Traffic Wardens photos

ljphil78

ljphil78

Suspended / Banned
Messages
263
Name
Philip
Edit My Images
Yes
Well it appears that although he later used his own camera, he did initially use a works camera, as he was issued this as part of his work that would suggest that at least in part he job was to take photo's of the offence, now since he was at least employed to take photos yes the photo that he shot in works time could well be owned by the employer
 
I'm pretty sure that regardless of the camera used as it was in works time the copyright is owned by his work.

I'd imagine there would be several other reasons that they could have got rid of him too after reading the story.
 
Interesting! The shots he took while working using a supplied camera seem quite obviously the property of NSL. Presumably taking photos was part of his remit and the copyright terms were in his contract. As to the others, depends I suppose if there's anything about 'any photos taken in company time using any camera' which would be harder to justify. And if there's nothing about taking photos with his own camera, he may get away with it.

The book has to be a contender for Most Boring Book Ever Published, though. Which means it'll probably win the Booker. ;)
 
You would be surprised, even alarmed, at the rights employers have over work you do. In or out of normal working hours, with or without company equipment.

If you are a formal employee (eg, employer deducts income tax) and take pictures in any way connected with your job (ie, you would not have been in a position to take these photos if it wasn't for your job) then your employer probably owns copyright.

Technically, that is the legal default position and unless your contract specifically says something different, it will apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top