photos copyright

[saaby93]

If you go to an outdoor museum or similar with your mates and they say professional photgraphers fee £20 but you take some photos anyway for personal use, what's the position of putting them up on the web with 'photos of our day out at so and so auto museum'

Who owns photos? - the person taking them or whoever owns the object?
Does it apply to mechanical things or say an interesting looking tree in the corner?

Should I have posted this in SP&L

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 20th November 22:16

[mrmr96]

Why is this in website feedback not photography?

[saaby93]

Probably should have been in sp&l due to law about car photos
or photography

[tossbag]

Like anything art related, the copyright is owned by the creator, as soon as you push the button to take a photo, you have created it - you then own the copyright on that image.
If I take a photo of a Mondeo, I own the copyright of the image, Ford owns the copyright on the car.

[XG332]

The photographer ownes them unless given otherwise.
You can do what you like with them.
They can stop you from taking photos at the time as it is private land.

[mrmr96]

tossbag said:

Like anything art related, the copyright is owned by the creator, as soon as you push the button to take a photo, you have created it - you then own the copyright on that image.
If I take a photo of a Mondeo, I own the copyright of the image, Ford owns the copyright on the car.

I think you may have oversimplified the issue.
If I walk into an art gallery and take a photo of a painting then I don't think you could say I own the copyright to that. I think it's only if these things are 'incidental' to the picture. Or something.

[XG332]

mrmr96 said:

tossbag said:

Like anything art related, the copyright is owned by the creator, as soon as you push the button to take a photo, you have created it - you then own the copyright on that image.
If I take a photo of a Mondeo, I own the copyright of the image, Ford owns the copyright on the car.

I think you may have oversimplified the issue.
If I walk into an art gallery and take a photo of a painting then I don't think you could say I own the copyright to that. I think it's only if these things are 'incidental' to the picture. Or something.

You would own the copyright for your photo. But you wouldnt be aloud to reproduce it or use it for commercial purposes IIRC

[saaby93]

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?
Or have I that wrong?
Is it ok as long as you dont try to claim that the articles in the photos are yours, only the artistic work in creating the photo of whatever it is?

[TooLateForAName]

You need to know the t&c of entry to the site. Quite possible that you agree by entering to assign copyright of any photos to the site owner or agree that any photos will not be used for commercial purposes.
Not sure how valid that would be if they are not specifically brought to your attention though.

[Gizmo!]

If you're just putting them up on Facebook etc then it's no problem - that's not commercial use.

If you ever want to sell them you'll need to pay the fees in that sort of situation.

[saaby93]

Gizmo! said:

If you're just putting them up on Facebook etc then it's no problem - that's not commercial use.

If you ever want to sell them you'll need to pay the fees in that sort of situation.

What fees?
Although selling isnt the worry here ( it's merely publishing) isn't it your photo to sell?

[AlexB]

Since you can be prevented from taking photos on private property if you are given permision to do so then the person giving that permision might attach certain conditions - like no professional use unless a fee is paid.

The copyright in the photos will belong to the photographer, but that does not mean that you are free to do what you want with them - copyright only gives you the right to prevent a third party from doing something (unauthorised copying of your work), it does not give you the right to make use of that image.

Imagine you take a photo of a painting, the copyright in the photo belongs to you, but the copyright in the painting belongs to the artist. The artist cannot use your image without permission, but can prevent you from making use of your unauthorised copy of their painting if they want to.

[rottie102]

saaby93 said:

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?

Off topic, but if that's true that's simply outrageous!!!!!!!!

[Simpo Two]

rottie102 said:

saaby93 said:

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?

Off topic, but if that's true that's simply outrageous!!!!!!!!

More likely because they wanted sole publicity rights to it and saw the rival as a loss of income. But then, there may have been a sign with very small print on it saying - 'This land is owned by EH and EH take copyright to all photos taken on it' etc. How enforceable/legally correct though is another matter I'm not qualified to comment on.

[rottie102]

Simpo Two said:

rottie102 said:

saaby93 said:

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?

Off topic, but if that's true that's simply outrageous!!!!!!!!

More likely because they wanted sole publicity rights to it and saw the rival as a loss of income. But then, there may have been a sign with very small print on it saying - 'This land is owned by EH and EH take copyright to all photos taken on it' etc. How enforceable/legally correct though is another matter I'm not qualified to comment on.

I don't care what their reasoning is, it's outrageous because it's like copyrighting cliffs of dover or Big Ben. Like their extortionate fees to get there are not enough...

[onomatopoeia]

rottie102 said:

Simpo Two said:

rottie102 said:

saaby93 said:

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?

Off topic, but if that's true that's simply outrageous!!!!!!!!

More likely because they wanted sole publicity rights to it and saw the rival as a loss of income. But then, there may have been a sign with very small print on it saying - 'This land is owned by EH and EH take copyright to all photos taken on it' etc. How enforceable/legally correct though is another matter I'm not qualified to comment on.

I don't care what their reasoning is, it's outrageous because it's like copyrighting cliffs of dover or Big Ben. Like their extortionate fees to get there are not enough...

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/photography-and-stonehenge/

I am quite happy for them to charge people taking photographs for commercial use a fee.

[Dogsey]

onomatopoeia said:

rottie102 said:

Simpo Two said:

rottie102 said:

saaby93 said:

I remember now. I think there was a recent example where English Heritage tried to stop publicity photos of Stonehenge as they owned the copyright and asked a website owner to take the photos down?

Off topic, but if that's true that's simply outrageous!!!!!!!!

More likely because they wanted sole publicity rights to it and saw the rival as a loss of income. But then, there may have been a sign with very small print on it saying - 'This land is owned by EH and EH take copyright to all photos taken on it' etc. How enforceable/legally correct though is another matter I'm not qualified to comment on.

I don't care what their reasoning is, it's outrageous because it's like copyrighting cliffs of dover or Big Ben. Like their extortionate fees to get there are not enough...

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/photography-and-stonehenge/

I am quite happy for them to charge people taking photographs for commercial use a fee.

Why shouldn't EH make money from a professional photographer who is making money from an image taken on their property?

[Silver Smudger]

It is nothing to do with copyright, you take a photo then you are the copyright holder.

If you buy a ticket to get into an event or exhibition on private land, it is a kind of contract between you and the site management, the terms and conditions of which are there to see, often printed on the ticket.

I am not sure what they could actually do about it, (maybe bar you from entry in future?) but I think it would be a breach of the contract of sale of the ticket.

(I am not a lawyer etc, etc.)

[saaby93]

As an example who owns the copyright in most of these
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
There are some iconic buildings (not quite aka stonehenge).Are the owners about to get stroppy about photos being posted on PH?

[saaby93]

Here's something about the stonehenge issue - it's unusual in that ownership may be disputed
http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=445