No public access restrictions, yet no photos allowed to be taken???

I think it is very foolish of councils to sell off large parts of the city/town centres.

Liverpool has a huge building site in the centre of the city, and this land is now private property, with all the restrictions that that supposedly implies. :( An enclosed shopping centre is one thing, but if it is an open part of the city centre then that is a bit stupid. It will be interesting to see at what point you will be approached when the whole scheme is finished. One step on their property, one step not. :lol:

I don't think they should be allowed to stop you unless there are signs somewhere advising you of the rules on their land.
 
redhed17 said:
Liverpool has a huge building site in the centre of the city, and this land is now private property, with all the restrictions that that supposedly implies. :( An enclosed shopping centre is one thing, but if it is an open part of the city centre then that is a bit stupid. It will be interesting to see at what point you will be approached when the whole scheme is finished. One step on their property, one step not. :lol:
Click to expand...

They will have their own private security team too. I have a bad feeling about the whole thing. It'll be annoying too because the park area and view from the top across to Albert Dock will be excellent.

I know people have had issues on Princes Dock taking photos. It's private land owned by Peel, I think. I was escorted from the top of a car park there :D There are signs telling you that it is private land but you don't notice them and drive on through.
 
Nothing like mini-Hitler security guards. When all's said and done, it comes down to the individual. I've been caught in places I shouldn't have been by guards who have let me stay, shown me around and had no problem with my presence. Others have been threatening and abusive. What I don't understand are the ones who say 'No pictures here, thanks...', etc. For example, I was taking a picture of Liverpool's Tobacco Warehouse once from the Dock Road and some idiot in a portacabin leant out the window and told me to stop. In that case I refused, and ignored him.

Dock stuff is a bit different, and can potentially land you in trouble. But then again, I was caught in the active part of the docks by Police and just told to leave by the route I entered. You can never tell.

Usually though it's worth a risk to get the shot(s). And remember, nobody can really make you delete photos/handover film, so don't ever do that.
 
The London Eye is a trademark, you can use photos if it is part of the skyline/scene/etc. but not if it is the main subject. Where to draw the line between the two would be something for a judge to decide :(
 
:shrug:
pxl8 said:
The London Eye is a trademark, you can use photos if it is part of the skyline/scene/etc. but not if it is the main subject. Where to draw the line between the two would be something for a judge to decide :(
Click to expand...

Why does the photographers right link state:
""it is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic workmanship that are permenantly situated in public place or in premises that are open to the public"."

This contradicts what you have just said, no? All I can think is, the London Eye is technically NOT permanently situated in a public place?

Confused. :shrug:
 
Thinking about the London Eye as a landmark....

Do Parisian Togs have problems with Neanderthal security guards around the Eiffel Tower?
 
If you go onto flickr and search London Eye then you get around 148,000 results....







... those security guards are sure busy! Its ridiculous to think you cannot take a picture of the London Eye. It is quite something else to expect to sell a picture though.
 
EdinburghGary said:
:shrug:

Why does the photographers right link state:
""it is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic workmanship that are permenantly situated in public place or in premises that are open to the public"."

This contradicts what you have just said, no? All I can think is, the London Eye is technically NOT permanently situated in a public place?

Confused. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better example would be the London Underground logo, that's a trademark as well but is displayed in countless public places. You can't use a trademark without permission and there are specific criminal laws to prevent it. Lots of info here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm.htm
 
EdinburghGary said:
:shrug:

Why does the photographers right link state:
""it is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic workmanship that are permenantly situated in public place or in premises that are open to the public"."

This contradicts what you have just said, no? All I can think is, the London Eye is technically NOT permanently situated in a public place?

Confused. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your quote is correct "it s not an infringement of copyright to take photographs" the infringments can arise depending on what you do with those images after you have taken them

Christine
 
pxl8 said:
Here's the details of the London Eye trademark and what is protected by it. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2195867
Click to expand...
EdinburghGary said:
Amazing, so they can technically copyright a huge part of the London Skyline. Sucks :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
pxl8 said:
No, it's a trademark which is very different from copyright.
Click to expand...
Don't panic, folks. There's a bit of (almost certainly accidental) misinformation here.

The trademark referenced here has nothing to do with what the London Eye looks like. The trademark only covers the words "London Eye".

It is possible to trademark an image, but they haven't done so. For example, here are a few trademarks which contain images of the Eiffel Tower: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Note, however, that you can only trademark a specific image - it is not possible to trademark a generic concept such as all images of the Eiffel Tower.

Hope that helps.
 
Marcel you can register pretty much anything as a trademark including 3D objects. As long as the mark is identified with goods or services of the company registering. The London Eye is THE defining work of that company.
 
MOD bases and docks etc aside, you can take a photograph of anything, public or private for use in anyway, as long as you are standing on public property, ie: the road.

My 15-odd years of TV camerawork, including news for BBC and ITN, has proved this time and time again.

PS: you can walk on someone property while filming, as long as you have a reason to be there, eg: walking up someone driveway to knock on their door. You can film them opening the door and closing it again and what happens inbetween. What you can't do is hang around on the driveway afterways.
 
JumboBeef said:
you can take a photograph of anything, public or private for use in anyway, as long as you are standing on public property, ie: the road.
Click to expand...

Indeed you can, and then get sued to high heaven afterwards.

Think about what you're saying.

Can you take a photo of someone on the street and then use it in a fashion catalogue or a poster about rapists?

Can you take a photo of the logo from a BMW and then start selling BMW t-shirts?

etc, etc, etc...
 
What pxl8 said is very true. You can't take a photo of someone and use it in advertising. You can in editorial. Its how the press can document events legally.
 
Yes, OK, I was talking in context with the subject of this thread, ie: the London Eye.

You can take photographs of anything, as in any building, as long as it can be viewed from some where public.
 
No one has said you can't - it's how the photos are used afterwards that could lead to problems.
 
I think the trademark website agrees with Marcel that a photograph of an object itself is not trademarkable.

However if you take a photograph that effectively looks identical / almost identical to a trademark such as the BMW badge alone then you would be infringing the trademark (specifically an infringement against section 10.2 [or perhaps 10.3] of The Trade Marks Act 1994)


As it clearly states in the Photographers Rights Guide in the UK it is legal to take a photo of someone and then use it for commercial gain. You could also use it in advertising however it would be unwise of anyone to do so as the person pictured would be open to sue the advertiser using the photograph for defemation (not the photographer - unless they were the same person) especially true if the photo implies that the person is a rapist. It is for this reason that is would be next to impossible to sell an image without a signed Model Release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top