Photographers rights?

bass_junkie83

bass_junkie83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,367
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I understand that anyone is free to take a photo of pretty much anything from public land for their own use.
But what about commercial use?

Specifically a photo of a university, or rather a part of a university building with the intention of it being used on the website of the company that built it. No money changing hands anywhere along the way. Is any permission required from the building owner?
 
Why doesn't the company that built it ask permission ? Whatever the rights and wrongs of photography from public land, isn't it polite to seek permission first and this will avoid any hassle.
 
Last edited:
what about when taking a photo of a person?

I know that you own the copyright, but are you allowed to take a photo of someone (a candid) and put it on your website to promote your business - commercial use?
 
I think with "people" the subject could complain and perhaps go for compensation if they feel the image is being used in a derogatory manor, at the least I think they have grounds to politely ask for the photo not to be used or may have a case for some recompense if there has been financial gain.

For buildings I would think the building owners could have similar grounds to compensation, removal or recompense but there are also other cases where the building may be subject to certain restrictions. I'm sure I read something on here about places like the Eiffel Tower and Stone Henge where you can't use images for financial gain without permission from the relevant bodies that "own" them.
 
It's polite to ask.

Sometimes a photographers responsibilities are more important than their rights. In this case, it would be responsible to be polite and ask. Unless the relationship between the building owner and the construction company has turned sour, it's highly unlikely that permission would be refused. But the university may want to request some conditions, e.g. no students or employees of the university in the publicity shots. Asking gives them the opportunity to say this.
 
Russ77 said:
I think with "people" the subject could complain and perhaps go for compensation if they feel the image is being used in a derogatory manor, at the least I think they have grounds to politely ask for the photo not to be used or may have a case for some recompense if there has been financial gain.

For buildings I would think the building owners could have similar grounds to compensation, removal or recompense but there are also other cases where the building may be subject to certain restrictions. I'm sure I read something on here about places like the Eiffel Tower and Stone Henge where you can't use images for financial gain without permission from the relevant bodies that "own" them.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Stonehenge, but AFAIK it's the lighting on the Eiffel Tower that's been copyrighted, so the restrictions only apply at night.

You can take photographs of people and publish them, without their consent or a model release, in the UK but there are some potential pitfalls. International agencies generally won't touch them without a release; defamatory/derogatory images might result in legal action (as you pointed out) and this is a very broad scope; the same for photographs that wrongly imply that a recognisable figure is endorsing or promoting a particular product; and there is always the reasonable expectation of privacy rule.
 
Sorry it was a bit brief, was posting from my phone. Back home now so it's a bit easier to elaborate.

The photo has already been taken and i've had my run in with the building manager already.

The building in question is a short walk from my companies office, and my boss asked today if I wouldn't mind taking a photo for our new website.
I have taken photos of this building before with no problems so thought nothing of it.

So I walked down, got my tripod out and started setting up, at which point a security came out to great me. He was perfectly polite, said he was sure there was no issue as i was on public ground myself but asked if I wouldn't mind stepping in to speak to the building manager first.
I obliged, as I had no intention of getting arsey or argumentative for no reason and ended up having to wait 15 minutes for this guy to turn up.

I assumed a simple explanation and all would be fine.

No. The guy had no interest in what i was doing, he didn't ask and wouldn't let me speak, as far as he was concerned or aware i was taking the photos for my own personal use in which case he certainly has no control over as far as i'm aware.

He then continues to say how I was breaking the law, this is when i started to lose patience with him.

Me. What law am I breaking?
Him. You just can't take photos of my building, it's illegal.
Me. What law am i breaking, I was standing over there on public land, so what is the problem?
Him. It's my law. My building, my rules.
Me. So you are making it up then?

Then he just asked me to leave. So I did, crossed the road and set my tripod back up. He came out to follow saying I couldn't take a photo. So i said to him if he honestly believed what I was doing was illegal, then please call the police, i even offered him my phone. He walked away. So in hindsight, it might have been better to make contact with them first, and I will do for the future. But technically, was I in the right or wrong?
 
