Whitby Abbey - Photography Of English Heritage Buildings

big soft moose said:
fundamental misunderstanding there - civil law is determined essentially in court (okay so theres precedent and tort but you know what i mean), so if EH decided to sue, which they could do regardless of whether you are right or not , it would be the judge that determined who was right, not statute (as it is in criminal law).
Click to expand...

I think you are getting civil law mixed up with "common law" which is mostly derived from legal precedent within the courts, and essentially based on an unwritten moral code.

There is plenty of civil law enshrined in statute, from the Marriage Act, to the Sale of Goods Act through to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act.

I agree with the OP. Ask under what legislation or from which precedent their requirement for you to remove these photos from sale derives if taken from public land. If they can point you towards it then fair enough. But it is quite possible they are trying it on.
 
Last edited:
and some of the images offered for sale are clearly, (and admitted), to be from within the Abbey grounds. :)
 
gramps said:
and some of the images offered for sale are clearly, (and admitted), to be from within the Abbey grounds. :)
Click to expand...

... and the OP has accepted that and has removed those photos that were taken on EH land from sale. It is not unreasonable though to ask EH what law is being transgressed (be it statue or common law) before he gives up on selling photos that he has taken from public land.
 
Bythesea said:
It was in this area. However (and I know it is not the UK), but you are not allowed to sell photographs of the Eiffel Tower where the lights are shown (ie night time shots) without permission, wherever they are taken from. While the Eiffel Tower is in the public domain, the lightshow is copyrighted. There is always the chance that EH could claim copyright of the lights on the Abbey (which are visible in some of the pictures). Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that's nonsense.


Steve.
 
Worrying where does this lead? Is every landmark going to be off limits for any kind of commercial photography without someone wanting payment. utter nonsense imo
 
Ive taken the ones off sale that were shot inside the grounds. The ones taken from outside remain for now. Im happy to speak and negotiate with them. But I fail to see how they can claim to own a view taken from Public Property. They may wish to threaten me with court action. Im thinking it looks pretty bad for them to flex their muscles on a small time photographer born and bread in a town with an Abbey on its headland, for taking pictures of a view my family and ancestors have viewed for far in excess of a thousand years.
 
Bythesea said:
So do I, but unfortunately the Eiffel Tower don't see it that way - http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/filming-at-the-eiffel-tower.html
Click to expand...

But have they ever tried it in court? If they did and they lost, that would be an end to any licencing revenue they get from those daft enough to pay it.

My reasons for believing that they have no case are the fact that copyright can only exist in an artistic work. They claim that the lighting is an artistic work. I think it's just part of the building.

Buildings can have copyright protection but the tower is too old for this.

In any case, the Berne Convention clearly states that a photograph of a building does not infringe any copyright of that building. Only another similar building can do that (such as Blackpool tower in this case). It is my belief based on that, that in order to infringe the copyright of the Eiffel Tower's lighting, you would need to create another very similar lighting display. Not just photograph it.


Steve.
 
Latest Update From English Heritage. Yes they are claiming you need to have permissions to sell any image of the abbey where the sole focus of the shot is the Abbey. Im not going to reply today as I need some time to think and consult various people.


Glenn,

Certainly!

To clarify; we are only concerned with pictures whose sole focus is the Abbey – whether taken on our ‘land’ or not – we certainly appreciate that any photo taken in Whitby has the Abbey in the background!

Regarding the photos / pictures/ images whose sole focus is the Abbey; these require permission to use commercially. I wish to reiterate that this is not simply a money making exercise on our part, rather a wish to protect the image of the Abbey as part of our guardianship of the site and its heritage. As I’m sure you can appreciate, Historic buildings require a great deal of maintenance and conservation, and as a charity we have to raise the money to do this through various means, one of which is the sale of our stock images of our sites for media purposes and reproduction, the proceeds from which all go into the Abbey upkeep. Therefore use of images of the Abbey without permission reduces the value and need of these images, leading to a loss of income.

We therefore need to give you permission to use images commercially where the sole focus is Whitby Abbey. If you would like to forward to me thumbnails of the images you intend to sell, with details of the types of media you intend to use them in ie: calendar, book, gallery, postcards, web site sales etc, and I can put together a permissions letter for you. Please note, depending on the scale of your proposal, a fee may be applicable.

With kind regards

Redacted
 
Even if the fee was small and though the money does important work I'd be challenging this on a point of principle.
 
Dodo - good point well made , although i'm not aware of any statute law on this particular point so i stand by the point that it would be settled in court

on the eiffel tower thing - french law is different so they are correct as far as that goes, it irrelevant in the uk though

On the main topic - I tend to agree that EH are wrong, but if you are going to pursue this you need to speak to an IP specialist lawyer - which won't be cheap (in fact it would probably cost more than just licencing the images) , I can respect a point of principle but sometimes its better to be pragmatic than acheive a pyhric victory
 
If you take the pictures from a public place then you can use (sell) them for editorial purposes. Nothing they can do about it. They are banning commercial use.
 
steveo_mcg said:
By what right?
Click to expand...

