photography on private property

W

wjh31

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Edit My Images
No
so i recently took some photos on some private property (part of a university, which i am currently a student at), and while i was doing so i was approached by the estated manager, asked what i was doing etc... summary was that it was ok for me to take the photos, but i should seek permission when i was done before releasing the images into the public. I have since saught and been denied such permission (security blah blah...). I was wondering exactly to what extent the use of such photos can be limited by the property owner, what what sorta thing i risk opening myself up to if i ignored their request and published the images anyway. The photos were part of a very large project ive been doing with many many hours invested, so i was rather keen to get it released, so obviously was a little disapointed when i recieved the email denying permission.

thanks
 
private property - whatever they want the rules to be!
get your course tutor to 'av a word
 
im not sure the tutor would be able to do anything, its a personal project rather than anything to do with the course im actually studying
 
I thought the rules regarding private property only relate to the taking of photographs – do organisations actually have the right to dictate how images taken on their property are used> Especially if they are not for commercial purposes?
 
I was on the grounds when i took them, and was given permision to take them, but have been denied permission to release them, exact words were "I am not happy for these photos or any others to end up in the public domain." I have replied asking for reasons and if compromises such as bluring sensitive areas would be acceptable, but have recieved a holiday message. It has however occured to me that if i retained all rights and put the image(s) on the internet, that that would not cound as in the public domain?
 
I was on the grounds when i took them, and was given permision to take them
Click to expand...

That would be enough for me and I'd go ahead and use them. That could of course result being booted out but I doubt it would go too far in a court. You could be made to take them off the net if a ruling went against you but I doubt you could end up doing time. :lol:

Would all be publicity for your project too. :D

Naturally, any stupid decisions you make are all your own. ;)
 
sorry ill clarfy that, i was given permission to take them, but told not to publish them before seeking permission
 
Interesting wording.
Someone saying they are not happy for these images to be in the public domain is significantly different to someone saying that you are not allowed to release the images.

The moment you post images on the internet they are in the public domain, you automatically retain all rights on them unless you state otherwise.

I still have this niggling feeling there is nothing they can actually do to prevent you from potting them on the web.
 
That's what I thought you meant. I just have a taste for trouble and an equal aversion to authority. ;)
 
The photos are yours to do with as you wish! Sounds to me like some 'jobsworth' believe they can make rules up as they wish?
 
jerry12953 said:
So University authorities are getting in on the act now?

Whatever could have been sensitive enough that would deny your right to put them in the public domain?

Where will it all end?
Click to expand...

Fahrenheit 451 !
 
Splog said:
The photos are yours to do with as you wish! Sounds to me like some 'jobsworth' believe they can make rules up as they wish?
Click to expand...

:shake: They are not splog - if you are/were on private property you abide by their rules.

If they say you can take photos but not publish them then you cannot publish them
 
Splog said:
The photos are yours to do with as you wish! Sounds to me like some 'jobsworth' believe they can make rules up as they wish?
Click to expand...

so very wrong! The owner or their representative have the right to dictate how the images are or are not used.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
:shake: They are not splog - if you are/were on private property you abide by their rules.

If they say you can take photos but not publish them then you cannot publish them
Click to expand...

2blue4u said:
so very wrong! The owner or their representative have the right to dictate how the images are or are not used.
Click to expand...

Do they?

I'm genuinely interested here - can you provide any source reading where I can fully understand the law around this?
 
All Colleges and University have a Marketing manager and or director.

They are always looking for new photographs that they can use.

Ask for an appointment to see them to show them some of you photographs...
You can then start the sob story about the estate manager, and that you could get far better photographs if you had a free hand...

I have never known any college manager who likes the estate department, however much they are necessary, as they are always the bringer of bad news.

The Marketing Manager/director has authority to give the necessary permissions.(they do it all the time) but will probably want first use of any pictures that they can use in publicity and prospectuses.
and they well might not offer payment. But they should always offer a credit line.

When I was print and photographic manager for a very large college, It was also in my remit to obtain and give permission to photographers, though that is not true in all establishments, but it is also a possible route.
 
@ terrywood: that sounds a good idea, i might just try that when ive finished the post processing
 
That's why you need a release for pictures of private property taken from within the boundries of that property.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
:shake: They are not splog - if you are/were on private property you abide by their rules.

If they say you can take photos but not publish them then you cannot publish them
Click to expand...

2blue4u said:
so very wrong! The owner or their representative have the right to dictate how the images are or are not used.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find they may be able to stop you taking photos for certain use or even stop you taking them at all but they can't say take them but ask me if you can use them or not! it's up to them to make the rules clear from the outset which gives you the choice to either accept or not!
 
If you read the national trust thread I think you'll find they can dictate how your images are used if they let you take them on their property.
 
It's so they can protect their image. might seem tough but the use of the images requires their permission. Maybe look at what you asked them?
 
Kev M said:
If you read the national trust thread I think you'll find they can dictate how your images are used if they let you take them on their property.
Click to expand...

