Whitby Abbey - Photography Of English Heritage Buildings

From the gov.uk website. A copyright notice updated by the IPO in November entitled :

"Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet"

On page 5 of the notice:

I want to take photos of sculptures and buildings located in public spaces


You do not need permission to photograph buildings, sculptures and similar works on public display in public spaces. The photographs you take are afforded full copyright protection. This means you, as the photographer, are able to commercially use your work.


However, as outlined above, care should be taken when taking photos of two-dimensional graphical works such as posters or commissioned murals which are located in public places. Making copies of those works could harm the interests of creators, and could be an infringement of copyright.

The notice covers a number of areas and is written in normal English. I would post a link but it's a PDF download and I'm finding it difficult to get the link. I'm sure if you google the title you'll be able to find it.
 
Doesn't deal with the issue of photographing "sculpture or buildings" on private property though, (which the Abbey would be).
 
gramps said:
Doesn't deal with the issue of photographing "sculpture or buildings" on private property though, (which the Abbey would be).
Click to expand...

Being on private property and being in a public space are not mutually exclusive. I would think most properties are on private property. Many of them would be in a public space.

Edit: Having found the relevant legislation it appears that the public space requirement only applies to sculptures, the buildings exception is absolute.


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)[making 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.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Doesn't deal with the issue of photographing "sculpture or buildings" on private property though, (which the Abbey would be).
Click to expand...

They can make it a condition of access that you don't take or need a permit for commercial photos and sue for loss if you do, lots of places do, National Trust, Royal Parks. But if you don't enter there land, there's no trespass.
 
Well, they are out of office now untill 4th Jan so I can't offer any more on the matter. However Ive mentions it on my Facebook page and my customers like the idea of contributing to English Heritage through purchase of my pictures. It may end up being beneficial to my business to have the paperwork even if its not legally required.

If i can display official paperwork next to my images, it may work to my advantage :) Just food for thought. Not that Im 100% happy with being told I can't sell photographs taken from public land or private land with permission, but sometimes maybe you have to play the game to everyones advantage ?
 
Steve Smith said:
And even if it was new enough, the copyright would be held by the designer of the building not the owner.

.
Click to expand...

Unless they signed the agreement transferring rights or allowing them to act on behalf of the architect. It does happen.
 
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...

Sorry about highlighting this so late, but that statement is so gobsmackingly inaccurate as to be risible.

Criminal Law, Civil Law.

Statute Law, Common Law.

(ignore precedent for the moment).
 
There's some pretty shoddy advice on this thread.

The copyright issue has already been dealt with - there is no © that applies to buildings in the UK as far as photography is concerned.

There is also no IP right that exists in our law.

EH has absolutely no entitlement what-so-ever, as long as the images were not shot on their land.

If the shots were taken from someone else's land, EH still has no recourse for payment or compensation.

Historically the only method of preventing the use of an image of a building for commercial purposes has been recourse to the Defamation Act.
Since the changes to the fundamental principals of defamation in this country in 2013, that recourse no longer exists.

Therefore unless you 100% need to keep onside with the Abbey, I'd tell EH to ram their demands up their hoop.
 
DemiLion said:
There's some pretty shoddy advice on this thread.
Click to expand...

indeed and this bit is the worst of it

DemiLion said:
Therefore unless you 100% need to keep onside with the Abbey, I'd tell EH to ram their demands up their hoop.
Click to expand...

Tell them to stick it up their arse and they take you to court - win or lose it will be a big waste of time and money , whether you win will depend on the judge , and even if you do you arent certain to get costs (especially as writing "you can stick it up your arse" doesn't make you look reasonable

By all means politely explain why their demands are not appropriate , but making it unecessarily confrontational benefits no one , and the short term benefit to your ego does not justify the potential consequences
 
DemiLion said:
Sorry about highlighting this so late, but that statement is so gobsmackingly inaccurate as to be risible.

Criminal Law, Civil Law.

Statute Law, Common Law.

(ignore precedent for the moment).
Click to expand...

thats alright - deadpan dodo already highlighted my mistake in #41 :bang:
 
Moose - you seem obsessed by the thought of English Heritage taking the OP to court, even though you seem to accept that they don't probably have a case.

I'm pretty confident that EH have no intention of taking him to court for several reasons.

Firstly, there are no legal grounds for pursuing the OP. Their communications with him have not provided any legal argument or stated what legislation he has allegedly breached, precisely because there is no breach.

Secondary, EH know that there is no legal justification for requiring the OP to remove the photos of Whitby Abbey unless he pays them a fee, as they conceded the same in 2010 regarding a similar situation concerning Stonehenge.

Thirdly, the last thing that they would want to do is have a judge confirm that they have no legal case to demand a fee for the commercial use of a photograph of one of their buildings taken from public property because it would put an effective end to their ability to keep sending out dubious demands for payment to photographers such as the OP.

I'm pretty sure they would rather keep on with the current letter strategy than take anyone to court and lose. That is why I would suggest the OP doesn't cave in.

