Legal Question, advice please folks.

C

clifftop

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
Could any of the esteemed members confirm if there is a particular law with regard to photos of British Troops?

The story is:

Today, a friend and I went to ASDA to use their photo printing facility.

We downloaded the pics off a pen-drive, chose the ones we wanted to print, selected the 1 hour option then set off around the ASDA store to buy a large quantity of goodies to send to troops serving in Afghanistan.

Some of the photos were from friends of ours, taken whilst they were in Afghan in recent months, 3 or 4 of those showed troops with their weapons (tools of their trade).

When we went to collect the photos, they refused to let us have them and a manager had already been summoned to tell us so.

I have a piece of till roll which they gave me, on it is written:
"... Apparently we can't copy anything with soldiers holding guns on as it comes under a special copyright called the crown copyright..."

This afternoon we have been advised by a senior manager of Jessops that this is utter bunkum.

Does anyone else have any knowledge of anything in relation to this?

Many Thanks

Cliff.
 
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree with the guy from Jessops.

A quick check with Wikkie and a few other sites it seems that crown copyright covers items that is produced by H M Government. Can't see how this covers snaps of guys in the Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright
 
Maybe they thought the shots were copies of photos taken by army togs, and therefore subject to copyright?

Obviously we want Asda to get this right, but surely it is better to have places like Asda going over the top with copyright than just letting everything through?
 
Some Asda operatives don't have a clue. Last week they almost refused to print some photo's of my kids taken by Slimbert and myself in my front room using a blanket as a backdrop, because I couldn't prove I owned copyright on the images and in their opinion "looked like professional shots" - I wouldn't mind but I've only had the 500d since xmas so it must be good!
 
I'd tell 'em to sling their hook - go to Tesco, Jessop or use any online photo printers.

Its up to you to state whether or not you have copyright, not for the guy behind the till to pass judgment based on the images they see.

 
What load of B*%£*s - excuse me... Couldn't contain myself.

Don't want to offend or take anything away from those guys out there, cos they ARE Heroes, everyone of them. Whether we agree with them being there or not.

BUT, in effect they are like their "Holiday Snaps"! Though they are not YOURS. :shrug: - I know they are definitely NOT on holiday!!

I don't think the commanding officer would be too pleased to learn of this from a security point of view - (If they show, background or shall we say inside information - e.g. internal features of barracks..etc) but that would be the only concern I could think of. This would of course only be harmful if it fell into the hands of the wrong people and I suspect that unlikely too.

I certainly don't think it comes anything close to the realms of Crown security.

How ridiculous! :bang:

Might come under the "Official Secrets Act" though.. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Might come under the "Official Secrets Act" though..
__________________

well in that case some agent would leave them on a train or put them on a hdd and chuck them away lol
 
could also come under the counter terrorism legislation as well
 
jcoutts said:
What load of B*%£*s - excuse me... Couldn't contain myself.

Don't want to offend or take anything away from those guys out there, cos they ARE Heroes, everyone of them. Whether we agree with them being there or not.

BUT, in effect they are like their "Holiday Snaps"! Though they are not YOURS. :shrug: - I know they are definitely NOT on holiday!!

I don't think the commanding officer would be too pleased to learn of this from a security point of view - (If they show, background or shall we say inside information - e.g. internal features of barracks..etc) but that would be the only concern I could think of. This would of course only be harmful if it fell into the hands of the wrong people and I suspect that unlikely too.

I certainly don't think it comes anything close to the realms of Crown security.

How ridiculous! :bang:

Might come under the "Official Secrets Act" though.. :lol:
Click to expand...

What like the dozens of documentary programs made not to mention all the news broadcasts??
 
swanseamale47 said:
What like the dozens of documentary programs made not to mention all the news broadcasts??
Click to expand...

ahhhhhh but apparently they're public interest, therefore are protected by 'freedom of speech' and tort laws
 
Oh, for the love of God.....:(

The photos in question are of British Forces, standing together, in group stance. A few of them have "SA80s" or "L5A1....shooty thingys" whatever they are called this year.... For God's sake... these are BRITISH TROOPS, OUR SOLDIERS...

Seriously...??? What is the problem?:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:
 
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

163 Crown copyright.

(1)Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties—

(a)the work qualifies for copyright protection notwithstanding section 153(1) (ordinary requirement as to qualification for copyright protection), and

(b)Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work.
Click to expand...

To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:



To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
Click to expand...

And how exactly do asda know the pictures were taken by a serving soldier?
As well as being a soldier I have worked as a photographer overseas (press) alongside the troops and taken many similar images. Not to mention the general public who may have been passing, for all asda know they may be actors in a movie.
 
DemiLion said:
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:



To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
Click to expand...

The pictures were taken by a US soldier, three RAF personnel were working with the USMC in a US base.:bang:
 
DemiLion said:
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:



To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
Click to expand...

It's not quite a cut and dried as that though, I asked Rob for clarification on this matter when I was still in the RAF. That bit of text is a bit like a rights grab but it wouldn't actually stand up to scrutiny.

Shame he's not here to clarify the situation from an expert's perspective any more.
 
DemiLion said:
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:



To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
Click to expand...

So an off duty soldier pursuing his photographic hobby takes a photo of the changing of the guard at buck house he then has to get crown permission to get them printed???
 