Their terms are clearly available and which you choose to accept or not! However the op said :

"summary was that it was ok for me to take the photos, but i should seek permission when i was done before releasing the images into the public."
Click to expand...

That is not a clear definition ! and therefore worthless jobsworth gibberish :) he should have known before he took the photos whether they could be used or not! Either they can or can't be released into the public domain, not it's up to us
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
If they say you can take photos but not publish them then you cannot publish them
Click to expand...


No. If they say you can't take photos, that means that they are denying permission to take photos. However, if you go ahead and take some anyway, they are yours to do with as you wish and you own the copyright on them. They have no control over them and cannot force you to delete them.

The only legal standing they have is to ask you to leave. If you don't then you are trespassing.

If the police are called to remove you from the property, they cannot force you to delete the images either.

If they say you can take photos then you can take photos. They still have no control over their use.



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
No. If they say you can't take photos, that means that they are denying permission to take photos. However, if you go ahead and take some anyway, they are yours to do with as you wish and you own the copyright on them. They have no control over them and cannot force you to delete them.

The only legal standing they have is to ask you to leave. If you don't then you are trespassing.

If the police are called to remove you from the property, they cannot force you to delete the images either.

If they say you can take photos then you can take photos. They still have no control over their use.



Steve.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct.

The owner of any private property has the right to impose conditions of entry upon that site. Those conditions may well be "You can take photographs, but you may not use them for commercial gain" for example.

In such a case you make take photographs, and indeed, you own the copyright of those pictures, but you may still not use them for commercial gain. You may not like it, but it's their property, so it's their rules (providing of course that they are not in themselves unlawful).

There's always the old edict of "publish and be damned" - unless these are photo's of the Chancellor's late night 'vicars and tarts' parties*, or copies of the next batch of final exam papers, I can't imaging anything would be sufficiently damaging for the University to actually take the matter further, but that's entirely at your own risk of course.

*All events referred to in this post are fictitious. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead , is entirely coincidental:rules:
 
Steve Smith said:
No. If they say you can't take photos, that means that they are denying permission to take photos. However, if you go ahead and take some anyway, they are yours to do with as you wish and you own the copyright on them. They have no control over them and cannot force you to delete them.

The only legal standing they have is to ask you to leave. If you don't then you are trespassing.

If the police are called to remove you from the property, they cannot force you to delete the images either.

If they say you can take photos then you can take photos. They still have no control over their use.


Steve.
Click to expand...

No, if they deny you permisson but you still take them they cannot make you delete the photos, they can still restrict what you do with the photos.

What you're effectively saying is break the rules and they can't do a thing about it :cuckoo: if this were the case then loads of paps would enter private property, take a photo and sell it


Their property their rules. NT say you can take photos but not for commercial use (see the 6 or 7 page thread) - part of going onto property is agreeing to abide by the owner's rules and those rulescan be anything.

If someone stated that photos can only be taken with a canon D30 with a sigma 10-20mm lens then that is all that is allowed to take photos. Anyone else can take a photo with other equipment but any attempt to use the photo could lead to legal action
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
No, if they deny you permisson but you still take them they cannot make you delete the photos, they can still restrict what you do with the photos.

What you're effectively saying is break the rules and they can't do a thing about it :cuckoo: if this were the case then loads of paps would enter private property, take a photo and sell it


Their property their rules. NT say you can take photos but not for commercial use (see the 6 or 7 page thread) - part of going onto property is agreeing to abide by the owner's rules and those rulescan be anything.

If someone stated that photos can only be taken with a canon D30 with a sigma 10-20mm lens then that is all that is allowed to take photos. Anyone else can take a photo with other equipment but any attempt to use the photo could lead to legal action
Click to expand...

:agree: but those rules have to be established before and not after the photo taking also they have to be clear and precise.
 
Do we actually know if any such cases have gone as far as a court case and if so what was the outcome?
 
lost of people giving indication to lots of different levels of legality, does anyone have any links they would cite to make it things more concrete?
 
Splog said:
:agree: but those rules have to be established before and not after the photo taking also they have to be clear and precise.
Click to expand...

Morally they probably should be but do they have to be by law?

In the OP's case the rules were set out before they started, they could take the photos but a decision on their use would be given after they were taken. For all we know the images might be crap and the property owner doesn't want their property being portrayed in such a way, as is their right.
 
I work for a University - It's a campus university, and I'm not entirely sure how you stop people taking pictures on a campus... *confused* I've seen pictures of my university on Flickr and in an exhibition - there was no problem there and I know the head of Estates has seen some of them!
 
Kev M said:
Morally they probably should be but do they have to be by law?

In the OP's case the rules were set out before they started, they could take the photos but a decision on their use would be given after they were taken. For all we know the images might be crap and the property owner doesn't want their property being portrayed in such a way, as is their right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps! however, it would be up to the property owner to justify their decision and if as in the op that was down to a security issue then that should have been made clear from the outset... in other words the rules were not actually made clear as to what the owners would or would not permit!

wjh31 - Send the story to your local paper and see this jobsworth squirm :D
 
So far I am reading a number of people saying 'Yes you can' and 'No you can't' and much reference to rights etc however I have not seen the proof either way.

