Banning photography in public places

[Recess]

Hi folks.

I've not been in here for AGES. How are you all? I've been hectic with the book release stuff, and quitting my day job to go freelance as an editor (I can see me doing wedding videos REAL soon if things don't take off...)

Anyway, back to my post.

The UK Govt are about to propose restrictions on photography in public
places which could make street photography and documentary photography
against the law. There's a petition on the Downing St website against
the Government's proposals to restrict the use of photography in public
areas.

Sign up to the petition now......

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

And then tell as many people you know about this as possible!!

Unless this proves to be spam, but I really don't think it is.

Anyway, I hope you're all well. Once life settles down a bit, I'll dust off the 350D and come back more often.

See you soon,

Recess (John)

[BarryM]

Hi mate, sounds like your busy, good stuff.


err that link was posted on forum about a week or two ago. ;) :Dm

[Recess]

Ha!

Ok, sorry about that. If nothing else, at least I got a chance to say 'Hi'.

:wave4:

[robbie-doux]

Hey Mr DJ!

I've seen a few reviews of your book, and even head Chris Evans mention it on radio 2.

Nice to see you on here now and then, hope all the other activities are going well.

Cheers!

[Recess]

Hey,

Yeah - Chris Moyles is currently giving away a copy for his Celebrity tarzan comp.

I've actually only seen two reviews (amazon.com and .co.uk) can you remember where you saw them, and if they were positive? (If they weren't positive, just tell me you can't remember!)

I know this has now diverted away from a photography chat, so I'm sorry - please bump into a more suitable forum if need be. Although, as there's about 10 of my own shots in the book - it is 'kinda' relevant.

Ahem...

J

[Annie_W]

Did a bit of research on this and it is not true.Seems some tog had a gripe about not being allowed to shoot somewhere, so...........
that's what I was told anyway.
Annie

[David Worthington]

yep I have heard that too....... a local tog to whom i sent the link went on local radio about it .. and they followed it up and it seems it isnt true... apparently a national paper had a piece on it as well...... phew !!!!

[lostmysnorkel]

yep I have heard that too....... a local tog to whom i sent the link went on local radio about it .. and they followed it up and it seems it isnt true... apparently a national paper had a piece on it as well...... phew !!!!

Actually, it is 'restricted' in some places in London. Trafalgar Square being one and a number of london's parks too. But that's Mayor Ken for ya!

One day, he's on TV begging for people to send their photos in to help identify terrorists, the next, telling us we shouldn't be taking pictures in public.

In practise, though, I don't think it has ever really been enforced other than one case of a 'tog taking pictures of people (one child in particular) playing in the fountains beneath Nelson.

Would have been interesting though. Get caught speeding by a Gatso - "Sorry M'Lud, but that photographic evidence was taken in a public place, not admissable!"

[Gadget]

Hi guys.
this ones been kicking around since the early 90's.
Ken clark tried to introduce a bill for this which basically said that someone in the background of a photo could object. Thankfully it got dropped.
I understand there was a problem between a photog working for a council and a -then new- police community support office (or rent-a-cop or blunkets bother boys or...sorry digressing).
The story I got through was manchester where the guy was doing stock work and someone objected, refused to delete the image one thing lead to another PCSO turns up and detains photog who demands that a senior officer attend. photog taken to station where he is then released after its expalined to PCSO that photog was not doing anything wrong - not sure about this bit but photog claims images had been deleted, don't know if thats true.
Point is the guy lost half a day and probalby had his reputation damaged.
I remember we had a thread on this last year after the paris riots when things were suggested by our political masters, but it died down.

This is an ongoing risk - it could seriously happen. We all need to be sure of the law and be sure we really are in public places and not on private property.
quick example, last month did a corporate job at Warwick castle and had to be so careful of who was in the shot.. you may ask so what but remember my client and me were not the only ones there- and its private property.

[karl-tkd]

This is so true......i was taking some shots of some statues in Brdford City when some young girls jokingly said 'take some shots of us'...i gladly refused and waited for them to move on....

[tonymidd]

This is so true......i was taking some shots of some statues in Brdford City when some young girls jokingly said 'take some shots of us'...i gladly refused and waited for them to move on....

