on where you are. In Scotland it may be true, In Canada it may be true unless the land is under cultivation (lawn, small trees, etc), In the U.S. it varies by state.
In the U.K. even mistaken entry onto unmarked land is civil trespass... http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php
The linked article also gives case references...

It can become a criminal offense in certain situations such as you are asked to leave and you refuse/act like an ass... or you have caused some type of damage (i.e. trampled a crop). Or even if you do comply but trespass again within 3 months...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/
 
JonathanRyan said:
Can't wait for somebody to raise the question of whether you need to get Gold's Gym's permission for the first shot.

Answer: maybe....
Click to expand...

I actually think the last image with the logo'd bike shorts on an exercise bike is the most likely to be a trademark infringement. The gloves are a close second...
 
inkiboo said:
That is also not true. If you have free and open access to a property/land then simply entering without direct permission is NOT trespass.
Click to expand...

"The slightest crossing of the claimant’s boundary is sufficient to result in a trespass. In the case of Ellis v Loftus Iron Co6 the court stated that “if the defendant place(s) a part of his foot on the claimant’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a mile on it.”"

Steve
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I actually think the last image with the logo'd bike shorts on an exercise bike is the most likely to be a trademark infringement. The gloves are a close second...
Click to expand...

It is only trade dress infringement if there is is some sort of false association. Someone exercising whilst wearing sportswear would not be seen as infringement.


Steve.
 
jakeblu said:
The slightest crossing of the claimant’s boundary is sufficient to result in a trespass. In the case of Ellis v Loftus Iron Co6 the court stated that “if the defendant place(s) a part of his foot on the claimant’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a mile on it.”

Steve
Click to expand...

What you have said is entirely true but that doesn't mean simply stepping onto someone else's land is trespass.
 
sk66 said:
That's not necessarily true and depends greatly on where you are. In Scotland it may be true, In Canada it may be true unless the land is under cultivation (lawn, small trees, etc), In the U.S. it varies by state.
In the U.K. even mistaken entry onto unmarked land is civil trespass... http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php
The linked article also gives case references...

It can become a criminal offense in certain situations such as you are asked to leave and you refuse/act like an ass... or you have caused some type of damage (i.e. trampled a crop). Or even if you do comply but trespass again within 3 months...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/
Click to expand...

The mistaken entry you referred to was someone cutting grass in the 17th century.

There has to be some intent and purpose. If I walk onto private land, without circumventing any barriers of entry, that is not trespass. If I am looking to rob a store and I walk into that private piece of land, that is trespass. If I walk onto private land and start taking photos, provided there are no rules posted against taking photos, that is not trespass. If I am asked to stop taking photos, even without any prior written rules, and I don't stop, that is trespass.

For anyone to simple say taking photos on private land is automatically trespass is completely wrong.
 
jakeblu said:
"The slightest crossing of the claimant’s boundary is sufficient to result in a trespass. In the case of Ellis v Loftus Iron Co6 the court stated that “if the defendant place(s) a part of his foot on the claimant’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a mile on it.”"
Click to expand...

That is providing you have not been granted an implied licence to set foot on the property.

For example, I do not need to explicitly seek permission of the freeholder each time I enter a shop to look at the goods therein.

There is a licence implied by the shop door being open and the sign on the door saying 'Open'. The freeholder should have granted a license to the owner of the shop to allow traffic to pass into the store by means of their tenancy agreement.

Then the question becomes one of what are the terms of that implied licence and what may I do once I have entered the premises (taking photographs, for example). It is then up to the shop owner to set out those terms, either by means of signs ("no photography") or by telling me not to take photographs and requiring me to leave the premises after the instruction has been issued. Then a trespass may occur.
 
inkiboo said:
The mistaken entry you referred to was someone cutting grass in the 17th century.
Click to expand...

From the Avon & Somerset Constabulary website
Civil trespass

Where the trespass does not form part of a specific criminal offence such as a person wandering onto someone else's land from a public footpath intentionally or otherwise, this is a civil offence.
Click to expand...

There are of course exceptions those who have implied access such as milk & post deliveries etc and whilst you are unlikely to be sued it is not a defence to say you were not aware of trespass.

Steve
 
I was thinking of switching careers to become an Internet Lawyer. Alas, the place is flooded with them and there's no room for any more.
Oh well, I'll have to stick with dishing out medical advice until something else comes along.
 
RBaker said:
I was thinking of switching careers to become an Internet Lawyer. Alas, the place is flooded with them and there's no room for any more.
Oh well, I'll have to stick with dishing out medical advice until something else comes along.
Click to expand...
I think if you are knowledgeable in a subject, input is good but if not and advising on your beliefs then this isn't helpful in this type of op.
 
Phil Young said:
I think if you are knowledgeable in a subject, input is good but if not and advising on your beliefs then this isn't helpful in this type of op.
Click to expand...
Agreed Phil, though the trouble with a public forum is, we don't know who are the knowledgeable, and who is recalling something they've read somewhere on the Internet.
Short of trawling through someone's old posts to gauge how knowledgeable they are, I, personally take most of it with a pinch of salt - which is unfortunate, as there are many on here who do know their stuff.
 
RBaker said:
Agreed Phil, though the trouble with a public forum is, we don't know who are the knowledgeable, and who is recalling something they've read somewhere on the Internet.
Short of trawling through someone's old posts to gauge how knowledgeable they are, I, personally take most of it with a pinch of salt - which is unfortunate, as there are many on here who do know their stuff.
Click to expand...

That's the nature of forums. It can also be difficult to assess the value of any advice you're offered - particularly when the usual conflicting opinions and arguments are posted - if you don't know very much about the subject; and that's usually the reason for asking in the first place!
 
inkiboo said:
For anyone to simple say taking photos on private land is automatically trespass is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

And to say you can take pictures anywhere is completely wrong. I guess the question becomes what does "legal" mean. In a strict sense almost all of the laws we are concerned with regarding photography are not laws regarding "legality" in that they are not (typically) criminal offenses. I.E. you cannot be arrested for violations.

Trespass, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation, commercial use of likeness, copyright, etc. etc. all fall under that (generally). But that doesn't mean you have "a right" to violate them. And violations can/will get you into legal trouble...

To be honest, I have committed trespass in obtaining a picture; probably more times than I care to admit. It's typically due to laziness and because I didn't see any harm in stepping onto someone's private property to get the composition....but that doesn't make it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top