Prev: My new photosite
Next: Canon's stock 18-55 IS lens -- worse than the 18-55 non-IS lens?
From: Gordon Freeman on 8 Jun 2010 17:20
Today's Law in Action on BBC Radio 4 was very interesting, covering both
the issues of photographers right to take pictures in a public place, and
also CCTV and the police photographing political demonstrators and the
legal implications all round re. data protectin, human rights, right of
privacy etc. A number of legal experts in these fields were interviewed,
along with senior police officers and human rights advocates.

You can get this programme as an MP3 file (podcast) from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law

The programme starts with the presenter accompanying an architectural
photographer as he attempts to photograph a London office building, with
the (by now) predictable result!

--
_______________________________________________________

A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.
_______________________________________________________
From: "Trev" trev_uk on 8 Jun 2010 18:14

"Gordon Freeman" <Gordon(a)freeman.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D91E34FE9034C9A7(a)127.0.0.1...
> Today's Law in Action on BBC Radio 4 was very interesting, covering both
> the issues of photographers right to take pictures in a public place, and
> also CCTV and the police photographing political demonstrators and the
> legal implications all round re. data protectin, human rights, right of
> privacy etc. A number of legal experts in these fields were interviewed,
> along with senior police officers and human rights advocates.
>
> You can get this programme as an MP3 file (podcast) from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law
>
> The programme starts with the presenter accompanying an architectural
> photographer as he attempts to photograph a London office building, with
> the (by now) predictable result!
>
> --
Lots of the Buildings in London have been copyrighted by the architects so
that they can have control over how or if photos of it are published. So it
would be quiet within the rights of security to point out that you can not
Photograph it. And this goes back over 20 to thirty years.

From: Bruce on 9 Jun 2010 05:31
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:14:05 +0100, "Trev" <trev_uk(a)hotmail.com
invalid> wrote:

>
>"Gordon Freeman" <Gordon(a)freeman.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns9D91E34FE9034C9A7(a)127.0.0.1...
>> Today's Law in Action on BBC Radio 4 was very interesting, covering both
>> the issues of photographers right to take pictures in a public place, and
>> also CCTV and the police photographing political demonstrators and the
>> legal implications all round re. data protectin, human rights, right of
>> privacy etc. A number of legal experts in these fields were interviewed,
>> along with senior police officers and human rights advocates.
>>
>> You can get this programme as an MP3 file (podcast) from
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law
>>
>> The programme starts with the presenter accompanying an architectural
>> photographer as he attempts to photograph a London office building, with
>> the (by now) predictable result!
>>
>> --
> Lots of the Buildings in London have been copyrighted by the architects so
>that they can have control over how or if photos of it are published. So it
>would be quiet within the rights of security to point out that you can not
>Photograph it. And this goes back over 20 to thirty years.


Complete nonsense!

1. The design of a building is automatically the copyright of the
architect, or of whoever commissioned the architect, depending on the
architect's contract of engagement.

2. There is an absolute right to photograph anything, including
buildings and people, from a public right of way. The only exceptions
to this are specific defence installations.

3. "Security", whoever he/she/they might be, have no right to prevent
anyone photographing a building from a public right of way.

4. The owner of a building and/or the architect (depending on the
contract between the two) can assert "Image rights" over the building
which would mean that images of it can only be published with their
prior express permission. But they cannot stop anyone photographing a
building from a public right of way. The restriction on publication
does not apply to editorial use such as in a newspaper, magazine or on
a news website. Any non-editorial use requires a "Property release"
which is always asked for by picture editors and buyers.

As for your "20 to thirty years", I suspect you have been talking
complete nonsense throughout your whole life.

From: Chris H on 9 Jun 2010 06:05
In message <d9nu06dq8ns0bqj1s2eucg1tvj40hc6uin(a)4ax.com>, Bruce
<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:14:05 +0100, "Trev" <trev_uk(a)hotmail.com
>invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gordon Freeman" <Gordon(a)freeman.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9D91E34FE9034C9A7(a)127.0.0.1...
>>> Today's Law in Action on BBC Radio 4 was very interesting, covering both
>>> the issues of photographers right to take pictures in a public place, and
>>> also CCTV and the police photographing political demonstrators and the
>>> legal implications all round re. data protectin, human rights, right of
>>> privacy etc. A number of legal experts in these fields were interviewed,
>>> along with senior police officers and human rights advocates.
>>>
>>> You can get this programme as an MP3 file (podcast) from
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law
>>>
>>> The programme starts with the presenter accompanying an architectural
>>> photographer as he attempts to photograph a London office building, with
>>> the (by now) predictable result!
>>>
>>> --
>> Lots of the Buildings in London have been copyrighted by the architects so
>>that they can have control over how or if photos of it are published. So it
>>would be quiet within the rights of security to point out that you can not
>>Photograph it. And this goes back over 20 to thirty years.
>
>
>Complete nonsense!

Must be true it wus in the nudes of the world... :-)

>
>1. The design of a building is automatically the copyright of the
>architect, or of whoever commissioned the architect, depending on the
>architect's contract of engagement.
>2. There is an absolute right to photograph anything, including
>buildings and people, from a public right of way. The only exceptions
>to this are specific defence installations.

Agreed completely. BTW most of the prohibited places come under the
1911 Official Secrets act and AFAIK in theory still cover railway
stations, goods yards, rail bridges and telephone exchanges.... in 1911
the railway was the only way of moving troops and supplies any distance
and the land line telephones were the only means of long distance
communication.

However you can photography anything you like from a public place
See www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law

they did a 30 minute program yesterday on just this issue.

>3. "Security", whoever he/she/they might be, have no right to prevent
>anyone photographing a building from a public right of way.

Also correct. BTW Security is a member of the public in a uniform... no
more no less. They have no powers over that of any other member of the
public

BTW this is from personal experience as a Security guard (had to do
something as a mature student to make ends meet :-) and from doing real
security for HMG

Also backed up by the BBS law podcast cited above.

>4. The owner of a building and/or the architect (depending on the
>contract between the two) can assert "Image rights" over the building
>which would mean that images of it can only be published with their
>prior express permission. But they cannot stop anyone photographing a
>building from a public right of way. The restriction on publication
>does not apply to editorial use such as in a newspaper, magazine or on
>a news website. Any non-editorial use requires a "Property release"
>which is always asked for by picture editors and buyers.

That holds true for the UK (I more we are in uk.rec.photography) The
"image rights" are difficult. If it is a picture of that building then
maybe... is the building is "in the background" or just part of a
general scene then probably not


>As for your "20 to thirty years", I suspect you have been talking
>complete nonsense throughout your whole life.

Sounds like it.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Walter Banks on 9 Jun 2010 11:17


Bruce wrote:

> 2. There is an absolute right to photograph anything, including
> buildings and people, from a public right of way. The only exceptions
> to this are specific defence installations.

I have an interesting personal experience on this one. The NPL labs
in 1972 was an unassuming building in Teddington. I was on the street
opposite the main building and took a photograph (not of the building).
It raised a security alarm in the building. It was fortunate that I was on my
way to visit the head of the labs who extracted me and my camera
intact.

w..


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: My new photosite
Next: Canon's stock 18-55 IS lens -- worse than the 18-55 non-IS lens?