Your Rights As A Photographer (1 Viewer)

[Space]

Two articles on photographers rights well worth reading, not sure how relevant they are in Ireland though.

http://www.beadesigngroup.com/blog/archives/2006/06/your_rights_as_a_photographer.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

1. Almost anything you can see you can photograph.
If you can see it, you can take a picture of it. If you are standing on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. It is important to realize that taking a picture is different than publishing a photo, which leads to point number two.

2. As long as you are not invading someone’s privacy, you can publish their photo without permission.
You can take someone’s picture in any public setting and publish it without consequence (even if it portrays the person in a negative way) as long as the photo isn’t “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” You can even publish photos if you took them on private property. While you may be punished for being on private property, there is no legal reason why you can’t publish the photo from prison!

3. As long as you aren’t using someone’s likeness for a purely commercial purpose, you have the right to publish the photo.
You can use your photos of other people without their permission for an artistic or news purpose, but you can’t use them for a commercial purpose (such as an ad). You could sell a photo of a person without their permission, but you couldn’t use the photo in an ad saying the person endorses your product.

 

[mr pharmacist!!!!1]

you have the right not to be killed.

 

[Theseus Mock]

you also have the right to NOT pounce around front stage at small shows. maybe take that big boy out for ONE (maybe two) songs. and quit the stalkery there.

 

[pete]

pretty sure i posted this before


http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

 

[jane]

This was posted on a mailing list I'm on:

Thought you might like to know/do something about this...

Signing up to ask the Prime Minister to Stop proposed restrictions
regarding photography in public places

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/

Just went to try to find the details of it, though, and couldn't find any that explained what's happening.

I did find a link to a piece that talks about a NYC transit authority ban on photography in the transit system, and then I found this extremely dodgy thing:
http://news.opodo.co.uk/articles/2007-01-25/18043192-Lincolnshire-lifts.php

So the councils can own the sites as well as the image of the site? Really dodgy, REALLY stupid.

Anyway, when I was in college, we had to do a project that involved using a contemporary place as an archaeological site, and I tried to do a shopping mall. Unfortunately, I was thrown out by security who said it was illegal to take photos in a shopping mall. I was pretty sure it was a lie, but I didn't feel like arguing, so I went to my local bar to drown my sorrows and ended up doing my project on the bar. Got an A, mind.

 

[Goff]

the Shopping Mall was probably Private property so, while not technically "illegal", if they'd asked you to stop and you didn't then, they could have sued you.

There's always some debate in Amateur Photographer magazine- among others - about people being asked to not take photos in parks, etc. London Eye are notorious. Some say it's for security and anti-child porn reasons (most famously Red Ken). Apparently, if you can fit the camera into the palm of your hand, they'll let you away with it. Now, I'm no expert, but I think I'd be more worried about the cameras that can be hidden taking pictures of secure installations or even more so, of kids. Minox made a fortune making just such cameras.

The National Trust in the UK have a very restrictive view of photography on their properties. Although you still own copyright, you can't sell the image unless it's through their own stock library and they claim 50%. However, if you take a picture of the property from "outside" (ie, not on National Trust land - Over a hedge with a telephoto for instance), then there's nowt they can do about it.

Thankfully we're a bit more liberal in Ireland (though some restrictions may apply on OPW sites). BUT, even if you snaked a picture from the middle of Newgrange, the copyright remains yours. They'd prefer if you don't use it for commercial purposes though.

You can take a picture of most properties from outside a gaff and there's nothing they can do about it. Even in the UK.

Except Top Secret locations (these would be the ones not on the maps).

 

[sparse]

I read most of that but didn't get an answer to this question. If I take a picture of people in Croke Park and put it in an ad do I have to get their permission? and don't give me any of your UK law!

 

[sparse]

you also have the right to NOT pounce around front stage at small shows. maybe take that big boy out for ONE (maybe two) songs. and quit the stalkery there.

I second that.

 

[Space]

I read most of that but didn't get an answer to this question. If I take a picture of people in Croke Park and put it in an ad do I have to get their permission? and don't give me any of your UK law!

Probably worth checking the terms and conditions on the ticket used to gain entry to Croke Park, I'm sure there'll be something in there about what your allowed to do with respect to photography.

From the digitalrights.ie article Pete posted up:

However, the owner may impose conditions on your entry to the property, which may include a complete ban on photography, a ban on photography of certain things, or a ban on certain types of photography (eg, flash photography, video photography etc).

 

[Goff]

You can sell what you like once you get the picture. Copyright is yours. That's the point.

BUT, if they think you're making money out of it, they might go through the courts to ask for compensation.

And, if it said on the ticket, that one of the rights of entry is that there is a ban on commercial photography, it's more than likely the judge will come down on their side, as that would be more or less a contract.

Selling it as a Fine Art print, let's say, would probably be allowed (Art gets away with murder - and rightly so). BUT for an ad, then they are well within their rights to ask for compo. And I'd say they'd get it. Rare they'd get the ad stopped though.

 

[jane]

As for the fine art thing, it's weird, a photo of me was in an art exhibition once, when I was probably about 15. I think I talked about this on here before, and it was really freaky for me. After being stopped loads of times by people who couldn't figure out why they recognised me, eventually, someone told me that there was a fucking massive print of me in the Institute of Contemporary Art. It was weird. I'm sure there are some sort of laws now about when you can and can't use a photo of a child like that. I mean, it didn't screw me up or nothin', it was just odd. I felt a wee bit intruded on and exposed, but I was 15, so I'd have probably felt like that anyway.

 

[Space]

Interesting (from here).

Anger at police statement on 'covert' photography.

Wednesday 23rd January 2008
Chris Cheesman

Link to article in Amateur Photographer Magazine 26uukr

Anyone who 'appears to be taking photographs in a covert manner' should expect to be stopped and quizzed, warn police.

The caution came in a statement issued by Humberside Police after they seized films from photography enthusiast Steve Carroll in Hull city centre on 1 December.

As revealed by Amateur Photographer last month, police accused Carroll of obtaining photographs of 'possibly sensitive material'.

Carroll - who had been making his first attempt at 'street photography' - said that the officers objected to him photographing 'sensitive buildings', police later adding that members of the public had complained about his use of the camera.

Carroll's films have since been returned by police.

After considering Carroll's complaint a Humberside Police spokesperson said: 'Following a thorough investigation into complaints made to Humberside Police it has [been] found the police officers acted in a right and proper manner.

'Any person who appears to be taking photos in a covert manner should expect to be stopped and spoken to by police to enquire into what their business is.

'Humberside Police would expect other officers within the force to act in the same manner if given a similar situation.'

The spokesperson said it would be inappropriate to discuss details of Carroll's complaint as this is a 'private matter between the complainant and Humberside Police'.

Commenting on the police statement Pete Jenkins, vice-chair of the Photographers Sub Committee at the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), said: 'Taking photographs in a public place in the UK is still not a prohibited act, nor is it any way against the law. We as citizens expect the police to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along.'

Describing the police's reason for stopping Carroll as 'nonsense' Jenkins added: 'While I can understand that anyone acting in a covert and underhand manner might excite suspicion in today's anti-terrorist climate, one does have to put this into context. A camera, digital or otherwise is just that. It is not a weapon of terrorism or an anti-social tool, nor is it the badge/weapon of the paedophile.'

Jenkins – a fervent campaigner for photographers's rights who also works as a photographic consultant - questions the police's reference to 'sensitive material' as the reason for the stop and asserts that taking photos in a public place is a 'fundamental right'.

Speaking shortly after the incident Carroll told us: 'All the shots were of people. I took shots of people crossing the road, the Big Issue seller, two youths drinking from beer cans, people walking in the street and so on,' adding that he was making his first attempt at 'street photography'.

Carroll admitted that a few of his shots were taken candidly, adding: 'I did not take any photographs of children. I took most of the photographs openly, not trying to disguise the fact that I was photographing.'

Carroll who lives in Sittingbourne, Kent had been visiting relatives in Hull at the time of the incident.

He had been inspired to take up street photography after a talk at Maidstone Camera Club, which he has been a member of for 30 years.

He was using a Voigtländer [Bessa] R4A film-based camera with a 21mm lens.

The Amateur Photographer story has this week been followed up by reporters from BBC News. See BBC story here. It also appeared as the top story on last night's Look North.

A BBC spokesperson told us that its follow-up came after one of its viewers sent Look North editors a cutting of our original article 'anonymously'.

 

[magicbastarder]

I read most of that but didn't get an answer to this question. If I take a picture of people in Croke Park and put it in an ad do I have to get their permission? and don't give me any of your UK law!

yes, you have to get their permission, if they are identifiable. you have to get a model release form.

 

[Goff]

yes, you have to get their permission, if they are identifiable. you have to get a model release form.

Strictly speaking you don't, in this country. But no advertising agency would touch it without a release form. And they would have an option to sue you if you made it look as if they were endorsing something they didn't agree to. Which they might not win. Or if they did, you'd have to weigh up any damages awarded against the possible extra exposure garnered by a court case (which, in fairness, unless you're Ryanair, would most likely be negligible).

Although it has happened a lot of times in this country.

It's not worth it.

Anything else is fair game.