When is it illegal to photograph something and then sell it ?

Mystery57

Mystery57

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,811
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Strange question perhaps but I think its the start of something which might surface into a major debate where I live.

We have had a rather large statue donated for 20 years to our town which like it or lump it, opinion is very much divided because of what it looks like and where it is located.

The local council issued a statement at the time of installation that they had agreed to all rights belonging to its "creator" and that they would not benefit financially from it. But that it was sure to benefit all the local traders.

This has subsequently seen local traders (of which I am not) who have tried to sell photographs or paintings, or other souveniers of it, receiving correspondence from parties to which I am not privy, saying to stop selling it as they don't have permission.

My issue here and I would welcome feedback is - without passing a byelaw making it illegal to take photographs of said item and selling them on, how can the council stop people from trading in photographs of it, simply because they the council agreed to the request.

Furthermore how can its creator do the same.

From watching various Police programmes on TV (ok sad I know) I have seen many "criminals" complain about the cameras recording them, only to be told by the Police "you're in a public place and they can do what they like to record images".

I would welcome opinion on this, as where do you draw the line, will the Queen stop us photographing Buckingham Palace and trying to sell the photo to the press ?
 
AFAIK, if the statue is displayed in public there is pretty much diddly squat that anyone can do in order to stop folks selling photos of it.
 
Yup unless said artwork has some form of particular copyright then its open access Id say.

It can be done, pretty sure I remember someone telling me about the eiffell tower?

Nothing against you photographing it in the day and selling pictures, however, you cannot do the same at night as apparantly the actual lighting is copyright! Go figure.
 
I take it that you're in Ilfracombe then?

Hirst knows what he is doing and has a lot of money behind him if he wants to get nasty. However, I can't see any way of him getting around the black letter law on the basis that the local council cannot sign away public rights.

This is the relevant part of the CDPA 1988:

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

(1)This section applies to—

(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.


(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a)making a graphic work representing it,
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or
(c)[F130making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.

(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
Click to expand...
 
Donnie said:
Yup unless said artwork has some form of particular copyright then its open access Id say.

It can be done, pretty sure I remember someone telling me about the eiffell tower?

Nothing against you photographing it in the day and selling pictures, however, you cannot do the same at night as apparantly the actual lighting is copyright! Go figure.
Click to expand...

That's a separate issue. It's perfectly OK to photograph the tower itself, but there's an IP issue with photographing the light display at night.
 
I can't believe they've whacked that monstrosity up where they have IMO it's hideous.
Why anyone would want to photograph it beyond me :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
I can't believe they've whacked that monstrosity up where they have IMO it's hideous.
Why anyone would want to photograph it beyond me :lol:
Click to expand...

so as to be able to identify it to the guy hired to "accidentally" crash a truck into it ? (we can hope)

Still it could be worse he could have put it on the south shore :lol:
 
Mystery57 said:
I would welcome opinion on this, as where do you draw the line, will the Queen stop us photographing Buckingham Palace and trying to sell the photo to the press ?
Click to expand...

The Royal Parks are private land that grant the public access, so yes, you are charged for a commercial photography permit.
 
Donnie said:
It can be done, pretty sure I remember someone telling me about the eiffell tower?
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
That's a separate issue. It's perfectly OK to photograph the tower itself, but there's an IP issue with photographing the light display at night.
Click to expand...

The Eiffel tower is also in France... so is covered by French laws WRT rights etc. not UK ones.
 
I'm with Banksy on this one.

People are taking the **** out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. **** that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
Click to expand...

Did Hirst consult with the traders whether or not they wanted his statue impacting their business?
 
The key thing about copyright is that it can only be infringed by a copy.

A photograph of a statue is not a copy, only another statue is. Similarly, a photograph of a building is not a copy. Only a similarly designed building can infringe that copyright.

simonblue said:
In other words a bit of a asshole
Click to expand...

Jayst84 said:
I'd be expecting a call from his lawyers soon if I were you!
Click to expand...

Yes. You should always insult people in the third party - e.g. "some people might consider him to be a bit of an a--hole.



Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
The key thing about copyright is that it can only be infringed by a copy.

A photograph of a statue is not a copy, only another statue is. Similarly, a photograph of a building is not a copy. Only a similarly designed building can infringe that copyright.

.
Click to expand...

True - but I think Hirst is asserting that his company have already photographed the statue , and therefore any other photo predominantly of it is a copy of their picture and thus an infringement of their copyright.

Personally I'd say that was [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] , but i'm not an IP sepecialist
 
specialman said:
Interesting that the page on the local tourist information website, the first words regarding the statue are the photographer's credit and the copyright info relating to the owner.

http://www.visitilfracombe.co.uk/homepage/verity

I like the statue - would like to see it up close.
Click to expand...


What is quite funny with this link is that the Council are using one of my own images in the slide show at the top of the page :)
 
big soft moose said:
True - but I think Hirst is asserting that his company have already photographed the statue , and therefore any other photo predominantly of it is a copy of their picture and thus an infringement of their copyright.

Personally I'd say that was [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] , but i'm not an IP sepecialist
Click to expand...

You don't have to be... It is.

Otherwise if you went to the Lake District and took a nice scenic view you would be infringing the copyright of everyone else who set up their tripods in the same place before you.

You can only infringe the copyright of a photograph by copying that actual photograph.


Steve.
 
Surely this statue was made to be seen and admired by one and all, otherwise why place it in a public place at all! It seems ridiculous that they are trying to protect resale photographic rights for something that is such an icon in the area and a tourist attraction.
 
szymon said:
With permission? :-)
Click to expand...


Yes I gave that at the beginning of the year - it was also used on some vinyl banners that were located all around the town advertising a special event a few months ago.

On the banners they omitted to give me credit so suitable words were passed along to the persons concerned - I see they have got it right on the website :)
 
Jayst84 said:
I'd be expecting a call from his lawyers soon if I were you! :naughty:
Click to expand...

They won't get much :D

To be honest its a small seaside town,things are hard theses days if their local council seem to be ****ing of their local traders not good :cuckoo:
 
How is this different to the Angel of the North?

Personally, I think Verity is a fantastic sculpture but the fact that DH has some agreement with the local council doesn't change the law. I'd love to see an infringement case go to court.
 
Exactly. They've got some big, nasty lawyers in to spout mumbo-jumbo.

The only way that I can see this applying would be if anyone was daft enough to start selling replica statuettes - even 'Verity in a Snowdome' would be a bit dodgy! :)
 
Must be a DH thing. When the BM had Statuephilia exhibition, all the artists' work was on display in the public galleries where photography is allowed. His cupboard of paint splashed skulls was the only artwork that wasn't 'allowed'. Go figure.
 
Bonkers!

Sorry thats the only word that springs to mind..
 
DemiLion said:
Exactly. They've got some big, nasty lawyers in to spout mumbo-jumbo.

The only way that I can see this applying would be if anyone was daft enough to start selling replica statuettes - even 'Verity in a Snowdome' would be a bit dodgy! :)
Click to expand...

That's where it gets interesting IMHO. Here's a miniature of the Angel of the North that came up on google http://www.shopnewcastlegateshead.com/products-page/souvenirs/angel-of-the-north-gold-glass/ Maybe that was done with permission, though AotN appears on all kinds of sourvenirs.

My question would be, when does a tiny statuette become a 'copy' and under what circumstances would DH's rights be infringed? It would be interesting, if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top