Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photos Of Coast Line In The UK Not Allowed

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 29, 2005 11:52:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
without permission.

Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.

What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
as it could possibly be owned by the local council?

Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
to promote a product?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
> > I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> > to promote a product?
>
> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> photography.

And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
today?

I'm also quite curious as to what a "celebratory" monkey is. Are they
celebrating their rescues, or what?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Russell wrote:

> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
> however, there were signs saying that commercial photography was not
> permitted without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near
> by, and they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were
> celebratory, and therefore the photos could also not be used for
> commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
> maybe, as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or
> using it to promote a product?
Yes.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Related resources
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>without permission.


What public footpath would that be?

Last fall I walked a couple dozen miles of
the Coastal Path along Devon and Cornwall.
I saw no such signs, and took lots of photos.

Aside from vague connections to national
security and such, what purpose could
be served by prohibiting photography on
a public footpath?

If anything, the path exists to promote
tourism -- and photography is what
tourists do, as a matter of course.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Charlie Self writes:
>
> > And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> > today?
>
> If you live there, and it's truly a democracy, you can vote and pray.
>

No one mentioned democracy. Developed and democracy are not the same.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?
>
>
Was the monkey rescue center a government facility, or was it funded by
private individuals? If it was taxpayer funded, then you should have the
right to photograph it. If it is privately funded, then you can still
photograph it, but you must stand on public property while doing so. IOW,
they have the right to prevent you from taking photographs while you are
visiting on their property. Of course, they can always put up so many signs
that say, "keep off the grass" that pictures of their grass are guaranteed
to be ugly.....that is the problem that we frequently have here in the US.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
********************************************************************
In the United States and perhaps other countries, if you take a picture of a
tiger and it can be shown that it is the tiger that belongs to a zoo, you
can't use it in commercial use. That is easy to determine because of the
markings on a tiger differ from one to the other. (They do on many animals,
even toads.) If you use it for editorial then they probably can't say much
as long as you are not putting them down. Commercial use is define more as
using them to sell a product, which ofcourse then it would imply that the
center (centre) endorses the product. That would be the same as taking a
picture of a person and then saying that this person likes Coca-Cola. If
you publish it in a magazine and just said this person likes to shop in this
area, then it would not be commercial most likely. As for the foot path, I
don't know why that would be but 230 years ago my family left Europe and
never looked back. Thank God for that. RJT.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Derek *" <usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.
Only because your country is not packed with A.H's like we have here in the
US........:^)
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:52:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Derek * wrote:
>
> In UK we have very many "Public Footpaths"
> that run through private land, nearly all of them in fact (In the
> U.S. I don't know). It is an important right we cherish dearly. It
> is important to us because our population density is 16x that of
> the USA so it is important for us that we who live in crowded
> cities can get at least some access to the countryside. For an
> example google for "Pennine Way". Our ancestors had to fight and
> went to jail for these rights.
>
> Public Footpaths extend sometimes across fields full of growing
> crops (Usualy mitigated by negotiation by going round the edge of
> the field), sometimes right through the farmyard across the
> farmhouse windows. The rights to walk the public footpaths are
> inaliable ancient rights and that's fine. But there is no ancient
> right to photograph the farmer and his family as they eat their
> Sunday Dinner. So those wishing to take photographs on private
> property still have to ask first, it's only good manners in any
> event. For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.


If there is a long established public path on private land, it is
possible to secure that legally as an easement. Coastal access is a big
issue and there are folks who spend a good deal of energy securing
public access.

This gets more into rumor & urban myth but I've heard that tresspassing
is not really enforceable without a tall fence & locked gates. Certainly
no farmer or rancher has the right to shoot, harm or arrest anyone for
tresspassing on their land. They can come out & yell at you and will do
so. Breaking & entering is one thing and vandalism or any sort of damage
is illegal but simply walking through open private land is not illegal
whether posted or not.

People can squat on another's land and if the owner is aware and objects
but fails to remove them for a certain number of years, the squatter can
claim "ownership" of that land. Although that's quite rare. People can
still stake mining claims on government land and if they work and make
improvements for a certain number of years, they can claim title to that
land. I've seen people still doing this in Nevada way out in the desert.

Ugh, sorry, I try not to get into these off-topic things but this one is
interesting. I didn't know the history of this issue in the UK, thanks
for relating it.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 30, 2005 12:02:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>without permission.
>
>Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
>What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
If private property, the occupier can set conditions for entry to that
property including banning or limiting photography. This can include
central and local government property eg offices, museums etc.

If 'public' property, Parliament by virtue of its sovereignty can
limit such photography by legislation, and central and local
government can limit it via statutory instruments and bylaws made
under such legislation. This could even include photographs taken
from outside the area concerned.

The most likely type of bylaws etc are ones controlling commercial
activities in such areas and commercial photography would be
considered part of that. In these instances commercial photography
can probably be negotiated, perhaps involving payment of a fee. In
some instances it could be refused eg a modelling backdrop for page 3.

Professional wedding photography in such areas could also be included.

The operators of such facilities are under continuing financial
pressure and therefore want to make a quid whereever possible.
May 30, 2005 1:07:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Could the idiots mean 'celebrity' monkey? In which case, which celebrity is
it?


"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117395367.912773.29210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
>> > I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>> > however,
>> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> > without permission.
>> >
>> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
>> > and
>> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>> >
>> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>> > maybe,
>> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>> >
>> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>> > it
>> > to promote a product?
>>
>> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>> photography.
>
> And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> today?
>
> I'm also quite curious as to what a "celebratory" monkey is. Are they
> celebrating their rescues, or what?
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?

The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
photography.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:11:25 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.

A public footpath might cross private land.

>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?

If it's privately owned it's private land. Councils can invoke
their rights as landowners in the same way as everybody else.

>>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
>> to promote a product?

If anybody exploits it for financial gain it's commercial use.

>
>The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>photography.

That answer might be simple but it apparently refers to a
different question.

DG
May 30, 2005 1:16:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?
>
>
Like all the other posters so far, I am not a lawyer.

That foot path would have been on private land. Most land belongs to
someone or some entity. It is now quite commonplace to find notices in
Public Parks, National Trust Properties, etc, prohibiting "Commercial"
photography without permission.

That usually includes, and is often specifically aimed at Professional
Wedding Photographers using it as a location. The owners, Private or Local
Authority don't want to prohibit anything, they just want to raise some
revenue, and will give permission for a fee, and some even have a sort of
"Season Ticket" arrangement..

For other kinds of Commercial Photographers they may want a percentage of
Reproduction Fees.

I don't think you would have any problem in taking pictures on the Coastal
Path, but if you later published any in a calendar, or on a postcard, or
whatever, you might find the landowner coming after you or the publishers
for a payment.

Roy G
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Russell wrote:
> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?
>
>
Basically, they own the rights to the view, and the livestock, and they
want to sell the pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 30, 2005 1:50:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qiqme.2245$Mi4.1180@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
> >I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
it
> > to promote a product?
> >
> >
> Like all the other posters so far, I am not a lawyer.
>
> That foot path would have been on private land. Most land belongs to
> someone or some entity. It is now quite commonplace to find notices in
> Public Parks, National Trust Properties, etc, prohibiting "Commercial"
> photography without permission.
>
yes and rather amusingly, visits to national trust properties, not to
mention their membership levels have slumped since they introduced that
rule. incidentally in public parks you CAN take photographs, councils
however like photographers to have public liability insurance first. as long
as you have this there are no problems whatsoever - my advice, get public
liability insurance then you can contact the film department of that local
council and youll be amazed what they can organise for you for nothing. for
example, i can stand in the middle of a busy road with a camera tripod
complete with police assistance!
cheers
james
May 30, 2005 1:52:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self asked:

> > > ... I also visited a Monkey rescue centre ...
>
> ... what [is] a "celebratory" monkey ...

Whenever I watch TV anymore it's hard to distinguish
the commentators and celebrities from the monkeys...

Jeff
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:16:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Charlie Self writes:

> And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> today?

If you live there, and it's truly a democracy, you can vote and pray.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Mxsmanic commented courteously...

>> And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of
the
>> developed world today?
>
> If you live there, and it's truly a democracy, you can
vote
> and pray.

Voting doesn't work since this stuff never comes under a
referendum, so you might as well pray - it's about as
effective!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:44:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In article <429a1d19.2459164@news.paradise.net.nz>, Peter says...

> The operators of such facilities are under continuing financial
> pressure and therefore want to make a quid whereever possible.

