Hylands house copyright?
Discussion
Today I was out and about with my younger brother who was gathering footage for his as-level media studies at Hylands house in chelmsford. He was just about to set the camera up when someone from the house approached us and asked what we were doing. I explained it was a quick pan for some media studies home work and was expecting that to be the end of the conversation.
They said that he had to send an email to hylands@chelmsford.gov and explain what the footage was for so they could okay it as without permission he would be liable for a 2k license for the footage.
Is this right? I assume from the email that the house must be council owned and therefore no different to any road or park elsewhere in the county where I can do as I please in regard to taking photo's or shooting film. I was under the impression that you could take photo's anywhere and of anything as long as it was on public land or your land and you would be the owner of the image not the person who owned the object. I would imagine if you were on private land it could well be different.
I guess what I am rambling round is when would you need to seek permission from a legal stand point and when can you tell people to behave as your within your rights.
I aplogise now for probably asking a very regular question.
They said that he had to send an email to hylands@chelmsford.gov and explain what the footage was for so they could okay it as without permission he would be liable for a 2k license for the footage.
Is this right? I assume from the email that the house must be council owned and therefore no different to any road or park elsewhere in the county where I can do as I please in regard to taking photo's or shooting film. I was under the impression that you could take photo's anywhere and of anything as long as it was on public land or your land and you would be the owner of the image not the person who owned the object. I would imagine if you were on private land it could well be different.
I guess what I am rambling round is when would you need to seek permission from a legal stand point and when can you tell people to behave as your within your rights.
I aplogise now for probably asking a very regular question.
Were you inside or outside the building? I'm not sure what constitutes a public place in law. I've certainly taken hundreds of photographs at Hylands with full DSLR setup and tripod and never been challenged. I wouldn't like to guess how many people have taken a photo of that house without a release from the council.
Hyde Hall Gardens (RHS) have an odd system whereby you can take as much kit as you like in, but if you have a tripod, then you are deemed to be a professional and have to pay for a photography licence. A bit random, but that's Middle England for you...
Hyde Hall Gardens (RHS) have an odd system whereby you can take as much kit as you like in, but if you have a tripod, then you are deemed to be a professional and have to pay for a photography licence. A bit random, but that's Middle England for you...
Buzz word said:
...I explained it was a quick pan for some media studies home work...
Buzz word said:
...explain what the footage was for...
Sounds like it was motion rather than static photography? Not sure what difference it makes legally but could trigger a different reaction from the security folk based on their perception of what you're doing.Yes it was film rather than photographing. It was outside and on a tripod, just a quick pan of the house and some of the grounds he wanted for a few seconds of the project.
I suppose from what is being said that we must have been mistaken for professionals which is probably flattering for my brother who was using a cheapo handycam on a tripod and he is only 17.
Do councils let private people photograph what they want and then charge profesionals as they, by definition, want to make money from the image? so as the land owner it would be like them refusing permission therefore making it illegal to take an image? It would seem a funny sytem if thats the case as you could be in an odd place if you took an image as a private person and were then approached after somone saw it to sell them a copy. The inferance would be that all of a sudden you would have to contact the land owner to get a liscence.
I suppose from what is being said that we must have been mistaken for professionals which is probably flattering for my brother who was using a cheapo handycam on a tripod and he is only 17.
Do councils let private people photograph what they want and then charge profesionals as they, by definition, want to make money from the image? so as the land owner it would be like them refusing permission therefore making it illegal to take an image? It would seem a funny sytem if thats the case as you could be in an odd place if you took an image as a private person and were then approached after somone saw it to sell them a copy. The inferance would be that all of a sudden you would have to contact the land owner to get a liscence.
MotorFocus said:
Buzz word said:
...I explained it was a quick pan for some media studies home work...
Buzz word said:
...explain what the footage was for...
Sounds like it was motion rather than static photography? Not sure what difference it makes legally but could trigger a different reaction from the security folk based on their perception of what you're doing.
No real idea, but I suspect they could atleast try and argue that the house was a private place. I thought usually when they didn't allow photography it was officially to avoid people using a flash, but in reality they'd rather you bought there post cards or print instead.
Chris71 said:
Haha, like those silly ads at the moment "Is he videoing it for a terrorist attack?"
And on that subject... Have you seen this. Challenge the camera holderHyland House is the only venue I've encountered where photographers have to show a PL certificate.
Yes, it's owned by Essex County Council and as far as I can tell, is subject to every atom of jobsworth numptyism and infinitessimal European decree. I can imagine the security man's little pecker swelling as he trotted out the '£2,000 fee' part.
I'd go back when he's on tea-break.
Yes, it's owned by Essex County Council and as far as I can tell, is subject to every atom of jobsworth numptyism and infinitessimal European decree. I can imagine the security man's little pecker swelling as he trotted out the '£2,000 fee' part.
I'd go back when he's on tea-break.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff