The police, security guards and photographers
Discussion
I'm sure some of you will have seen the videos that had done the rounds over the last few years of photographer being harrassed and bullied by both security guards and police, despite no laws having been broken. As always I'm sure there are two sides to some of those stories.
I thought I'd share this video as it shows polite, if a little misinformed, security guards and police with good humour and knowledge of the law. I'm not sure if it's as a result of the previous videos or whether they this was always the way the way it was but either way I think everyone came out alright in this one.
http://youtu.be/FJH9F7Hcluo
Ok, the security guards could do with a lesson in the law perhaps but they were polite and once they realised their assertive attitude didn't get the photographers to immediately fold and move on they were happy to chat. I imagine most people probably just go "Oh sorry, I'll go", so they probably don't find themselves in the situation they faced in the video very often.
I thought I'd share this video as it shows polite, if a little misinformed, security guards and police with good humour and knowledge of the law. I'm not sure if it's as a result of the previous videos or whether they this was always the way the way it was but either way I think everyone came out alright in this one.
http://youtu.be/FJH9F7Hcluo
Ok, the security guards could do with a lesson in the law perhaps but they were polite and once they realised their assertive attitude didn't get the photographers to immediately fold and move on they were happy to chat. I imagine most people probably just go "Oh sorry, I'll go", so they probably don't find themselves in the situation they faced in the video very often.
Just watched through that and whilst most of the security guards went about it the wrong way they were within their rights to stop the photographers taking images of the buildings. Copyright law applies to private buildings and the building owners have a right to protect that copyright whether you are standing on public property or not. The Building Manager about halfway through alluded to this by pointing out that if the photo's were for non-commercial use then he was happy to help them get the photographs they want, implying that if they were for commercial use the photographers could sling their hooks.
Outstanding vid. Makes things very clear and so good to see the police acting properly and reasonably (which they do most of the time, I find).
As for buildings being copyrighted - no, they are not. As long as you are filming from a public place, you may photograph any building (with a few exceptions) This is in the UK. Different in other places.
See here: http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic445.htm
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_l...
...and here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/...
As for buildings being copyrighted - no, they are not. As long as you are filming from a public place, you may photograph any building (with a few exceptions) This is in the UK. Different in other places.
See here: http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic445.htm
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_l...
...and here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/...
Dogsey said:
Copyright law applies to private buildings and the building owners have a right to protect that copyright whether you are standing on public property or not.
Err, not so Dogsey!Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 62 permits "making drawings, paintings, photographs, films etc of buildings and, if accessible by the public, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship
The Act states:
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display...
(1)This section applies to—.
(a)buildings, and.
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated
in a public place or in premises open to the public..
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—.
(a)making a graphic work representing it,.
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or.
(c)[making a broadcast of] a visual image of it..
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [communication to
the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the
copyright..
The act was amended at (2)(c) and (3) by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2498), reg. 2(1) with the changes indicated in square brackets.
CD&P 1988 was the bane of my life when I did my Law degree, but not half as bad as Land Law and Jurisprudence!!
YB LL.B
If security has such an issue why don't they just go out into the public space ans stand in front of the camera. They cant be prevented from doing that(as long as they don't touch the cameraman), they protect their property, the cameraman isn't prevented from pointing his camera at buildings.
seems silly to call the police!
seems silly to call the police!
Yellabelly said:
Err, not so Dogsey!
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 62 permits "making drawings, paintings, photographs, films etc of buildings and, if accessible by the public, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship
The Act states:
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display...
(1)This section applies to—.
(a)buildings, and.
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated
in a public place or in premises open to the public..
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—.
(a)making a graphic work representing it,.
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or.
(c)[making a broadcast of] a visual image of it..
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [communication to
the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the
copyright..
The act was amended at (2)(c) and (3) by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2498), reg. 2(1) with the changes indicated in square brackets.
CD&P 1988 was the bane of my life when I did my Law degree, but not half as bad as Land Law and Jurisprudence!!
YB LL.B
I was unaware of S-62, however with a little searching around appears we're both right to an extent.Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 62 permits "making drawings, paintings, photographs, films etc of buildings and, if accessible by the public, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship
The Act states:
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display...
(1)This section applies to—.
(a)buildings, and.
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated
in a public place or in premises open to the public..
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—.
(a)making a graphic work representing it,.
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or.
(c)[making a broadcast of] a visual image of it..
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [communication to
the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the
copyright..
The act was amended at (2)(c) and (3) by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2498), reg. 2(1) with the changes indicated in square brackets.
CD&P 1988 was the bane of my life when I did my Law degree, but not half as bad as Land Law and Jurisprudence!!
YB LL.B
A quote I found on the website of the British Assoc. of Picture Libraries and Agencies:
BAPLA said:
Most buildings and interiors (and designs for gardens) are the subject of copyright protection.
The copyright will usually belong to the Architect or Designer rather than the owner.
However, this is not a serious worry because in this country, by virtue of Section 62 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998; it is not an infringement of copyright to take a
photograph ...
Things do change if the building is also registered as a trademark though.The copyright will usually belong to the Architect or Designer rather than the owner.
However, this is not a serious worry because in this country, by virtue of Section 62 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998; it is not an infringement of copyright to take a
photograph ...
Edited by Dogsey on Thursday 21st July 23:10
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff