Copyright

Off-topic
1

Hey all

A friend of mine has designed a website for his property. On designing his site he looked his property up on the internet and found a few photos of it. He then put the photos up on his site… a photographer has now contacted him saying that they are his photos and he is using them without permission and that he will be done for infringement.

On looking at the photos myself I noticed that for the photographer to take the pictures he would have had to trespass onto my friends property as the images taken where from inside the property looking outwards.

Could my mate also do the photographer for trespassing and also seek payment for any money the photographer has made from selling these pictures as he said in an email to him that he charges £200 a year for use of the images my friend used? seeming as the photographer got the images by trespassing in the first place.

Cheers
SirYamalot

2

I’m pretty sure your mate is banged to rights and should pay up.That being said - I’ve tried to search for threads I’ve read before on trying to sue for trespass - and can’t find anything to back my opinion up.

Plenty of stories of people who’ve had their images printed in newspapers etc when they’ve been trespassing … sending the Mirror an invoice for a few hundred quid … and getting it paid.

3

I doubt the photog has the finacial backing to do your mate.

4

whats the link?

5

Trespassing is very difficult to prove in court, as you have to prove intent to cause damage to property. Otherwise it will get thrown out.

According to some nice people debating the issue on R4 the other week.

6

He has since taken the site down. He was only using the photos to design the site to get a look for it before taking his own photos and didn’t realise what he had acutally done. I’ve had a look and there is a law called “trespassing for goods” which seems to cover my friend as it is his private property that the photographer entered to take photos of and then sell them for his own gain.

7

Your mate would lose. Especially with the priorities of the courts currently.

8

I’m going to apologise in advance if this comes across as a rant - or that I’m having a go at you/your mate specifically - because I’m really really not. But it does get my goat that people think that photographs are valueless and it’s perfectly acceptable to “right click - save” from here, there and everywhere and not expect repercussions. But anyway … rant on :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

===

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick when the bloke has said he normally charges £200 for a years’ use. I take that to mean - this is the going rate for using his photographs. Not that he took them with the intention of selling them.

As it is, your friend has effectively stolen this blokes’ intellectual property and been using it to try and sell his building.

If he had just been compiling a website about the history of a building - he could probably wriggle out of it under the guise of “terribly sorry old chap - I was just documenting the history of the place - I’d be happy to either take the photographs down - or put a paragraph up saying “shots taken by XYZ” and a link to your website?”

But since the images have been put up without the photographers consent, to try and flog something of considerable value, he probably thinks “well if you are trying to make £200,000 by using my photographs - and not giving me a penny - then you can get knotted sunshine!”

I don’t think saying “he was just using it as a template” holds much water - since your mate could have designed the template without ever uploading it to the internet to see how it looked etc.

And as Kev has said - for trespass to be an offence - there has to be damage caused, or proof of intent to cause damage. I think you also have to catch them in the act, else how can you prove that that specific person caused the damage?

If your mate wanted to … he could just ignore the emails and hope that the guy isn’t/won’t follow it through … and was just hoping that an email or two might result in a cheque turning up on his doorstep … but for what it’s worth … if it were me … I’d follow it up :wink:

If you were putting together an advert to go on TV to sell your new product … and decided you wanted to have The Beatles used as a backing track … you don’t honestly think you’d get away with not paying Yoko Ono her royalties do you? In my eyes - this is exactly the same scenario.

End of the day - photography is a FUGGIN expensive hobby - the kit doesn’t pay for itself - and the talent takes a lot of practice. It’s not just a case of point and click. If you want to benefit from someone elses’ talent, you’ve got to pay the going rate.

Be interested to hear what any other of LB’s photographic community think/feel?

9

Personally I think it depends on the shots.

If the photographer accessed ‘private land’ in order to take photos, in order to make money - then he should have applied for permission.

Your friend cannot use just ‘any’ photos from the net either.

I see it as this. Take the images off, and also explain to the photographer that if he is making money from these, then he should have applied for persmission & declare his interests to the land-owner.

We use photography all the time at my place of work, and you need permission to shoot on private property, or you run the risk of what is happening here.

‘Six of one/half a dozen…’ in this case I believe.

10

I totally understand the intellecutal property issue as that’s the protection of someones lively hood. It’s just a case of my mate didn’t really know what he was doing as he’s not clued up… He thought images of his own property were ok to use. It’s a hard law to understand i guess especially in relation to photos. Spoke to a lawyer and they just said that as long as the images are removed all should be ok… I think they are both in the wrong and should just let be with the photos now being taken down. Lawyer did say that if money was made from the photos taken without permission then it’s money made from a criminal act and carriers a 12 month jail term!

11

I’d agree with that. Photographs canot be used without permission from the photographer, and rightly so as it is an infringement of copyright, but they also cannot be taken without permission from the subject. Accessing someone elses’ private land to take photos of their property without permission is a criminal act. So as you say, they are both in the wrong.

12

Just out of curiosity, but under what law / act is accessing private land to take photographs without permission a criminal act?

I’m not 100% up to speed on this section of law, but my understanding is that a photographer can take photographs from anywhere that there is a reasonable expectation of “public right of way.”

I fully agree that jumping a fence, or otherwise crossing a physical barrier would place the photographer on dodgy ground, but public right of way is quite consistently interpreted in the courts. If the photographer was able to walk to the point that he took the photographs from, without crossing a physical barrier or passing a point where signs indicating private property were posted, then I can’t see any court finding him guilty of anything.

Again, IANAL and I might be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure that unless a physical barrier was crossed, the photographer did nothing illegal in this case.

If that is the case, then the violation here is pretty one sided - infringement of copyright for monetary gain.

13

Just looked it up and found the following:In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography…So if the photographer entered private land, like a garden, and took photos without permission, then that would appear to be illegal. However, if he was standing say, in the street and photographed the house that would be ok.

14

The key phrase above though is ’ upon entry to a property '. Entry to a property is specifically defined in law and normally requires crossing of a physical barrier. All public rights of way are excepted from this. Any point where there is an expectation of public right of way is equivalent to a public space / public place for most legal purposes and this includes photography.

Anywhere without a fence or other physical demarcation of property is generally considered to be public right of way for pedestrians. So again, unless he jumped a fence or passed a ‘Property of foo - no access’ sign, it looks like he’s legal here.

15

wow so if you have no fence around your property then people can just wonder across…

I have a feeling this wouldnt work in many other countries

16

Explains why in most other countries they don’t bother with fences and walls and the like.

Oh, wait.

17

Because in other places, you can get shot.

Should bring that into this country for burglars. :wink:

18

Tell your chum to send him an invoice for permission to shoot on his property for precisely the same amount.

If the guy has an issue with that then press charges. The cost of the photos will be a negotiating point if the photographer is idiot enough to take the whole issue to small claims…

Be careful though, some pics look like you were trespassing but are actually the product of a very good telephoto…

19

its one of the things I noticed in American suburbs (the richer ones)…the total lack of fences around the front yard

20

I found this on a photographers’ legal guide:

There is no general restriction on taking photographs whilst on private property as long as you have permission to be on that property. The owner of that property can however impose certain restrictions called conditions of entry and these may include taking photographs. If permission to enter the property has been granted on the condition that you take no photographs, but you ignore this condition, then you instantly become a trespasser upon taking a photo

If you enter or interfere with private property without permission then you commit trespass. Remember - Interfering can be something as little as leaning on a wall or gate to obtain a photo.

In general, the owner or occupier of the property can demand that you cease taking photographs and / or leave the premises.

In England and Wales a person can be sued for damges merely for trespassing on to property without permission, however in Scotland this can only be done if physical damge has been caused.

.