I would say that he was in the wrong at that point in time as he was under the apprehension that the pictures were for personal use but you could be on a sticky wicket if he sees them being used commercially..... Having said that, anyone could have taken the picture in question at any time ;)
 
If you can see it from a public place, without taking specific steps to make it viewable, so for example, something is surrounded by a 10 foot brick wall and you get use a (big!) step ladder, then you can photograph it. The test is, if you can see if with you eyes while walking in a public place, then its fair game. If the owner doesn't like it, well, its tough, he doesn't have much of a case, given anyone can see exactly the same thing as they walk along the public road.
There are exceptions to that, but they only apply to buildings covered by the official secrets act.
I seem to recall English Heritage, or the National Trust jumping up and down about Stonehenge but I think they lost their test case, but don't quote me on that, as I think it was a copyright issue the monument being part of a logo, hence the issue.
 
Bernie174 said:
If you can see it from a public place, without taking specific steps to make it viewable, so for example, something is surrounded by a 10 foot brick wall and you get use a (big!) step ladder, then you can photograph it. The test is, if you can see if with you eyes while walking in a public place, then its fair game. If the owner doesn't like it, well, its tough, he doesn't have much of a case, given anyone can see exactly the same thing as they walk along the public road.
There are exceptions to that, but they only apply to buildings covered by the official secrets act.
I seem to recall English Heritage, or the National Trust jumping up and down about Stonehenge but I think they lost their test case, but don't quote me on that, as I think it was a copyright issue the monument being part of a logo, hence the issue.
Click to expand...

^^^ Yes. What nonsense about Stonehenge and the Eiffel Tower! Do what you like, at least from a legal standpoint, commercially or otherwise. Though what is legal, and what is right, or moral, or prudent is a different matter.

What you must not do is misrepresent anything, like publish a picture of a building in an article about brothels and illegal gambling, if the building is not used for that purpose. If it is however, and you can prove it if needs be, then publish away.

The problem with commcerial use is often misrepresentation, in that there is usually an association with a product of some sort which is untrue or tenuous at best. You must be careful not to unfairly exploit the subject for commercial gain, but no hard and fast rules on a definition for that.

But in this case, if you take a picture of a building and use it in a commercial context simply saying 'we built this' then that is a statement of fact and it's hard to see any objection.
 
Thank you guys for clearing that up. Always thought that was something that happens to other people, until yesterday that is. :lol:
 
Bernie174 said:
If you can see it from a public place, without taking specific steps to make it viewable, so for example, something is surrounded by a 10 foot brick wall and you get use a (big!) step ladder, then you can photograph it. The test is, if you can see if with you eyes while walking in a public place, then its fair game. If the owner doesn't like it, well, its tough, he doesn't have much of a case, given anyone can see exactly the same thing as they walk along the public road.

There are exceptions to that, but they only apply to buildings covered by the official secrets act.
Click to expand...

There is another exception, that being the use of telephoto lenses to photograph someone inside their own home/property, regardless of being on public land, the use of telephoto lenses violates the person's expectation of privacy, and thus illegal under UK and EU law.
 
NikkiA said:
There is another exception, that being the use of telephoto lenses to photograph someone inside their own home/property, regardless of being on public land, the use of telephoto lenses violates the person's expectation of privacy, and thus illegal under UK and EU law.
Click to expand...

Its not the lenses - photographing someone inside their own home or anywhere where they have a reasonable expection of privacy can get your ass sued regardless of the lens used

I'd note tho that its not 'illegal' per se - unless your conduct breaks the harrasment/stalking laws - just likely to be subject to civil suit.
 
HoppyUK said:
^^^ Yes. What nonsense about Stonehenge and the Eiffel Tower! Do what you like, at least from a legal standpoint, commercially or otherwise. .
Click to expand...

stonehenge yes - eifel tower no , french law is different
 
joescrivens said:
how does french law span into other countries though?

if i take a photo of the eiffel tower in france and use it commercially in the states then what can be done?
Click to expand...

the issue is partly the law where it was taken - if you violate french law in taking the shot,then publish it internationally , a french citizen could bring an action against you in a french court.

course for the average bloke in the street this never coes up, but it would be a major pain for a pro who worked internationally
 
I got this leaflet thing from Amateur Photographer:

- There is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than very exceptional circumstances. - I assume this is sensitive buildings such MOD sites etc
- There is no prohibition on photographing front like uniform staff.
- The act of taking a photograph in itself is not usualy sufficient to carry out a stop.
- Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photos should not be stopped.
- Officers do not have the power to delete digial images, destory film or prevent photography in a public place under either power; Sections 43 and 44 of the Terroism Act 2000
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Its not the lenses - photographing someone inside their own home or anywhere where they have a reasonable expection of privacy can get your ass sued regardless of the lens used

I'd note tho that its not 'illegal' per se - unless your conduct breaks the harrasment/stalking laws - just likely to be subject to civil suit.
Click to expand...