Dodggy taking public art as it's copyrighted so if the artist, or their estate if the artist is long gone, wants he can sue you. Don't know how true it is but did a wedding tog not get sued by a posh dress designer for not getting permission to photograph the dress? The world is going barmy:confused::confused:

[Gadget]

Dodggy taking public art as it's copyrighted so if the artist, or their estate if the artist is long gone, wants he can sue you. Don't know how true it is but did a wedding tog not get sued by a posh dress designer for not getting permission to photograph the dress? The world is going barmy:confused::confused:

Infringment of copyright only applies if you copy the 'thing' in the same media or format, so you can photograph a statue but you can't recreate it from the same material. Tony is correct on the wedding dress story and it got thrown out for this very reason.
A few years ago at the old Wembly a security guard tried to stop me photographing the view down wembly way, told me the view was copyright.... have you ever heard such complete bollocks. You can't copyright a view only an exhisting image of said view
I was so glad they pulled the place down.

[england1965]

Jeremy Vine show on R2 today (12:00-14:00) was covering a similar(ish) issue regarding parents asking other parents to stop photographing cricket matches/ school plays etc. when their own kids might be photographed

I must use the "listen again" feature and give it a listen -I think it was in first 30 mins

Cheers

Mark

[tonymidd]

Infringment of copyright only applies if you copy the 'thing' in the same media or format, so you can photograph a statue but you can't recreate it from the same material. Tony is correct on the wedding dress story and it got thrown out for this very reason.
A few years ago at the old Wembly a security guard tried to stop me photographing the view down wembly way, told me the view was copyright.... have you ever heard such complete bollocks. You can't copyright a view only an exhisting image of said view
I was so glad they pulled the place down.

This copyright thing gets a bit confused when the artist takes action over the moral rights issue, that is using their ideas or material to produce something that can or could be considered to be either inspired by or part of the original.
I understand there are still several such cases going thru the European courts over the floodlighting shows at the Effiel Tower. The original copyright case over this was chucked out for the reasons Gadget gives.

[tonymidd]

Jeremy Vine show on R2 today (12:00-14:00) was covering a similar(ish) issue regarding parents asking other parents to stop photographing cricket matches/ school plays etc. when their own kids might be photographed

I must use the "listen again" feature and give it a listen -I think it was in first 30 mins

Cheers

Mark

That ad for the kiddies painkiller sums up the paraniod attitude of modern parents. Yes protect your kids and watch over them but they have got to learn how to look after themselves as well. I understand there is a national shortage of cotton wool ***sarcasm3**:grin::grin:

[Gadget]

This copyright thing gets a bit confused when the artist takes action over the moral rights issue, that is using their ideas or material to produce something that can or could be considered to be either inspired by or part of the original.
I understand there are still several such cases going thru the European courts over the floodlighting shows at the Effiel Tower. The original copyright case over this was chucked out for the reasons Gadget gives.


Yeah i'm back, just had a hellish week in belfast...at least the security barriers have gone now.
Anyway - back to this statue, its in a public place on a street - the artist has probably been paid by the council in the full knowledge that it would be used to promote the town, city, county...whatever. so its there to been seen thats that for the artist.
I'm on the books for a couple of local authorites around my "patch" so to speak and between them have several sculpture cluttering up the town cnetres...guess what makes great fodder for brochures and leaflets infomation booklets, web pages etc??? guess who bought the sculptures??? (not me btw)

[AlanJM]

Just had this fron Downing Street

E-Petition: response from the Government
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Stop proposed restrictions regarding photography in public places" is on-going. This is a response in advance of the closing date from the Government.

Thank you for signing the petition on the Downing Street website calling for the Prime Minister to stop proposed restrictions on photography in public places.

This petition has already attracted over 60,000 signatures from people who obviously share your concern. Not surprisingly, the idea that the Government might be poised to restrict your ability to take photos has caused some puzzlement and even alarm.

We have therefore decided to respond to this petition before its closing date of August, in order to reassure people.

The Government appreciates that millions of people in this country enjoy photography. So we have checked carefully to see if any Government department was considering any proposal that might possibly lead to the sort of restrictions suggested by this petition. We have been assured this is not the case.

There may be cases where individual schools or other bodies believe it is necessary to have some restrictions on photography, for instance to protect children, but that would be a matter for local decisions.

In fact, Simon Taylor, who started the petition, has since made clear that he was not really referring to Government action or legislation. His main concern appears to be that photographic societies and other organisations may introduce voluntary ID cards for members to help them explain why they are taking photographs. Again, any such scheme would not involve the Government.

We hope this re-assures you and clears up the confusion.
Further information
Get all the latest news from No.10 by subscribing to our email service
10 Downing Street homepage
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

[StagePhotography.co.uk]

Yup round robin.... We all got it I tink...

Looks like they an't got a clue, no one in that fact...

[paulstmungo]

I read recently as well about a chap who won a national photography competition, but was later disqualified.

The reason he was disqualified was that there had also been a designer working on the photo-shoot giving input on preffered poses, set layouts etc.

The competitions organisers disqualified the chap because it was not all his own work.

Perhaps someone can clarify for me how this relates to copyright.

If the concept of an image is thought up by a designer, and the photographer takes the piccy, who owns copyright of the image ? Designer or Photographer.

Perhaps copyright is shared ?

If as i suspect copyright is shared then this can perhaps be translated to a number of other areas.

If for example i set up a group of people for a photograph and someone takes that piccy over my shoulder, without permission are they then breaching my copyright as the "designer" of the image ?

Any thoughts ?

[lostmysnorkel]

The person who owns the copyright of an image, is the person who created the image - not necessarily the person who captured it.

In the, hypothetical, case of an advertising 'tog, who is hired by a client who also has an artistic director, and that artistic director produces a drawing showing the 'tog exactly how the image should look. Then the image has already been created and the photographer is simply recreating the image in a different medium. SO the designer would have copyright. (Usually though, I believe there is an agreement in the contract to specify who owns what rights over the image and the 'tog should expect his fees to reflect this)

As for taking the shot over your shoulder, I have had a case once, when I set the B&G with Bridesmaids, turned round to get to the camera, only to find one of the guests had moved my tripod (with cam attached) in order to take a photograph from the exact spot I would have.

I'm not sure that this would have been a breach of copyright, as I hadn't yet created the image, and I'm not sure that even if it was, a court of law would have agreed that this lady shouldn't be allowed to take a photograph of her nieces at a wedding, as long as it wasn't for commercial purposes. Question comes down to 'Can you copyright a pose?" and i don't think you can.

I beat her by making sure I stayed between her and the subjects as I walked back!

[gro0ve_Image]

not to mention taking photographs over a wedding togs shoulder during a set pose is in extremely BAD taste, ugh, people have no respect for professionals anymore :(

[george.monaghan]

I read recently as well about a chap who won a national photography competition, but was later disqualified.

The reason he was disqualified was that there had also been a designer working on the photo-shoot giving input on preffered poses, set layouts etc.

The competitions organisers disqualified the chap because it was not all his own work.

Perhaps someone can clarify for me how this relates to copyright.

If the concept of an image is thought up by a designer, and the photographer takes the piccy, who owns copyright of the image ? Designer or Photographer.

Perhaps copyright is shared ?

If as i suspect copyright is shared then this can perhaps be translated to a number of other areas.

If for example i set up a group of people for a photograph and someone takes that piccy over my shoulder, without permission are they then breaching my copyright as the "designer" of the image ?

Any thoughts ?

The truth is the image is yours the minute you fire the shutter. You design is on; DOF, angle of view, white balance, exposures, shutter speed, zoom setting (lens) etc. No designer can take that away from you - his pose - your ideas on how to achive the final look. dark or light, high or low key etc. Your image your copywright - nobody has a share of it! :icon_nice

[lostmysnorkel]

The truth is the image is yours the minute you fire the shutter. You design is on; DOF, angle of view, white balance, exposures, shutter speed, zoom setting (lens) etc. No designer can take that away from you - his pose - your ideas on how to achive the final look. dark or light, high or low key etc. Your image your copywright - nobody has a share of it! :icon_nice

I was reading somewhere that often the artistic creator is considered the images creator, as I originally posted.

If his brief for the 'tog, explains the pose, the lighting and the DOF - ie" A nice rim light in her hair, but with just the eyes in focus and sitting like this"

If the 'tog has some creative licence given to them, then there is some of their work in the final image, but if they are shooting exactly what the artistic designer wants, then not only is it boring for the 'tog, but the director has created the image - the 'tog has simply recorded it.