The Vatican Museums in Rome charge 12 Euro (= US $16) for an entry
ticket, get tons of visitors, yet ban completely photography and even
camcorders (!) in the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
their postcards and publications.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:51:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"gonzo" <james@SPAMisEVILzerblattzoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lOqme.846$hT6.355@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:qiqme.2245$Mi4.1180@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
>> >I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
> however,
>> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> > without permission.
>> >
>> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
> and
>> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>> >
>> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
> maybe,
>> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>> >
>> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
> it
>> > to promote a product?
>> >
>> >
>> Like all the other posters so far, I am not a lawyer.
>>
>> That foot path would have been on private land. Most land belongs to
>> someone or some entity. It is now quite commonplace to find notices in
>> Public Parks, National Trust Properties, etc, prohibiting "Commercial"
>> photography without permission.
>>
> yes and rather amusingly, visits to national trust properties, not to
> mention their membership levels have slumped since they introduced that
> rule. incidentally in public parks you CAN take photographs, councils
> however like photographers to have public liability insurance first. as
> long
> as you have this there are no problems whatsoever - my advice, get public
> liability insurance then you can contact the film department of that local
> council and youll be amazed what they can organise for you for nothing.
> for
> example, i can stand in the middle of a busy road with a camera tripod
> complete with police assistance!
> cheers
> james

Take all the photos you want. Then go to channel islands or better still a
baulkland state. Register your business there. Publish from there collect
your fees from there. Process all the transactions through a swiss bank
account. STick two fingers up to everyone concerned.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:02:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Speaking of permits, where do you apply for these permits, how much do
they cost, is it an upfront payment or do you pay a percentage of the
sales ? How long does the process take ?

--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

LCD wrote:

> Could the idiots mean 'celebrity' monkey? In which case, which celebrity
> is it?

Just mention ITV Digital to it...

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <429a1d19.2459164@news.paradise.net.nz>, Peter says...
>
>> The operators of such facilities are under continuing financial
>> pressure and therefore want to make a quid whereever possible.
>
>The Vatican Museums in Rome charge 12 Euro (= US $16) for an entry
>ticket, get tons of visitors, yet ban completely photography and even
>camcorders (!) in the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>their postcards and publications.

I think one of the large Japanese companies have the franchise for
photography in the Sistine Chapel.

Mike
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:24:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Speaking of permits, where do you apply for these permits, how much do
> they cost, is it an upfront payment or do you pay a percentage of the
> sales ? How long does the process take ?
>

If it is privately owned land I assume you would need to negotiate with the
owner.

Not that I have any experience of this.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:11:25 +0200, Alfred Molon in message
<news:MPG.1d043230dd9e976098ab65@news.supernews.com> wrote:

> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.
>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
>> to promote a product?
>
> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> photography.

So do you know of a country where photography is completely unrestricted?

I don't believe such a place exists.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Know what I hate? I hate rhetorical questions!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:27:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1bzq6btt8dl4d.1nyho5md6ku8g$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:11:25 +0200, Alfred Molon in message
> <news:MPG.1d043230dd9e976098ab65@news.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
>>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>>> however,
>>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>>> without permission.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
>>> and
>>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>>
>>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>>> maybe,
>>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>>
>>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>>> it
>>> to promote a product?
>>
>> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>> photography.
>
> So do you know of a country where photography is completely unrestricted?
>
> I don't believe such a place exists.

We should start our own.....We'll call it, "Photographia".
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:28:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

>
> I don't think you would have any problem in taking pictures on the Coastal
> Path, but if you later published any in a calendar, or on a postcard, or
> whatever, you might find the landowner coming after you or the publishers
> for a payment.

I wonder:

What happens if you take commercial photographics from within the area
without permission, but do not include any of the area in the frame?

or:

Take pictures of the area, but from outside the zone with the restriction.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:32:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:48:11 -0700, William Graham in message
<news:o aOdnbcTgJgetwffRVn-pw@comcast.com> wrote:

> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
>>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.
>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
>> to promote a product?
>>
>>
> Was the monkey rescue center a government facility, or was it funded by
> private individuals? If it was taxpayer funded, then you should have the
> right to photograph it.

What on earth gives you that idea?

Do you think you can legally go and photograph your nearest military base?
That is taxpayer funded, but photography is normally prohibited without
explicit authorisation.


--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Hard work must have killed someone!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:35:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
<news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:

> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>

It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
their land is still private).

And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
about the things you can do on their property.

If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
photography, if they wish.


> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?

Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
the course of your business.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
To err is human. To really screw up it takes a computer!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:35:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e5zghzpepav3.1p8ts0doalby1.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
> <news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:
>
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>> however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.
>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>> maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>
>
> It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
> their land is still private).
>
> And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
> about the things you can do on their property.
>
> If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
> along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
> photography, if they wish.
>
>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>> it
>> to promote a product?
>
> Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
> the course of your business.

Take photos. Then make sure nothing in the background is easily
identifiable as that area. (no landmarks just a field). Then say bollocks
never saw Mr X or his property in my life.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:35:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Alex Heney wrote:
>
> Most of the land in this country
> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
> their land is still private).


What is a "Local Council"?


