London Speed Cameras

[7db]

Was just browsing the MPA records and picked up on their LSCP reports. As of June 2006, they noted three interesting things:-

- they had put camera boxes in all the possible (old criteria) sites of 4+ KSIs
- they are now looking into new criteria sites (3+ KSIs)
- trigger thresholds are all moving towards ACPO 10%+2, except at old wet film sites which are higher. They are delighted to have lots of new digital cameras.

[andyuk911]

I took this pix of the London Camera Partnership ... the officer told me if I printed his face it was his copyright ... I did post this a while ago..

This was the day of the Gumball ... the traffic was very slow 2mph LOL

[over_the_hill]

Do the doors/windows have to be open when in operation or can they "shoot" through the darkened (and presumably one way) glass.

[marshalla]

andyuk911 said:

the officer told me if I printed his face it was his copyright ...

The officer was talking b0110x. Copyright in photographs lies with the photographer (as the creative party) unless the rights have been assigned by him/her to another party.

[johnnywb]

I hope the mobile phone he's clutching is turned off...

[andyuk911]

uuuummm that would be a good one .. ask for the personal phone records to see if the camera op was on the phone when clicking on you .....Clearly there is reasonable doubt ...

[tigger1]

johnnywb said:

I hope the mobile phone he's clutching is turned off...

Indeed.

[oldsoak]

marshalla said:

andyuk911 said:

the officer told me if I printed his face it was his copyright ...

The officer was talking b0110x. Copyright in photographs lies with the photographer (as the creative party) unless the rights have been assigned by him/her to another party.

Not strictly correct there.....Copyright belongs to the 'model' unless a release is signed or copyright waived in some other way.

If a person does not wish his/her likeness to be used in a manner that may identify him/her the photographer should comply with that wish.
Next time get the BIB to sign something along the lines of this...

"[i]I accept payment of the agreed sum and hereby agree that the client, photographer, model agency and/or any person, firm or company acting on their behalf is entitled to use any photographs taken of me on this date for the purposes described above, and that I will not be entitled to receipt of any further payments in respect of the normal and proper commercial use of these photographs.
I further agree that any or all of these photographs may be manipulated or enhanced by computer. The purpose of the computer enhancement will be limited to changing backgrounds and improving the visual effects of the photography[/i]".
..... bung him the price of a pint then and only then will the copyright reside with the photographer.
But then if his bosses got to know about his 'second job'.....

[marshalla]

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm
http://www.wolfkettler.co.uk/models/modelsguide/co...


The model has no claim on the copyright of the image. Copyright always lies with the creative party.

Edited by marshalla on Wednesday 26th September 14:32

[tank slapper]

oldsoak said:

Not strictly correct there.....Copyright belongs to the 'model' unless a release is signed or copyright waived in some other way.

If a person does not wish his/her likeness to be used in a manner that may identify him/her the photographer should comply with that wish.

Not necessary if it was in a public place - a model release may be required for certain uses, like using the photo in an advert but for editorial use (ie. news etc.) there is no need for a release. Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the model.

[oldsoak]

tank slapper said:

oldsoak said:

Not strictly correct there.....Copyright belongs to the 'model' unless a release is signed or copyright waived in some other way.

If a person does not wish his/her likeness to be used in a manner that may identify him/her the photographer should comply with that wish.

Not necessary if it was in a public place - a model release may be required for certain uses, like using the photo in an advert but for editorial use (ie. news etc.) there is no need for a release. Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the model.

Back of a scamera van is a public place now is it?
Anyway I said SHOULD comply not MUST

[andyuk911]

Well as you can see I took all reasonable care to cover him up

[TTwiggy]

oldsoak said:

tank slapper said:

oldsoak said:

Not strictly correct there.....Copyright belongs to the 'model' unless a release is signed or copyright waived in some other way.

If a person does not wish his/her likeness to be used in a manner that may identify him/her the photographer should comply with that wish.

Not necessary if it was in a public place - a model release may be required for certain uses, like using the photo in an advert but for editorial use (ie. news etc.) there is no need for a release. Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the model.

Back of a scamera van is a public place now is it?
Anyway I said SHOULD comply not MUST

if the photographer is stood on public property, i.e the road, they may shoot into private property (such as when paps shoot celelbs through shop windows). If the photographer enters the private property, they must have the landlord's permission to shoot...

[Puddenchucker]

over_the_hill said:

Do the doors/windows have to be open when in operation or can they "shoot" through the darkened (and presumably one way) glass.

andyuk911 said:

.. ask for the personal phone records to see if the camera op was on the phone when clicking on you .....Clearly there is reasonable doubt ...

From ACPO guidelines:

Laser or optical hand-held devices may be used from within a vehicle provided there are no radio transmissions during the measurement. Any GSM phones must be turned off and any TETRA radios turned off unless they have a transmission inhibit switch, which is activated.

The beam must not be projected through glass or mirrors.