It's a little more complex than that, the law states that you cannot use photographic equipment that 'enhances vision'. As such, taking a photo of someone on their own property using a, say, 50mm prime that is close to the human FOV, would be ruled as fair - courts have ruled that you don't have an automatic right to privacy on your property if what you are doing can be reasonably viewed from public land. Thus the use of telephoto (beyond human FOV) constitutes enhancement, and the use of non-telephoto lenses does not.

This has all been slogged out in court with various cases of the press taking long focal length images, starting with the Duchess of York, Gordon Kaye, and more recently Sienna Miller cases. The Sienna Miller case specifically creates precedence in the subject, and since the judge specifically stated that the use of telephoto lens allowed the breach of her privacy and that a non-telephoto lens would not have, it sets the rules.

In the case of Gordon Kaye, it was noted that the telephoto lens used enabled the violation of his privacy, but since the UK had no direct privacy law at that time, that there was no legal issue. We of course have the ECHR now.

It has to be remembered that the majority of English Law isn't codified directly, but defined by precedence and the writing of a judge's opinion.
 
JDP said:
- Officers do not have the power to delete digial images, destory film or prevent photography in a public place under either power; Sections 43 and 44 of the Terroism Act 2000
Click to expand...

Section 44 has been ruled unlawful anyway, so you're left with section 43, which states that the police need to have reasonable suspicion that you're a terrorist. 'Cos he's taking pictures, init' isn't 'reasonable suspicion', there would need to be some other reason for them to suspect you. (Tip: wearing your 'Bin Laden was right!' t-shirt while going on a photo jaunt may not be the wisest of moves)
 
This reminds me of a run-in that I had on Wednesday whilst taking a shot of a block of flats in Plymouth:
discovery_wharf.jpg

While I was walking around taking shots (10 at most) I could sort of hear someone saying "excuse me, excuse me" but I could not see where it was coming from so I just carried on shooting. A couple of minutes later I could see a guy coming from the direction of Discovery Wharf saying "excuse me" so I stopped to see what he wanted.

He "what are you doing?"
Me "taking pictures"
He "you can't take pictures of this building as people live here"
Me "it's just a block of flats"
He "yes but have you asked permission from the people who live here?"
Me "no, as it's just a block of flats"
He "but I don't want telephoto shots of the inside of my flat"
Me "well this is a wide angle lens so no risk of that - look here is a shot - it only shows the outside windows"
He "oh ok, i thought you were zooming in on me"
Me "no just the outside"
He "ok" walks away
 
Last edited:
NikkiA said:
It's a little more complex than that, the law states that you cannot use photographic equipment that 'enhances vision'. As such, taking a photo of someone on their own property using a, say, 50mm prime that is close to the human FOV, would be ruled as fair - courts have ruled that you don't have an automatic right to privacy on your property if what you are doing can be reasonably viewed from public land. Thus the use of telephoto (beyond human FOV) constitutes enhancement, and the use of non-telephoto lenses does not.
.
Click to expand...

so if you are in your bedroom with the missus with the curtains partially closed and I climb up a publicly owned tree outside the window of your flat and photograph you through the gap in the curtains with a 50mm lens according to your interpretation i wouldnt be invading your privacy ???

clearly thats rubbish - its about the expectation of privacy not the lens used to view it.

You are right about not having the right of privacy where you can be reasonably viewed from public land , but the key word is reasonably - you can unreasonably invade someones privacy with any focal length lens zoom or prime

equally a shot that could be legally taken with a 50mm prime, could also be equally legally taken with a 50-500 set at 50 , so to suggest that the use of the telephoto makes it illegal is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You sometimes need a 'model release' for property. The builders or the architects should sort that out if you are taking shots on their behalf. Its generally not needed for editorial purposes, but for advertising/commercial use it may be.

