Is this aloud?

Steve Smith said:
Go on then. You word it 'correctly' and I will tell you if that is what I am 'trying' to say!

Steve.
Click to expand...

LOL I already did in post #37. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth but I hope it's close ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
LOL I already did in post #37. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth but I hope it's close ;)
Click to expand...

You mean this?....

HoppyUK said:
What you mean is that people in public places have no automatic legal right to control what photographs are taken of them, or how they are used.
Click to expand...

No. That's not what I meant.

There is a difference between the legal right of someone to take a photograph of another person from a public place and copyright protection.

What I was refering to is a bit different. I have read threads were people have been stopped photographing buildings before. One was a police station where an officer tried to point out that it would be a breach of copyright to take a photograph of the station. Legally, this is nonesense.

Similarly, it is not a breach of copyright to take a photograph of a person because a person is not copyright protected. (although a photograph of a person is).




Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
You mean this?....



No. That's not what I meant.

There is a difference between the legal right of someone to take a photograph of another person from a public place and copyright protection.

What I was refering to is a bit different. I have read threads were people have been stopped photographing buildings before. One was a police station where an officer tried to point out that it would be a breach of copyright to take a photograph of the station. Legally, this is nonesense.

Similarly, it is not a breach of copyright to take a photograph of a person because a person is not copyright protected. (although a photograph of a person is).




Steve.
Click to expand...
Actually though buildings can be protected by copyright under Moral Rights in the Copyright Act introduced in 1988.
 
LJR said:
Actually though buildings can be protected by copyright under Moral Rights in the Copyright Act introduced in 1988.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that a moral right is the right to be identified as the author/creator of a work.



Steve.
 
Further to the bit about buildings. This is section 62 of The Copyright Act:

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display

(1) This section applies to—

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a) making a graphic work representing it,

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
You mean this?....



No. That's not what I meant.

There is a difference between the legal right of someone to take a photograph of another person from a public place and copyright protection.

What I was refering to is a bit different. I have read threads were people have been stopped photographing buildings before. One was a police station where an officer tried to point out that it would be a breach of copyright to take a photograph of the station. Legally, this is nonesense.

Similarly, it is not a breach of copyright to take a photograph of a person because a person is not copyright protected. (although a photograph of a person is).

Steve.
Click to expand...

Agreed :)

On the buildings thing in another post above, the whole concept, design and construction of course has intellectual copyrights protections. There will be loads of them.

But that doesn't mean you can't photograph them, and you are under absolutely no obligation to do anything in the publication of any images. What you cannot do is build something that is clearly 'copying' that design or any unique aspects of it. So that's unlikely to bother many folks on here.

There is endless confusion over Copyright, Trade Marks and Patents etc but the law allows considerable freedom. The simple rule is that if you take a photo from a public place, legally, you can do pretty much what you want with it so long as the image, and the context in which it is presented, is a truthful representation of the subject.

There are very few exceptions to that, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is about the only one anybody is likely to come across. Or unless you sign something giving up your legal rights. For example, simply buying a ticket that says 'No Photos' is very unlikely to get you into trouble legally - it just gets you thrown out and banned!
 
HoppyUK said:
The simple rule is that if you take a photo from a public place, legally, you can do pretty much what you want with it so long as the image, and the context in which it is presented, is a truthful representation of the subject.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's where the other part of the moral right comes in.

That's the right of the author/creator/whatever to complain about any mis-representation.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top