Last edited:
Go back in and speak to the branch manager. If he's still convinced you can't have them then get the number of the regional manager. Eventually you'll reach someone that knows the law, or can't see the sense in kicking up a fuss in something so petty so you'll win. ;)
 
thats just odd, i know we cannot refuse to get our photo's taken, but i've never heard of the above before, and the ammound of 'holiday snaps' i've got is unreal.
 
Looking at the other side of the coin, at least they are taking copyright infringment seriously - which we should be grateful for. Although on this occasion they have got it wrong, at least they are keeping an eye out for potential breaches.
 
Last edited:
clifftop said:
The pictures were taken by a US soldier, three RAF personnel were working with the USMC in a US base.:bang:
Click to expand...

In which case CC shouldn't apply! Although from memory the restrictions placed on US forces regarding cameras is even tougher than our guys. :)

Kev M said:
It's not quite a cut and dried as that though, I asked Rob for clarification on this matter when I was still in the RAF. That bit of text is a bit like a rights grab but it wouldn't actually stand up to scrutiny.

Shame he's not here to clarify the situation from an expert's perspective any more.
Click to expand...

You and I both know what a pain the MoD can be. It was designed as a catch all, but as I pointed out it's rarely enforced apart from CCT's etc!

swanseamale47 said:
And how exactly do asda know the pictures were taken by a serving soldier?
As well as being a soldier I have worked as a photographer overseas (press) alongside the troops and taken many similar images. Not to mention the general public who may have been passing, for all asda know they may be actors in a movie.
Click to expand...

As an accredited member of the press CC wouldn't apply. There's nothing wrong with MoP taking photographs, although there are some restrictions that are placed on MTPU but I don't think that photography comes under them.

paulminus273 said:
So an off duty soldier pursuing his photographic hobby takes a photo of the changing of the guard at buck house he then has to get crown permission to get them printed???
Click to expand...

A regular or FTRS soldier is never off duty per se according to military law and certainly not in an operational zone such as AFG, however you might want to reread the first line of Sect 1.

At the end of the day, ASDA have grasped part of an idea and over multiplied it. I should have said that they had a point, rather than that they were absolutely correct, which would have been closer to the truth. However, given certain circumstances they aren't too far off, and it's no good baying for their blood, as some have done, when they are merely protecting themselves against a copyright infraction.
 
ASDA, Tesco, Jessops and whoever else we come up with aren't under any obligation to print images at all. It's entirely up to them, and the manager - who was probably playing safe - explained his position, right or wrong.

Lots of people complain about others scanning, copying and printing images without permission. We can't have it all ways, even if it does become a nuisance sometimes.

I imagine the MOD or the Army could answer the specific questions.
 
Sounds like bo11ocks to me. Someone in Asda has been on a course about potentially dangerous areas and is just being silly.

They don't give a stuff about copyright, they're just avoiding any areas where there might possibly be a remote chance that Asda could get drawn in to costly litigation. For their £1.50 profit margin on a few prints, they would rather say no.

It's nothing to do with the law, it's to do with covering their arse (and profits).
 
clifftop said:
Some of the photos were from friends of ours, taken whilst they were in Afghan in recent months, 3 or 4 of those showed troops with their weapons (tools of their trade).


Cliff.
Click to expand...

Would Asda not be correct in saying you did not hold the copyright to those images as they were taken by someone other than yourself?

I for one would prefer places like Asda to be cautious rather than just print everything.
 
Last edited:
PaulF said:
Would Asda not be correct in saying you did not hold the copyright to those images as they were taken by someone other than yourself?

I for one would prefer places like Asda to be cautious rather than just print everything.
Click to expand...

It might be a good thing if they knew anything about copyright, or even if they had any interest beyond covering their own self interests.

You don't have to be the copyright holder to print a photograph legally, you just need the permission of the copyright holder. Which can be verbal.

The fact that images look 'professional' doesn't mean that they're not yours. And even if they were shot by a professional, maybe you have bought the copyright and in that case it would be the photogapher themselves who would be printing them illegally. More likely (in fact very commonly) you would have done a deal to acquire a license to make copies, and the fact that you are in possession of original files pretty much proves that.
 
Of course one could always do their own prints.

Realspeed
 
DemiLion said:
I hate to tell you this guys, but as they were taken by serving soldiers in a working environment, technically Asda's is absolutely correct.

If I could be bothered, I'd look up the DIN, but it's covered by Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:



To all intents and purposes the ruling is usually set aside, but it does exist and can be enforced.

On a side note it's not the first time that people have complained about Asda questioning the right to copy images, but I actually applaud them for doing so. At least someone can be bothered to check rather than print regardless.

If you think differently then look up the reaction to Robbo's complaint when Tescos printed some client photographs a few weeks ago without permission- there was almost a lynch mob organised. You can't have it both ways!
Click to expand...
If it was taken by a standard trooper (not an Army tog), it is not during the course of his duties. This applies to people who are employed, if their job is not photographer, it's not part of their duties and copyright reverts to the author.

Arkady would know about this, he used to be an Army tog, but from his past posts, there is no Crown Copyright on Army photos unless there is a job ID for them (for a job ID they would have to be ordered to take the images by their CO).

If the above was not the case, then copyright reverts to the author. Presumably your friends gave you a license to print them, so ASDA can't actually withhold the images (they would have to be destroyed or handed to the copyright owner)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top