People should close the curtains if they don't want to be seen inside their property! :)
 
big soft moose said:
so if you are in your bedroom with the missus with the curtains partially closed and I climb up a publicly owned tree outside the window of your flat and photograph you through the gap in the curtains with a 50mm lens according to your interpretation i wouldnt be invading your privacy ???

clearly thats rubbish - its about the expectation of privacy not the lens used to view it.

You are right about not having the right of privacy where you can be reasonably viewed from public land , but the key word is reasonably - you can unreasonably invade someones privacy with any focal length lens zoom or prime

equally a shot that could be legally taken with a 50mm prime, could also be equally legally taken with a 50-500 set at 50 , so to suggest that the use of the telephoto makes it illegal is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Still a 50mm ain't gonna capture anything really in that situation surely and I'm pretty sure that has to be breaking some other law.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
so if you are in your bedroom with the missus with the curtains partially closed and I climb up a publicly owned tree outside the window of your flat and photograph you through the gap in the curtains with a 50mm lens according to your interpretation i wouldnt be invading your privacy ???

clearly thats rubbish - its about the expectation of privacy not the lens used to view it.

You are right about not having the right of privacy where you can be reasonably viewed from public land , but the key word is reasonably - you can unreasonably invade someones privacy with any focal length lens zoom or prime

equally a shot that could be legally taken with a 50mm prime, could also be equally legally taken with a 50-500 set at 50 , so to suggest that the use of the telephoto makes it illegal is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
IMO climbing a tree in order to shoot through a gap in the curtains falls outside the definition of "reasonably", regardless of the lens used.
 
Well I own the world, I have a bill of sale from God right here in my hand. So you will all need to ask my permission to photograph anything ... including yourselves.

My answer too your requests will be a firm but fair 'no' :)
 
Tokkelossi said:
Well I own the world, I have a bill of sale from God right here in my hand. So you will all need to ask my permission to photograph anything ... including yourselves.

My answer too your requests will be a firm but fair 'no' :)
Click to expand...

Still waiting for payment for that... :bat: lol
 
Without getting all legalese, how did Naomi Campbell win her case against the paper which printed a photograph of her leaving a drug rehab clinic? As far as I remember she was in plain view and snapped from a public place.
 
NikkiA said:
Section 44 has been ruled unlawful anyway, so you're left with section 43, which states that the police need to have reasonable suspicion that you're a terrorist. 'Cos he's taking pictures, init' isn't 'reasonable suspicion', there would need to be some other reason for them to suspect you. (Tip: wearing your 'Bin Laden was right!' t-shirt while going on a photo jaunt may not be the wisest of moves)
Click to expand...

Cool thanksyou for that! :thumbs:
 
Stratman said:
Without getting all legalese, how did Naomi Campbell win her case against the paper which printed a photograph of her leaving a drug rehab clinic? As far as I remember she was in plain view and snapped from a public place.
Click to expand...

The argument basically boiled down to:

By making her NarcAnon meeting visit public, the Mirror had essentially published part of her medical record without her consent, and thus breached the privacy of those records.

It was overturned on Appeals, and then re-instated by the Law Lords. A bit of a bad judgement IMO, but I can see the logic, and it was very clever of her lawyers to go with that approach, since medical privacy IS protected strongly in this country, even when we didn't have any personal privacy laws.

Of course, given her well known violent temperament, she may have threatened the judge with a beating if he didn't rule in her favour (I kid Naomi... please don't hit me!)
 
Thanks for the explanation. I think the court of appeal got it right, after all she could have just been visiting a friend ;)
 
This reminds me of an incident about 6 years ago when I came to UK for the first time...I was taking a picture of a bridge which happened to be adjacent a MOD building. A few clicks with my p&s and I was walking away when a patrol car stopped me.

Nice chaps, they were...asked a few questions, deleted a couple of images on my camera which had the building in the background and off they went. While I was not sure whether they were correct in deleting the pictures I didn't see any point in making too much fuss about it.

There is a good guideline on what is acceptable in the UK on http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2

Cheers,
Naveen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top