Regarding whether commercial photographers have any moral obligation to make a contribution to the upkeep of the buildings they photograph then I suspect a more honest approach from EH enquiring about a voluntary contribution may elicit a positive response.
 
The point i'm making is that a bunch of people on a photo forum is not a sensible place to get legal advice. I tend to agree that they don't have a case, but none of us really know and the OP would be very unwise to take our word for it (If EH reach the stage of legal threat) without consulting an actual legal expert. (at which point you also have to consider the cost /benefit of whether getting this advice would cost more than the ammount EH are charging)

I'm not necessarily saying the OP should cave in at this point, but he should definitely keep communications polite and proffesional whatever he decides as there is hardly ever a point at which "stuff it up your arse" is a comunication likely to improve matters
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
indeed and this bit is the worst of it
Click to expand...

Moose, your legal ineptitude is writing cheques that your brain can't cash.

Tell them to stick it up their arse and they take you to court - win or lose it will be a big waste of time and money , whether you win will depend on the judge , and even if you do you arent certain to get costs (especially as writing "you can stick it up your arse" doesn't make you look reasonable

By all means politely explain why their demands are not appropriate , but making it unecessarily confrontational benefits no one , and the short term benefit to your ego does not justify the potential consequences
Click to expand...


Pray tell me on what grounds they will take him to court? You actually need a (legal) reason to sue someone.

Secondly, if they (HE) went to court over this I'd be staggered.
Rule one of litigation is that you only sue people who can afford to pay both you and your costs.
 
big soft moose said:
The point i'm making is that a bunch of people on a photo forum is not a sensible place to get legal advice. I tend to agree that they don't have a case, but none of us really know and the OP would be very unwise to take our word for it (If EH reach the stage of legal threat) without consulting an actual legal expert. (at which point you also have to consider the cost /benefit of whether getting this advice would cost more than the ammount EH are charging)

I'm not necessarily saying the OP should cave in at this point, but he should definitely keep communications polite and proffesional whatever he decides as there is hardly ever a point at which "stuff it up your arse" is a comunication likely to improve matters
Click to expand...

For the first part the words were 'ram their demands up their hoop' and they were intended to be metaphorical.

Secondly I advise the board of a national sporting body about matters exactly like this. Is that experience enough for you?

And lastly, for the love of God, learn how to spell professional.
 
A very interesting development this morning!
I've just received the latest copy of Canon's EOS Magazine.
What is on the front cover?
A long exposure of Whitby Abbey.
Difficult to say exactly where it was taken from, but the lake is in the foreground so it could have been shot from the road/footpath and cropped, or it might have been taken inside the wall on EH property.
Tog appears to be a pro who is willing to sell his prints.
Don't quite know what is going on, but OP might be interested.
 
Last edited:
Well it certainly sounds as though EH don't have a leg to stand on. I think the OP has the best approach though, there may be some benefit to be gained from this sorry episode. If you play your cards right you might be able to get better access to the site (and others managed by EH). Always an opportunity ;)
 
Im quite looking forward to them getting back to work so we can have more discussions with them. Im looking for an amicable conclusion.

On the issue of Private Vs Public Land. How do we stand on this one. Tripod on the boundary, Myself outside ;)

As my friend said today - "Glenn, Do you think The Northern Lights know they shouldn't be shining Over English heritage Property ??"

Northern-Lights-On-Abbey-Road-Whitby-1-of-1-3.jpg
 
Just a thought, if you come to an agreement with them aren't you adding weight to their claims?

I'd personally be firm in pointing out that whilst I understand their position that I don't recognise the legality of it and that any agreement I make is purely goodwill :)
 
In my opinion, the photograph posted above is just a view around Whitby. The fact that their abbey is in the way is just tough luck. If they don't want it photographed, they should keep it under cover!

glennk said:
On the issue of Private Vs Public Land. How do we stand on this one. Tripod on the boundary, Myself outside
Click to expand...

A few inches of untruth, biased in your favour!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong but aren't boundary fences/walls usually part of a private property? Therefore your tripod being on the wall will probably mean you are on EH property therefore making this breach their commercial rule. The fact you are stood outside it makes it more complicated I guess...

I too would politely tell them they're wrong and any view of the Abbey taken on private land is not up for discussion unless you wish to use it as a negotiation tool because you think it might help to make sales/assist them. Letting them carry on in this way will just encourage them to keep doing it.

My guess is its an over-zealous individual who has got the slightly wrong end of the stick. Making that individual look stupid probably will result in their defences being raised. Might it be possible to try to call him/her and arrange a meeting to chat about it? Better to do it face to face with plenty of smiles as you gently point out the error of their ways!
 
I may be wrong but I don't think I've seen any comments on the definition of "Commercial use".
There is the commercial use where the OP profits from the sale of prints for private enjoyment, which I believe in his wish. And then there is the commercial use where his sells the rights to use the image for advertising some product or other.
 
Nobody's going to give a toss if he sells a few prints. They can't stop editorial use if the picture was taken from a public place no matter how large the building is featured. They may have some control over commercial use I.e. Advertising etc but this needs challenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top