Dave wrote:
"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and
the treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the
NHS. I wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the
hobby of rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

No, you don't. The copyright belongs to the photographer. Just like if I
write a book about you or a song about you the copyright still belongs
to me.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Dan G wrote
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of
Ipswich do either.

But it's unlikely that specific, recognisable images of an individual person
will be released by the CCTV operators, especially if those images might then
end up in a magazine without the subject having signed a release first.

In article , Chris Tolley
writes


I'd be more comfortable if it were expressed as a double negative: in a
public place, there is generally no right for others to stop people
taking photographs. I don't believe there *is* a right to take
photographs, and can't imagine which legislation I would have to look at
to find it, but I think the statement above is pretty much on the mark.


As I understand it, you don't need a "right" to do anything under
British law. You can do anything you like, provided that neither -
(a) there is a law specifically forbidding it, in which case you may
be prosecuted, nor
(b) it may cause damage to another person, in which case he may bring
a civil action for damages.
--
Bill Borland

In article , Dave
writes


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer. Therefore the subject was within his
rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed
from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in.


How can that be, in the case of a photo of two or more persons? How
about a photo of a street with dozens of people, some of whom are
clear enough to be recognised?
I *thought* copyright was in the photographer - but if that is
correct, why is it necessary for the photographee (yuk! - there must
be a better word) to sign a release if the photo is to be published?
--
Bill Borland

Chris Tolley wrote:
Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Jeremy Double wrote:

allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...
Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.
It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...
"Light the blue touch paper and retire"
It's still basically true, though.

I'd be more comfortable if it were expressed as a double negative: in a
public place, there is generally no right for others to stop people
taking photographs. I don't believe there *is* a right to take
photographs, and can't imagine which legislation I would have to look at
to find it, but I think the statement above is pretty much on the mark.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.
There are plenty of things that people do for pleasure that are frowned
on in public or when they involve others as unwilling participants.
Photography may sometimes be one of them. That's just how it is.
One problem is that people seem to increasingly think that there are
restrictions on photography that do not in fact exist.

Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights.
I don't think that the mere taking of a photograph is the problem, but
there are many things that might be done with the photograph afterwards
that are definitely dodgy. Joe Busdriver below may have picked some of
that up and not properly understood it.

I had a spectacular incident some time again with a Travel West Midlands
bus driver threatening me and swearing at me because I'd photographed a
bus he was driving. He claimed that it was now against the law to
photograph someone and - ignorant thug that he was - I'm sure he
sincerely believed that to be the case.

Someone on a bus website (Oxfordshire, maybe?) agreed to deliberately
obscure photos of drivers before publishing the photos to the website
after being challenged by a bus driver. The photographer was under no
obligation to do this but I bet the bus driver was sure in his mind that
he was within his rights.

I can see circumstances where he may have been right. Certainly I
sometimes obscure people's faces when posting my train pictures.

There has arisen a belief in this country that new laws have come into
place protecting what I might term "the copyright of their face", which
simply isn't true.

Not as such, no. I wonder if anyone has trademarked their face.

I'm not sure that would change much... there are plenty of photos
published with shop signs incorporating trademarks included within the
image.

--
Jeremy Double
jmd.nospam@btinternet {real email address, include the nospam!}
Steam and transport photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Dave wrote:
"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and
the treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the
NHS. I wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the
hobby of rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Incorrect, the photographer owns the copyright unless it is assigned to
someone else (like the photographer's employer, for instance).

--
Jeremy Double
jmd.nospam@btinternet {real email address, include the nospam!}
Steam and transport photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Dan G wrote
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed
when they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras
should try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing
to do in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of
Ipswich do either.

But it's unlikely that specific, recognisable images of an individual
person will be released by the CCTV operators, especially if those images
might then end up in a magazine without the subject having signed a
release first.


Happens all the time, just watch Crimewatch.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Dave wrote:

If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Rubbish. The photographer owns copyright, as the person who made the
image. The photographer may assign that copyright to someone else,
perhaps in exchange for a fee, but in the absence of such an
arrangement, the copyright rests with the person responsible for making
the image.

It *is* the case that someone who publishes a picture (whether or not
they took it themselves) may want to assure themselves that they have
the permission of the person whose picture it is to publish it
(typically by use of a "model release") but that's a different matter.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632774.html
(20 196 and 20 194 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

Bill Borland wrote:

In article , Chris Tolley
writes


I'd be more comfortable if it were expressed as a double negative: in a
public place, there is generally no right for others to stop people
taking photographs. I don't believe there *is* a right to take
photographs, and can't imagine which legislation I would have to look at
to find it, but I think the statement above is pretty much on the mark.


As I understand it, you don't need a "right" to do anything under
British law. You can do anything you like, provided that neither -
(a) there is a law specifically forbidding it, in which case you may
be prosecuted, nor
(b) it may cause damage to another person, in which case he may bring
a civil action for damages.

Indeed. That's precisely the point behind what I wrote.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632993.html
(43 189 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)

Chris Tolley wrote:
Dave wrote:

If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Rubbish. The photographer owns copyright, as the person who made the
image. The photographer may assign that copyright to someone else,
perhaps in exchange for a fee, but in the absence of such an
arrangement, the copyright rests with the person responsible for making
the image.

It *is* the case that someone who publishes a picture (whether or not
they took it themselves) may want to assure themselves that they have
the permission of the person whose picture it is to publish it
(typically by use of a "model release") but that's a different matter.

Depending on the use, this may be unnecessary in the UK.

See the last paragraph of "Harassment and Invasion of Privacy" in
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php.
--
Michael Hoffman