1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Feb 10, 2007.

?

More photography laws?

  1. Yes

    1.5%
  2. No

    88.9%
  3. Restrict it to professionals

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Create a license/register for it

    2.2%
  5. Am busy stalking someone click......click

    7.4%
  1. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat


    Thanks for that, seems to correlate fairly well with copyright on novels.

    So a photographic by someone who died in 1936 would be free of copyright.
     
  2. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  3. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Since the 1988 Act it's been exactly the same. Words, images, musical composition: the same.

    No.

     
  4. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat

    Isn't that 1936? Or maybe 1935ish?
     
  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  6. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Only if the photographer died in 1936.



    Once upon a time a photographer said to me - and 60 other people in the room - "Look, if I could read I'd be a writer" :D
     
  7. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    And if anyone tries to stop you taking a picture of a building because they say it's 'copyrighted' slap them down with this (from the same site as the PDF doc)

    This bit deals with the issue of taking photos of kids:
    http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53
     
  8. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat


    Thats exactly what I said - and you're accusing me of poor reading ability.

    You make me laugh.
     
  9. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I should have shoved this in the security guard's face:

     
  10. Firky

    Firky The first of the gang Banned

    There is a certain degree of respect to be had however. For instance, say if I lived in a lovely thatched cottage, beautiful and well - picturesque. I would not want people taking photographs of it. The odd one I don't mind but say if I was minding my own business, pimms in the garden with a fine English Rose, I would not want some dreadlocked hippy or some mouthy skinny geordie clicking away trying to get that quintessential english garden photograph. It is give and take I feel. Respect your subject and they'll respect you.
     
  11. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    So you do. I swear when I hit Reply it said "a photo taken in"... the common misconception...
     
  12. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    There's nothing worse than officious twats with a smidgen of authority.
     
  13. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Then don't live in a "beautiful and well picturesque lovely thatched cottage" or put a load of trees around your house to cover it up.

    Asking people not to take a picture of a picturesque cottage in public view is like asking them not to take a picture of a pretty sunset.

    We get loads of people taking pictures of my block because it's so ugly. Doesn't bother me.
     
  14. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    Question: is that a public space?

    It looks like the entrance to a loading zone/parking area, under a building.
     
  15. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    No, but the picture was taken from the public pavement (or 'sidewalk' or whatever it is you lot call the bit that runs by the road).
     
  16. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I suppose the reasoning is that if it's visible from a public place, then there's no reason not to allow a photo of it.

    If the owner of a private space has reason to want his property to not be visible, then it's his/her responsibility to take steps to keep it from public view, with walls etc.
     
  17. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat


    Its OK i forgive your bluntness.:)
     
  18. Firky

    Firky The first of the gang Banned

    What I mean is that you also have to respect people's right to not want to be photographed. I have often taken pictures at festivals and concerts and people have dodged out the way, not because tehy think they're going to spoil the shot, but because they don't want to be photographed. I think it is the same when it comes to people's property - hence the example of the cottage. However it is a different matter when it comes to public buildings or buildings that impose a prescence on the enviroment they're part of (like your manor).

    FWIW I quite like your manor, but I like that kind of architecture!

    I have come across some beautiful customised bikes and cars in Brighton and not everyone was happy about having them photographed because it was there pride and joy. Although I don't really understand why because they drive in public and get more views than my photograph ever would, I respect their choice if you follow?

    I'm talking a load of shite cos am stoned init?
     
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Hold on - we weren't talking about photographing people which is an entirely different matter.

    But if you you choose to live in a pretty house that's going to attract attention, you really can't complain when you get it.
     
  20. Firky

    Firky The first of the gang Banned

    Hhmm.

    I think it is because when I was a wee lad my parents used to live in a very pretty house near a river, in the middle of a woodland. Often we'd get people just staring at the garden and the house, and well us! A house is a place of privacy, solitude and sanctury. I wouldn't want people taking photos of my house. Nor would I take a photo in a glaringly obvious way of someone's house.

    Funny thing is I have no problems with sticking my camera in the face of strangers and police?
     
  21. dlx1

    dlx1 Sitting by phone waiting for a call

    tho it 2 days ago.

    But ok for the Security Guard to :rolleyes: need to go on a people's Course. :D

    Some of the Security at canary wharf just ask why taking photos. But never rulde
    Have seen then in the passed guards asking tourettes

    how if the ed had a proper hear cut you would get greef ;)

    edit: just read firky 10-02-2007, 08:41 PM post
    Were abouts was you taking photos ?
     
  22. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    I've learnt a lot about the rules and regs from reading this thread. I've taken shedloads of festival-specific pictures since about 1999. Thuis was done, very amateurishly really, without me knowing anything, but it's surely mostly a matter of common sense and basic respect. I've taken pix of Travellers and (mostly) their vehicles, big groups of alternative dreaded tatted pierced types, 'alternative families' (including kids) etc. and I've never had any real bother. BUT I've always made a point (if it's not just a general crowd shot and if it included things in the way of portraits), of asking politely if it's OK. Usually it is.

    And if it isn't I don't. (Or on about two occasions, I've apologised if not)
     
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    From the FAQ:

     
  24. Firky

    Firky The first of the gang Banned

    eerr is it canada square? something square, next to the big fuck off statue in the middle
     
  25. Jonti

    Jonti what the dormouse said

    It's just silly, though, isn't it? Imaging and distribution technology just gets better and cheaper all the time. Trivial example -- camera phones are everywhere, and are likely to become even more common. And what about next year? There was a piece on the telly months ago about a guy that kitted himself out with wireless gear and a webcam. He was feeding the video and sound to a web site, so folks all over the world could, ahem, "share his experience". Quite an interesting project technically, even if the content was well dull!

    Yep, I reckon we'll soon be able to get live feeds from Ed's walkabouts, so we can enjoy all the sights and sounds, all the wit and repartee, from the comfort of our own homes :D
     
  26. Ae589

    Ae589 Look what you've done...!

    I hope I'm not repeating anything already said on here but...

    "There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.

    It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place.

    These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession."

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

    But I can't find any news of proposals.
     
  27. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Me either.

    And when photographers want to howl, they frequently do so in, er, the direction of people close to laptop.

    I'll ask.
     
  28. Paul Russell

    Paul Russell Psychogeographer

    I just saw news of this petition on another board.

    I haven't heard anything about these "proposed restrictions".

    Shirley if there were any they would be all over

    http://www.epuk.org/

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/

    etc. etc.

    Hopefully the petition starter has just got the wrong end of the stick.


     
  29. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    It appears to be a misunderstanding of paranoia about photographing kids.

    More as soon as I have permission to quote emails.
     
  30. Firky

    Firky The first of the gang Banned

    Its OK to have teenagers with their tits out on page 3 but heaven forbid we take a photo of some children playing.
     

Share This Page