Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Feb 10, 2007.
He's talking total and utter bollocks.
I've shot in film sets a couple of times. If they're actually filming, their microphones could pick up your shutter noise, which is why they would ask you not to take photos, but if you're in a public place and not causing an obstruction they can't stop you. Piers are sometimes private property, so they might have negotiated exclusive rights with the pier owner if you were actually on the pier.
Thanks; he didn't mention anything about shutter noise and I could have easily turned that off; he seemed to be suggesting that using the camera could in itself interfere with their filming. They were had about half the pier cordoned off, we were on the bit closest to the Esplanade, all owned by the local council...
Well the camera interfering with filming (other than shutter noise) is absolute bollocks. If you were in a public area you can photograph whatever you want.
This seems to reside in a dubious area of legality, given that this was Leicester Square.
Hah. I mean they have the same rights to film and take photos in public as anyone else, but if they then used that to defame you, I don’t think “you consented by being in public” is going to cut it as a defence.
They actually wrote 'throughout the Universe'.
I very much doubt that putting that sign up changes their legal relations with anyone tbh.
It’s a statement of discouragement.
Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?
(Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)
Sure. There are some countries where there is copyright over architecture but not here.
ETA: some MOD buildings are excluded from this in case you were thinking of that....
I took some photos one weekend focussing on a particular tree that was showing great autumn colours. The photos were awful and I was tempted to delete them immediately on getting them onto the computer.
However it turned out the tree was just outside an army base and the guards had noted my licence plate and informed the police. Monday am I had a knock at my door and two detectives asking me what exactly I was doing so near the base. In the end although I probably didn't have to I invited them in to see the images I had from that session which seemed to calm their fears and that was that.
I hadn't even realised the tree was outside a base!
As FridgeMagnet has said.
Years ago I worked for 'Somerset Life' magazine, which carried regular features on Somerset villages, with truly beautiful photography, occasionally we would get a complaint from someone that we had published a photo that included their house, or even had it as the main focus of the photo.
Our response was always very polite, but basically boiled down to 'fuck off, you twat'.
Separate names with a comma.