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:35:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:o Lrme.157543$Cq2.156347@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:e5zghzpepav3.1p8ts0doalby1.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
>> <news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>>> however,
>>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>>> without permission.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
>>> and
>>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>>
>>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>>> maybe,
>>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>>
>>
>> It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
>> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody"
>> and
>> their land is still private).
>>
>> And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
>> about the things you can do on their property.
>>
>> If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
>> along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
>> photography, if they wish.
>>
>>
>>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>>> it
>>> to promote a product?
>>
>> Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
>> the course of your business.
>
> Take photos. Then make sure nothing in the background is easily
> identifiable as that area. (no landmarks just a field). Then say
> bollocks never saw Mr X or his property in my life.
>
Or digitally add a small red outhouse (portable toilet) in the background of
all your photographs. Then in court you could say, "This photo couldn't have
been taken on their property, your honor, because they don't have a red
outhouse there."
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:46:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:


> Or digitally add a small red outhouse (portable toilet) in the
> background of all your photographs. Then in court you could say, "This
> photo couldn't have been taken on their property, your honor, because
> they don't have a red outhouse there."
>
>
>

Outhouses are portable where you come from? I remember that in college it
used to take at least six of us to carry one onto the Dean's front porch
<g>.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:46:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9665B4E8855AEdilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Or digitally add a small red outhouse (portable toilet) in the
>> background of all your photographs. Then in court you could say, "This
>> photo couldn't have been taken on their property, your honor, because
>> they don't have a red outhouse there."
>>
>>
>>
>
> Outhouses are portable where you come from? I remember that in college it
> used to take at least six of us to carry one onto the Dean's front porch
> <g>.

Yeah....I didn't say they were weightless....I'm not sure what these things
are called in GB, so I attached a description to the term. Over there, they
might call them portable WC's. We call them porta-potties, or "construction
site toilets" over here.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d043230dd9e976098ab65@news.supernews.com...
> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
> > I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
it
> > to promote a product?
>
> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> photography.
> --
>

As is clear from the OP's post, it isn't the country, but the landowner who
has imposed restrictions, and those only on commercial photography. That is
very common everywhere in the world.


Peter
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In article <1117395367.912773.29210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>> photography.
>
>And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
>today?

I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.

(I use the word 'photograph' here with the implicit assumption of publication
of the resulting image. There are very few things that you are not allowed
to photograph at all.)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:p 8fvbg6qmkaqtc7h977q2874q1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <1117395367.912773.29210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>>> photography.
>>
>>And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
>>today?
>
> I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
> result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
> to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.
>
> (I use the word 'photograph' here with the implicit assumption of
> publication
> of the resulting image. There are very few things that you are not allowed
> to photograph at all.)

This is a very reasonable attitude. In the first place, to do otherwise is
to have an unenforceable law. Cameras are too small to see even when you are
only a few feet away from the photographer, so there is no way to keep
people from photographing whatever they can see from a public access road.
And, in the second place, why would they assume that one can't remember
what he sees well enough to get the information necessary to do damage to
it. IOW, if you can see it, then you might as well photograph it, and if you
don't want it seen, then you should cover it up. There are people who can
glance in a store window full of junk, and then go home and write down
exactly what they saw for a few seconds a half hour ago. Only a very
amateurish spy/terrorist needs a photograph in order to retain visual
information. To prevent people from taking photographs is just saber
rattling, or trying to make the public think they are being protected when
actually, really useful protection would not be visible at all.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:p 8fvbg6qmkaqtc7h977q2874q1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <1117395367.912773.29210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
> >Alfred Molon wrote:
> >> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> >> photography.
> >
> >And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> >today?
>
> I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
> result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
> to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.
>
> (I use the word 'photograph' here with the implicit assumption of
publication
> of the resulting image. There are very few things that you are not allowed
> to photograph at all.)
>

This is the case in the UK too.

You can also use such images commercially with no release, but if they
include private property and you use them other than for editorial use (ie.,
basically if you use them in an advertising layout) then you could be sued
if the property owner objects to the usage: few people will therefore risk
using an unreleased shot of recognisable private property for advertising,
but editorial use is all fine.


Peter
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:23:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On 30/5/05 12:09 am, in article jOGdnauSzusq1gffRVn-1Q@comcast.com, "William
Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "Derek *" <usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
>> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.
> Only because your country is not packed with A.H's like we have here in the
> US........:^)


You should get around more, as there's no 'jobs-worth' like the council's.
;]
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:28:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On 30/5/05 12:56 am, in article D8udnXZMnOsiywffRVn-1A@speakeasy.net, "Paul
Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>> Most of the land in this country
>> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
>> their land is still private).
>
>
> What is a "Local Council"?
>

A bunch of 9-5 wankers who have no idea of the real world.