I think their concern would be the actual use of the photograph i.e. advertising, and legally they are protected there.

Regarding the selling of images by a photographer as prints I think they would struggle to enforce that, especially if it is taken on public land, although the OP still has one of the Abbey taken from the church yard which of course is private property. They are just looking to protect their revenue stream which is an essential part of helping to maintain our history. Personally if he believes he would be making a reasonable profit from selling images of the abbey, then I think a small fee to english heritage would be appropriate. That is of course just my opinion :)
 
steveo_mcg said:
By what right?
Click to expand...
Let's say you've just spent £30000 customising a classic car, and whilst you've got it parked for admiring glances at a car show, I get a decent snap of it.

If I sell posters to geeks and teenagers would you not feel i was somehow profiting from your hard work and your property?
 
Phil V said:
Let's say you've just spent £30000 customising a classic car, and whilst you've got it parked for admiring glances at a car show, I get a decent snap of it.

If I sell posters to geeks and teenagers would you not feel i was somehow profiting from your hard work and your property?
Click to expand...

But that doesn't give me any rights to stop you selling those posters. There isn't anything I can legally do to prevent you short of parking it in my garage and never taking it out in public.


jakeblu said:
I think their concern would be the actual use of the photograph i.e. advertising, and legally they are protected there.
Click to expand...

That may be their concern but as I understand it they have no legal protection if their building can be seen from a public place. They have no right to charge any one if it wasn't taken from their own land.
 
Last edited:
unless they go to court and the judge feels differently... as i said before i suspect EH arent correct , but does the OP really want to get embroiled in a long and expensive battle to prove it ?
 
Last edited:
Well in my opinion, todays email is far more amicable than the first. I don't like the idea of any bigwig shouting the odds and the worst thing anyone can do is to come at me shouting the odds. Its bad practice on their behalf and potentially very bad publicity as well.

Now they have come back and it sounds like we have a point we can work from. From what their email says, there are probably 5 images in question. A few of the images were taken from half a mile to a mile away and are not solely of the Abbey.

I think their are roughly 4 or 5 images in question. They don't earn me a lot of money but Id be more than happy to work on a percentage basis with English Heritage. Im all for supporting the Heritage of my town in anyway possible and If I contribute some of my profit for selling those few images to the upkeep of the Abbey then everyone is happy. It may even work in my interest to have some paperwork in place to say I have the right to sell. It will keep the busy bodies off my case :) as Im sure someone has pointed out my website to EH and I have a good idea who. If I have the correct permissions then I can be sure no-one is going to EH and whining about my website.

Ive been quoted between £150 to £800 for a permission licence depending on the scale of my sales. Id rather work on a percentage basis with them if they are willing to go for it. Being a small and new business Im on no get rich quick scheme here. Those images make up a very small part of my income so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I never sold them, but Im willing to look at options to keep all parties happy.

Thats EH off work now until Jan 4th so their won't be any further progression until then, but I will keep you updated on the progress made.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
unless they go to court and the judge feels differently... as i said before i suspect EH arent correct , but does the OP really want to get embroiled in a long and expensive battle to prove it ?
Click to expand...

Allow me to express this differently, in English law one can only sue under a tort heading, as far as I can see none of the tort categories apply so they can't even take an individual to court as they have no grounds to sue. You're not in America, its not up to a panel of lawyers or a judge, legal action has to have a legal basis and can only be for demonstrable damages so no multi million dollar settlements.
 
steveo_mcg said:
But that doesn't give me any rights to stop you selling those posters. There isn't anything I can legally do to prevent you short of parking it in my garage and never taking it out in public.




That may be their concern but as I understand it they have no legal protection if their building can be seen from a public place. They have no right to charge any one if it wasn't taken from their own land.
Click to expand...
They have protection if the image is to be used for advertising
 
steveo_mcg said:
If they do, I'm not sure they do, then asking for a cut or licence for a "retail" sale is unwarranted and ott.
Click to expand...
So, you feel it unreasonable that the owner of a property who's image is used in a advertising campaign would require some payment :rolleyes:

Ive read another thread today elsewhere about the 'entitlement society" I beginning to think many photographers are paid up members.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
So, you feel it unreasonable that the owner of a property who's image is used in a advertising campaign would require some payment :rolleyes: Ive read another thread today elsewhere about the 'entitled society" I beginning to think many photographers are paid up members.
Click to expand...

I feel it unreasonable to apply the law inappropriately in any circumstances. In situations where the law should be applied it's effect is diminished by incorrect or frivolous use.

Let me put it this way, why should EH be entitled to money for some one else's work?
 
steveo_mcg said:
I feel it unreasonable to apply the law inappropriately in any circumstances. In situations where the law should be applied it's effect is diminished by incorrect or frivolous use.

Let me put it this way, why should EH be entitled to money for some one else's work?
Click to expand...
Should models be paid or just photographers? Make up artists?

If the final image is the work of the photographer, then the rest of them can go get stuffed?