So I guess the question really needs to be: -
On what grounds can an organisation actually prevent you from publishing photographs on the internet where the photographs were taken on private property with permission
.... bearing in mind the OP is doing if for a project and not for profit/commercial reasons.
 
They could seek a court order preventing this information. However, I think they would have a hard time doing so unless the photos contained quite sensitive material. If it's a view anyone can walk from the street and see, then I don't think any court would prevent such (under the guise of 'security' anyway).

Now, with regards to the image. 2blue is right in what he says.
The owner or their representative have the right to dictate how the images are or are not used.
Click to expand...

However, YOU are the owner of those images, unless you were employed by someone to take those photos. (IE under a contract to do so, eg for another photographer, or employer...who would then hold copyright to the images as part of the contract).

An owner of property can dictate as part of your entry, what you are allowed to do. This can include taking / not taking of photos, and selling / not selling of photos.
If you, for example, are asked not to take photos but then do so...you are breaking the conditions of entry and are committing trespass. However, how can you commit trespass after the fact? (By selling or distributing the images).

However, they can sue you for doing so. How successful that would be is anyones guess, and for simple images of buildings that anyone can see, I would hazard a guess at 'not very successful'.

As for the 'civil / criminal' aspect of trespass, Im pretty sure that *used* to be the case (WRT it being an arrestable offense). However, the whole law has changes under the introduction of SOCPA, which changed this....How...I can't remember :$ But Im pretty sure it changed (There is no longer a consideraton of 'arrestable or non arrestable offenses').

Legally, you are allowed to show those pictures IMO
However, they then may have a legal right to take you to court over it. Is that likely? Well I can't answer that, but from what you've told me...I wouldn't have said so (IMO).

This is all IMO and the usual internet acronum IANAL applies ;)
 
Splog said:
:agree: but those rules have to be established before and not after the photo taking also they have to be clear and precise.
Click to expand...
:plusone:

Kev M said:
Morally they probably should be but do they have to be by law?

In the OP's case the rules were set out before they started, they could take the photos but a decision on their use would be given after they were taken.
Click to expand...
A bit difficult to enforce since the no photography "rule" doesn't appear to be posted and the "agreement" was all verbal.

If the pics were just to show up on the internet or in a stock photo archive then the university (from all appearances posted here) would not have a leg to stand on.

The OP has pretty much shot himself in the foot by emailing & requesting permission - now the uni knows who he is & that he's the bloke who was verbally denied permission for commercial photography.

diggerz said:
Do we actually know if any such cases have gone as far as a court case and if so what was the outcome?
Click to expand...
Of course we do.

wjh31 said:
lost of people giving indication to lots of different levels of legality, does anyone have any links they would cite to make it things more concrete?
Click to expand...
Well, we could, but the same questions crop up here on a regular basis. I'm sorry if this sounds snide or mean, but if I were to google the citations for you then the questions would still be asked again next month. I'll bet you could find for yourself if you polished your Google-Fu just a little.

RichardtheSane said:
So far I am reading a number of people saying 'Yes you can' and 'No you can't' and much reference to rights etc however I have not seen the proof either way.

So I guess the question really needs to be: -
On what grounds can an organisation actually prevent you from publishing photographs on the internet where the photographs were taken on private property with permission
.... bearing in mind the OP is doing if for a project and not for profit/commercial reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can, as long as it's part of the "terms & conditions" of entry. If you're in a shopping mall, for instance, you would have no standing if "no cameras" signs were posted at the entry. If the security guards - at a mall or any other private property - ask you to stop ("stop or we'll ask you to leave") then you're obliged to do so.

In the National Trust thread it was stated that the Trust had been to court - and that there's legal precedent - not only because they have terms & conditions on their tickets, but because on their properties that are open to the public at no change they also have terms & conditions printed on signs at the entrances. So if you enter the property you have agreed to follow those T&Cs, one of which is "no commercial photography".

The same applies to concert tickets, tickets to motorsports events &c &c. They grant you admission as long as you agree to abide by the T&Cs.

The university could have signs posted at the entrances to campus, or it might be part of the rules that students agree to, but I doubt it. My university campus was pretty open - any member of the public could walk in. Unless a security guard approaches every photographer, then there's quite a reasonable expectation that you're taking photos in a "public" space.

Stroller.
 
Strolls said:
My university campus was pretty open - any member of the public could walk in. Unless a security guard approaches every photographer, then there's quite a reasonable expectation that you're taking photos in a "public" space.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of what you wrote Stroller but because somewhere is easily accessible by the public it does not make it public space - something which a lot of people do not seem to realise
 
Not read all the threads but my guess is that if they allowed any photos of their property to be published, some may show up the place not to how the property owner would like.

Take for example estate agents who are trying to sell a property, if the picture showed overhead cables -a main road- house next door unkept- wrecked cars dumped etc it would put prospective buyers off . Therefore they and the owners want to show off the property to its best advantage.

This is possibly the answer

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