It's like a mini city hall?
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:43:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>their postcards and publications.
>--

Its not anything to do with it being a religious place then?

--
John Boyle
May 30, 2005 4:43:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

john boyle wrote:
> In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
> <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>> not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>> their postcards and publications.
>> --
>
>
> Its not anything to do with it being a religious place then?
>


Wha..? God has an exclusive for marketing images of His house? If that
was so, the postcard kiosk would be next to the collection plate. I
think the photo ban has more to do with shutter noise and strobes. The
fact that the postcards aren't free has more to do with a revenue stream.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:43:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"john boyle" <jb@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8G6Pd1BaOlmCFwUe@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
> <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>>the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>>not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>>their postcards and publications.
>>--
>
> Its not anything to do with it being a religious place then?
>
> --
> John Boyle

Yes. They say the flashes will hurt God's eyes........After all, they are
already sore from all those trillions of suns....
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:38:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 16:56:46 -0700, Paul Furman in message
<news:D 8udnXZMnOsiywffRVn-1A@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>> Most of the land in this country
>> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
>> their land is still private).
>
> What is a "Local Council"?

Town, county "unitary authority", London Borough, depending where in the
country you live.

Up until a few years ago, there were two levels of council for most of the
UK, namely town councils and county councils. But then government decided
to change this to be one level for almost everybody, but they didn't deal
with the change in a consistent manner.

In some places, they abolished one or the other, so now there is only a
town (Borough) council (e.g. Swindon Borough council), or only a county
council (e.g. Bedfordshire County Council), while in others they created a
completely new level that did not map exactly on to either of the previous
ones, and called these Unitary authorities (e.g. Rhondda Cynon Taff).

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Oxymoron: Military Intelligence
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:04:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>without permission.
>
>Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
>What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>as it could possibly be owned by the local council?


You have probably seen the National Trust signs, which are slightly
controversial. This issue was widely discussed in the photo press, I
think last year and the year before.

As a registered charity, the National Trust is more than a little
unhappy that photographers are making money by selling photos of
National Trust properties without allowing the Trust to benefit in any
way. The Trust owns a sizeable proportion of the UK coast, including
many areas of outstanding natural beauty, so has presumably decided
that these areas should be treated in the much same way as the Trust's
bricks and mortar.

I cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue because I have
done a lot of work for the National Trust over the years, usually at
much less than commercial rates. But I can understand people's
disquiet at being asked to avoid selling any photos they may take of
the coastline and other Trust-owned areas of scenic beauty.

The new rules do not affect amateur photographers, or anyone taking
photos for personal use. However, I believe the use of *all* cameras
inside National Trust properties (bricks and mortar) is now banned.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:04:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:i4pk91l96s0g4nfamt27uc58dgel6piq1q@4ax.com...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>>however,
>>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>>without permission.
>>
>>Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>>they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>>therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>>What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>>as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
>
> You have probably seen the National Trust signs, which are slightly
> controversial. This issue was widely discussed in the photo press, I
> think last year and the year before.
>
> As a registered charity, the National Trust is more than a little
> unhappy that photographers are making money by selling photos of
> National Trust properties without allowing the Trust to benefit in any
> way. The Trust owns a sizeable proportion of the UK coast, including
> many areas of outstanding natural beauty, so has presumably decided
> that these areas should be treated in the much same way as the Trust's
> bricks and mortar.
>
> I cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue because I have
> done a lot of work for the National Trust over the years, usually at
> much less than commercial rates. But I can understand people's
> disquiet at being asked to avoid selling any photos they may take of
> the coastline and other Trust-owned areas of scenic beauty.
>
> The new rules do not affect amateur photographers, or anyone taking
> photos for personal use. However, I believe the use of *all* cameras
> inside National Trust properties (bricks and mortar) is now banned.
>
>
I can understand the restrictions that prevent setting up tripods that might
restrict the movement of tourists at public places, but it is not the proper
use of public monuments to provide funds for the government. They are
supposed to be non-profit. They have no business restricting photography for
commercial purposes. That should be the public's right. I should be able to
take a photograph either inside or outside any public building and sell the
prints that I make from it, IMO.....
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:

>I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
>result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
>to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.


That brings the Netherlands in line with the UK, where it is perfectly
legal to photograph anything from public roads, footpaths, other
rights of way or your own property.
May 30, 2005 8:40:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

No, Tort, unless your property is of a commercial nature and the person
with the camera has paid to get in
May 30, 2005 9:20:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

>If you want to prevent people from taking pictures while they are on
>your poperty then I guess that you have to inform them when they enter
>the propery. But that would be contract law.


No, Tort
!