EH own and maintain the property, without them the image doesn't exist.
 
Phil V said:
Should models be paid or just photographers? Make up artists?

If the final image is the work of the photographer, then the rest of them can go get stuffed?

EH own and maintain the property, without them the image doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

So EH put on the building for the shoot? They build it? Or are they maintaining it for public benefit?

They have no right under the law to demand payment, the makeup artist in you're example presumably agreed to do the work under an agreement which would, if reasonable, be enforceable under the law.
 
I can see that they could have a legitimate concern if the image was used commercially such as in an advertisement where some sort of endorsement could be implied but they can have no control over the sale of prints of images taken from a public space.


Steve.
 
Phil V said:
EH own and maintain the property, without them the image doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Since when did English Heritage become owners of state owned properties. I'm confused, I thought that they had been tasked with maintaining and administering them for a specific timescale, which comes up for renewal early next decade???
 
The National Trust seem to be working on similar lines, but the properties are more clearly 'theirs' perhaps.
 
Phil V said:
Let's say you've just spent £30000 customising a classic car, and whilst you've got it parked for admiring glances at a car show, I get a decent snap of it.
Click to expand...
steveo_mcg said:
But that doesn't give me any rights to stop you selling those posters. There isn't anything I can legally do to prevent you short of parking it in my garage and never taking it out in public.
Click to expand...
Was there not a dispute along these lines reported in AP a few years ago? From memory it was either a VW Beetle or camper and the photograph was used by a national retailer as either printed on a cushion or as a canvas. As I remember it the case hinged on the fact that the photo was taken at a car show, and again it was down to a private land issue.
 
snap-happy said:
They own the property or are guardians of it.
Click to expand...


I own my property and Edinburgh council have extensive powers to ensure I maintain it but I don't have the right to cash in on any estate agent selling a house in my block. I don't have the legal right to claim a cut of any profit someone else derives from an image of my house. And Scottish law is much more lenient than English in that respect.
 
Last edited:
Surely this is a question of Copyright? If EH own the Copyright to the Abbey, then they can demand payment,etc, but not if they simply own and/or maintain it.

I've not been faced with this exact issue, but when I've been told 'you can't, because...', or 'you must, it's the law', then I always ask 'them' to quote the exact legislation that supports their position.

Challenge EH to put up, or shut up.
 
jakeblu said:
So, you feel it unreasonable that the owner of a property who's image is used in a advertising campaign would require some payment :rolleyes:

Ive read another thread today elsewhere about the 'entitlement society" I beginning to think many photographers are paid up members.
Click to expand...

Your avatar?
 
JohnX said:
Surely this is a question of Copyright? If EH own the Copyright to the Abbey, then they can demand payment,etc, but not if they simply own and/or maintain it.

I've not been faced with this exact issue, but when I've been told 'you can't, because...', or 'you must, it's the law', then I always ask 'them' to quote the exact legislation that supports their position.

Challenge EH to put up, or shut up.
Click to expand...

the abbey can't be subject to copyright; it is far too old (certainly more than 70 years https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p10_duration ). So the building is in public domain, but obviously owned and maintained by the aforementioned nasty business. They can set whatever rules they like on their land but not outside. They are clearly trying it on. I'd ignore them and pass those emails to the media and your MP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
HoppyUK said:
Your avatar?
Click to expand...
And Im using that commercially in what way Richard? What financial gain do I stand to receive from using a rendered image of a dead comedy star? I'm curious to know why that makes me 'entitled' if thats what your implying
 
snap-happy said:
They own the property or are guardians of it.
Click to expand...
English law so far hasn't developed any sort of Personal image rights. If it's not going to give you absolute control of photos of yourself, it's not going to give you absolute rights over something you just happen to own. The fact you can control photos taken on your own land isn't because there's a specific law that grants the owners that rights, it's just that trespass law allows you to put conditions on access and somebody once realised "you assign us the copyright of all photos" is a valid contract term.

It's like when people make the blanket claim "You can't take my photo without my permission" or "you must have a model release", which isn't true. There's no law that states to the effect "You can control photos taken of yourself." or "By law you must have a model release". What there is are a bunch of general laws that can under some circumstances impact photography and which caused the model release to be developed , eg privacy laws, data protection, passing off laws, libel laws, harassment laws, etc.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
the abbey can't be subject to copyright; it is far too old (certainly more than 70 years
Click to expand...

And even if it was new enough, the copyright would be held by the designer of the building not the owner.

JohnX said:
Surely this is a question of Copyright? If EH own the Copyright to the Abbey, then they can demand payment,etc, but not if they simply own and/or maintain it.
Click to expand...

And as I stated earlier, a photograph of a building is not a copy of a building therefore it can't infringe any copyright.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
And Im using that commercially in what way Richard? What financial gain do I stand to receive from using a rendered image of a dead comedy star? I'm curious to know why that makes me 'entitled' if thats what your implying
Click to expand...

Haha - just ironic in this context I thought. But only a bit of gentle leg-pulling Steve :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top