Photos/copyright/legality
Discussion
Hi all,
Bit new to all this photographic mallarky. I've just bought myself a digital SLR (not eligible for the clud i'm afraid..) and have been taking pictures like nobodys business for the last couple of weeks or so.
Anyway, on Sunday I found myself in the grounds of a castle in the south where they'd put on an open-air performance of Romeo & Juliet. Great, I thought: time to check out the capabilities of the new 300mm zoom. So I started snapping away, only to be accosted by a headphone-wearing ape who pointed out: "no photography; copyright.".
Of course, being a gent, I acted suitably chastised and stopped snapping. But can anyone tell me where I can or cannot take pictures? It seemed all perfectly innocent to me; I can't see why anyone would object to be honest; how can you copyright something like a play? And even if it were copyright, surely you only infringe the copyright if you publish your own pictures at some point?
Bit new to all this photographic mallarky. I've just bought myself a digital SLR (not eligible for the clud i'm afraid..) and have been taking pictures like nobodys business for the last couple of weeks or so.
Anyway, on Sunday I found myself in the grounds of a castle in the south where they'd put on an open-air performance of Romeo & Juliet. Great, I thought: time to check out the capabilities of the new 300mm zoom. So I started snapping away, only to be accosted by a headphone-wearing ape who pointed out: "no photography; copyright.".
Of course, being a gent, I acted suitably chastised and stopped snapping. But can anyone tell me where I can or cannot take pictures? It seemed all perfectly innocent to me; I can't see why anyone would object to be honest; how can you copyright something like a play? And even if it were copyright, surely you only infringe the copyright if you publish your own pictures at some point?
According to ahds, "In the United Kingdom, virtually every work created by the labour, skill and judgement of individuals and institutions is covered by copyright as long as it meets certain conditions."
However, for "dramatic works" ("Plays, works of dance and mime, and also the libretto of an opera."
, the copyright exists for "Authors life plus 70 years after death.".
It is approx. 390 years since Shakespeares death
And I would imagine that a fair few painters have been 'resting' for more than 70 years too. Also how can it be possible for the 'paps' to take pictures of almost anyone, doing almost anything? Could you argue that playing football in your back garden was a work of art, and therefore subject to copyright?
Surely the publication is where the breach occurs, not the taking of the picture?
However, for "dramatic works" ("Plays, works of dance and mime, and also the libretto of an opera."
, the copyright exists for "Authors life plus 70 years after death.". It is approx. 390 years since Shakespeares death
And I would imagine that a fair few painters have been 'resting' for more than 70 years too. Also how can it be possible for the 'paps' to take pictures of almost anyone, doing almost anything? Could you argue that playing football in your back garden was a work of art, and therefore subject to copyright?
Surely the publication is where the breach occurs, not the taking of the picture?
As a former "headphone wearing ape" who has frequently told people to stop snapping, one of the main reasons at performances is "image rights".
Most performances will have an official snapper that will take pictures for press/publicity/marketing etc and the organisers know they will get the shots they want, in the style they want, of the quality they need. They don't need/want sub standard circulating. It also helps them with a monopoly on merchandise.
Not so much now but a few years ago for pop bands, the non-official pictures often cropped up for sale and it was felt that fans shouldn't be ripped off paying for shaky pics from row z. The guideline we used to use was that if it had a detachable lens it wasn't allowed.
Inside a "private" venue, you're pretty much bound by the T&C's of that venue.
Most performances will have an official snapper that will take pictures for press/publicity/marketing etc and the organisers know they will get the shots they want, in the style they want, of the quality they need. They don't need/want sub standard circulating. It also helps them with a monopoly on merchandise.
Not so much now but a few years ago for pop bands, the non-official pictures often cropped up for sale and it was felt that fans shouldn't be ripped off paying for shaky pics from row z. The guideline we used to use was that if it had a detachable lens it wasn't allowed.
Inside a "private" venue, you're pretty much bound by the T&C's of that venue.
When I went to Salvador Dali's museums in Spain, they hapilly allow photography but not flash photography. I was really suprised about that but they really didn't have a problem with it. However, over the border in France, I went to a modern art museum in Ceret and they made me put the camera in a locker! Not all the artwork in the Dali museums was his and some of the artists hadn't been dead more than 20 years so I don't know why the difference in rules.
HankScorpio said:Whoops! Please accept my apologies .. I didn't mean to offend anyone who has ever worn headphones and asked someone to stop snapping! Only that particular guy who was very blunt, and didn't bother to explain any more .. basically "stop taking pictures"; that was it!
As a former "headphone wearing ape"
HankScorpio said:I guess I can understand this, but as I said; surely the issue is when the images are published, not when they are taken? In actual fact I have not deleted the images I took, so am I still in breach? Nobody confiscated my camera, or memory card! It seemed like a half-hearted attempt to enforce something which was unenforceable - it was out in the open air, no barriers, no gates, free viewing for anyone in the castle grounds!
one of the main reasons at performances is "image rights".
HankScorpio said:I thought this may be the case, but there were no T's and C's on display, the venue was debatably 'public' - a historic monument? The only note about photography was that it was not permitted inside the castle.
Inside a "private" venue, you're pretty much bound by the T&C's of that venue.
I don't mean to be rude here, and certainly not to offend. But this is all new to me, and I found it quite harsh - I am an amateur photographer taking pictures in the open air with my family of a play which we were all enjoying. What on earth did they think I was going to do? God forbid I might upload the pictures to a website and say what a wonderful time I had and recommend it to friends. Good gracious no!
ps. 406: Thanks for the offer, sending email now!
futie said:
and I found it quite harsh - I am an amateur photographer taking pictures in the open air with my family of a play which we were all enjoying.
Know how you feel. Seems like what got you was the manner in which it was done. If a besuited theatre manager had politely whispered 'I'm teribly sorry sir but we don't allow photography, it's a copyright thing' you might not have minded so much.
If the 'ape' upset you by treating you like a 15y/o chav trying to get into a nightclub, suggest you write to the management asking them to get more civil 'bouncers'. You might even get a free ticket!
None taken futie 
(in my day only the really important apes got headphones)
After a quick recollection today, I reckon I covered well over 400 events and I can't recall one where SLR photography was allowed. Most were ok with compacts but the strictest of all was Disney with their "on ice" shows. They were completely anti.
(in my day only the really important apes got headphones) After a quick recollection today, I reckon I covered well over 400 events and I can't recall one where SLR photography was allowed. Most were ok with compacts but the strictest of all was Disney with their "on ice" shows. They were completely anti.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff