Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Feb 10, 2007.
Network Rail have backtracked on their advanced fuckwittery:
Now here's an interesting story. Guy in my area complaining about not being allowed to take photos of fruit in Aldi, although I suspect there may be more to this story than meets the eye.
Aldi are within their rights to ask him to stop taking photos and to leave. I'm suspecting he displayed 'attitude' when confronted and that's the real reason he's been banned. Quite why you'd go running to the papers though, is beyond me.
Security call filmmaker ‘lunatic’ for defying nonsense photo ban
I took some photos of trains travelling and some UK railways are interested in my photos, for 'promotional' use, they say. They send me emails but no mention of payment for my work. I know photos are very good but I am not sure what's the regulation related to the copyright when you photograph trains. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
You can photograph trains as much as you like; I think stations might have restrictions on commercial photography on their platforms but not amateur stuff. In any case the railways do not have copyright.
I doubt that they would pay you; I imagine they want the pictures for free. If you politely ask about payment I would imagine they will say "unfortunately we are not in a position to pay for the pictures", maybe adding something about crediting you. Personally I would not hand over pics for free to a PR department who are getting paid for this stuff themselves.
I photographed outside the rail stations - and photos are of great quality and professional level - that is why the want them; some publications also showed interest. I just haven't photographed steam trains before - although I do professional editorial, landscape and portrait photography. It is a small railway station, so probably will have to check if it is run by volunteers and stuff like that. I am a bit confused as to what should I do. Thanks for your kind reply.
Well, if you photographed outside the station you have no legal issues. (Even inside, they wouldn't own the copyright, but they might sue you for breaching bylaws or similar... almost certainly not though.) You have copyright on those pictures and can sell them or not as you see fit.
Photographing on the streets and the law in the UK - DIY Photography
The photographer in the video has far more patience than me.
That's fucking insane.
Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall
A) he should sue; B) should have a mass photo of Hove town hall
Oh: the police have no power to detain for purposes of establishing identity
I'm after some advice really here.
Last saturday I was sitting down getting ready for a quiet night in, and get a panicked call...... there's a club night on and their photographer has blown them out. 6 hours work, 2 hours editing...... I said yeah sure, £150 inc expenses. Take it or leave it. They took it.
I went down, asked about what they wanted "just photos of performers and crowd shots"..... So I cracked on. I delivered the images but 4pm the next day, despite having not got home until 4 am.
I've delivered 77 decent quality images..... But I haven't been paid, and I've got a message today saying "aren't there any more photos?"
I haven't actually been paid yet, so if they're not happy with what I've provided, I'm willing to discuss why and what they're proposing to offer for payment instead. But I should say they can't upload any images for promotion until I'm paid, right?
Edit: oh hang on, I think there's been a problem..... she's already uploaded them, there's only a 3rd of them there.
I'd exported some as a lower res by mistake, so I've rectified that, and added about another 40 pics of people I hadn't put in originally because of all the gurn faces.
They're using the pics on social media, so I don't think they can really justify coming back to me and arguing about the price now. So lets see if they pay in the next 30 days as it says on the invoice.
Still my copyright, so if they don't pay they'll get a cease and desist from me, and then I'll take action to recoup my losses if not. I know in theory now they're on fb that she's granted the rights of ownership to fb, but I haven't give her express permission to upload them to fb either.
I'm trying to be cordial though as my company I run with freinds does a lot of work with them too.
They can't grant rights to fb if they don't have them... Which I suppose depends on the terms of your invoice, but presumably is contingent on them actually fulfilling the contract.
There's nothing alluding to terms on my invoice, I was planning on giving them an open ended license upon payment, at which point they were free to publish the images.
However they've simply proceeded to publish on receipt of the images, without payment first.
There will be stuff implied by the nature of the contract though. The law may be obtuse, but it's not so obtuse that it doesn't recognise things like a normal course of dealings. I have no idea of the details though; it's probably possible to argue that it was assumed the license was granted on a credit basis (the 30 day thing), but that's just a time factor. Once they've published the pictures they've accepted the contract and are liable to uphold their side of it. In basic principle obviously, it's probably horribly complex really - I'm sure they could try and argue stuff like not being satisfied with the images, but I'd think they'd be on a weak footing given that they used them.
This is key. I wouldn't worry just yet, in that it is normal not to be paid until a month after an invoice. And given the nature of the project, it would seem normal that they'd want to use the images straight away, otherwise what's the point of doing it?
This is where longer-term relationships are key, to build up trust. If your company does work with them, it's not in their interests to piss you off either. If they quibble over your fee, they're out of order, clearly.
Ah thanks, I had the wrong understanding.
To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.
The national trust are chasing commercial snappers for fees now it seems ?
That is fucking ridiculous, but would like to see the story confirmed elsewhere. I'll message them for confirmation.
Is that any different from, say, Network Rail charging a professional for taking pics inside a station though? (£250-400 seems well steep!)
Amateurs are free to take photos on Network Rail stations and they certainly don't face fees if their stations appear in the background somewhere of a photo they manage to sell.
I think people assume that NT land and properties are public property. Its not the view as such but well documented legal area of where you are snapping it from. I don't think this is designed to catch out walkers with an Iphone, but taxing those on the private property and snapping the non public views for commercial purposes.
ETA, should be in the T&C you agree to when accessing NT properties I would imagine
ETA2 Photographic access | National Trust Images
Separate names with a comma.