[george.monaghan]

I was reading somewhere that often the artistic creator is considered the images creator, as I originally posted.

If his brief for the 'tog, explains the pose, the lighting and the DOF - ie" A nice rim light in her hair, but with just the eyes in focus and sitting like this"

If the 'tog has some creative licence given to them, then there is some of their work in the final image, but if they are shooting exactly what the artistic designer wants, then not only is it boring for the 'tog, but the director has created the image - the 'tog has simply recorded it.

Should I get a photographic book on studio lighting, poses, and set one up exactly as stated in the book, light, pose, set shutter speed and DOF - are you saying the author of the book created the picture?

Should that be the case then you will have to go a long long way to find something "created from your own mind" in concept and execution. Someone will have explaned/taught you some of it before you fired the shutter - never mind trying to copy/emulate pictures you admire.

It is in the execution the copywright lies - this is not music where you only have a few chords - but look what various artists/composers have done with them.

How many "wooly" briefs have you been given regarding what a client would like?

Well:wacko: that's my slant on the matter. :wacko:

[lostmysnorkel]

....you will have to go a long long way to find something "created from your own mind" in concept and execution.

Absolutely, I think it was Evelyn Waugh who, when asked "What makes a great writer?" replied, "SOmeone who reads a lot of great writing, but forgets where he read it before he writes his own"


To be honest, I don't really know, I just remember reading an article on copyright, and the example of an Artistic Director hiring a 'tog, giving him a drawing of the image he wants, the 'tog then setting it up and recreating the image, would be a copyright 'grey area', which is usually clarified within the original contract.

Copright protects the CREATOR of the image, if the artistic director DRAWS the image, with the INTENTION of it being photographed, then they are into the grey area.

An architect can draw the plans, but he still needs the builders to create the finished article.

[lenahvalley]

Earlier in this thread mention was made of ID cards. The proscriptions on photography have even reached these far shores.

Since early in 2006, members of Southern Tasmanian Photographic Society, when on a photographic outing, are issued with name tags, which state that they are members of the Society and engaged in bona fide photography under the cover of the Society.

The reverse of the slip advises that if a valid objection is expressed to an image being captured, the image will be destroyed.

Members appear happy with this arrangement and I have heard of no negative experiences to date.

[pameladallaire]

I belong to Canadian Artists Representation CARFAC which clears up the whole copyright thing here in Canada. We can take pictures and show them publicly if the faces aren't recognizable and we have taken them for our own use. If we have been paid to take the picture, the copyright belongs to the person who pays you unless stated in writing to the contrary. If the persons face is clear in the picture, and you want to reproduce it, or post it on the internet, they must sign a release. Childrens pictures must have signed releases that a parent or guardian must sign.

If I don't have permission, I don't use the photograph, simple. As long as I know what I'm up against.

CARFAC even give us all the forms made up by their own lawyers.

Pam

[tonymidd]

Absolutely, I think it was Evelyn Waugh who, when asked "What makes a great writer?" replied, "SOmeone who reads a lot of great writing, but forgets where he read it before he writes his own"


To be honest, I don't really know, I just remember reading an article on copyright, and the example of an Artistic Director hiring a 'tog, giving him a drawing of the image he wants, the 'tog then setting it up and recreating the image, would be a copyright 'grey area', which is usually clarified within the original contract.

Copright protects the CREATOR of the image, if the artistic director DRAWS the image, with the INTENTION of it being photographed, then they are into the grey area.

An architect can draw the plans, but he still needs the builders to create the finished article.

While 'forum hopping' ('tis a boring morning) came across this exchange with George. The art director /tog situation is one in which I often found myself and while never having had a problem with copyright I did once ask the question at a seminar.
The general consensus was the A D owned the copy right to his drawing/design but the tog owned the copyright to the photograph.
I found that usually I had to interpret the A D's thoughts into a photograph. The result, while following his thought process, was invariably different. Lighting for certain would be different, angles, perspective maybe even the arrangement of the component parts may have altered. Very rarely, if ever, was I able to do an exact replica of the brief.
I found the most equiable way round this was in my T&C to give the client the right to unlimited use of the image provided I could also use the image for promotional purposes. Worked well for product and location shoots.
This solution may not suit every one but it works well with the type of work I'm still doing.