Right side of the Law

[doctorjames]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The thing is, even if youre on a public road or footpath, you may need a release to SELL the image. It's fine to take pictures in a public space, but publishing still usually requires a release of some sort.

I think the UK laws in this regard must be very different to the US laws.

[OsmosisStudios]

Canadian laws.

I've seen overwhelming evidence that the UK laws are similar. If the photographer is to earn income from the image in any way, a release is strongly recommended and, in some cases, necessary.

[theArchitect]

There are similar UK laws - for example a footpath through a farmer's field is a public right of way meaning you are allowed access and can take photos. However, one of the conditions of access may be that the land is not used for any commerical perposes meaning you would not be able to sell the photo without a release.

[doctorjames]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Canadian laws.

.

Sorry, I didnt look carefully enough, my bad.

[gturner]

From Photo Attorney


The law about property releases is often disputed. But as previously reported, no court has found that taking and selling photos of property violates any rights of the owner, unless the photographer trespasses on the property. The case of Benjamin Ham is instructive on this subject.
Along those lines, Heise Online reported on a recent court decision in Germany (here is the translated version) finding that a photographer is not liable for taking and licensing/selling photos of a park. Of note, the park specifically restricted sales of photos of the park for commercial purposes. Tobias Weisserth provided the background and explanation of the report:
The owner of a private park and château was banning the commercial use of pictures taken in that park. A photographer took pictures of the château and sold them to an agency which in turn published the picture in their online portal. The owner of the park sued the agency for publishing the pictures (under “Störerhaftung” in German law, disturbance liability). Landgerichts (LG) Potsdam first ruled in favour of the proprietary owner while the appeal verdict at the Brandenburger Oberlandesgericht (OLG) negates this ruling. It’s not yet in effect yet. The ruling’s reasons claimed that there is no such thing as a proprietary owner’s privilege to the use of pictures of its property. Every photographer has the right to make (commercial) use of the pictures taken. Otherwise, taking pictures free of risk would only be possible within ‘your own four walls’ and at sea.
While similar, the law in Germany may be different than that in the United States. Regardless, these decisions are good news for photographers.

[doctorjames]

for the UK see:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

and see section 62 which relates to copyright on buildings.

It clearly states the the owner or person who holds copyright on the building, does not have this copyright extended to images taken (drawing, painting, photographing or videoing) of the building.

As far as I am aware this current act remains in force.

[doctorjames]

Originally Posted by theArchitect

However, one of the conditions of access may be that the land is not used for any commerical perposes meaning you would not be able to sell the photo without a release.

No such conditions can exist under UK law for right of way. The rules are common to all public right of way areas, and not negotiated with land owners. These rules allow you to do for example:

'You can do things which are incidental to
the journey, such as stopping to rest, admire
a view, take a photograph or draw a sketch
for example. However, a landowner may
consider other activities to be trespass.'

from : http://www.swansea.gov.uk/media/pdf/...20OF%20WAY.pdf

And:

'Legally, a public right of way is part of the Queen's highway and subject to the same protection in law as all other highways, including trunk roads.'


http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of...a_right_of_way


Commercial enterprise is allowed to use public rights or way so long as they comply with the rules.

For example, if I ran a company that provided photography tours, and charged people to take them on walks using public rights of way to take photographs, this would be legal and within the rules of public right of way in the UK provided I was not causing an obstruction.

[jujitsu1]

Thank you very very much all. I knew I could count on you guys to help me out. Looking at the law now then I can go print them off. Tidy

[xukaxuka3]

Originally Posted by theArchitect

This might be of some use too: UK Photographers Rights v2 — Sirimo Photo

I accept with information: Under current UK law photographs of inanimate objects (i.e. buildings, vehicles e.t.c.) when taken from a public place do not need a release .
______________________
Hair Plugs Surgery
Tower Defense