1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sign at photo location

Discussion in 'Help Team' started by P_Stoddart, Jun 11, 2017.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    In the appraisal gallery I have image called Moon over Poppies Wave

    Now at the actual location of the Poppies Wave it had a sign

    "You can take photo and video for personal use only and not commercial use"

    or something like that

    Thing is my shots are from the public highway or right of way. Surely therefore not enforceable?
  2. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Honestly I have no idea. It does repeat the rule on the website too. Is it possible that the 'public highway' you were on wasn't as public as you thought? Or pehraps the sign only covered areas not on the public highway? At the same time, are you intending to sell your photograph? Because if not, it's a bit moot isn't it?
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    There are two different aspects at play here; one is that it's entirely legal to take pictures in a public place, the other is the intellectual property rights of the author of the piece. The sculpture is essentially protected under copyright law, and so although I'm no lawyer, I would think it's entirely enforceable in court.

    English Heritage put similar notices up around our local castle a few years ago; in that case, they clearly had no intellectual property case, the castle being rather too old to be covered by copyright protection. I understand their wish to control commercial shoots within the grounds, but even then I suspect they were on dodgy ground with local pros, as the castle doesn't actually belong to EH, but to the inhabitants of the town. Either way, I can't see how signs outside the castle could have been remotely enforceable, and they soon disappeared. But that's a very different situation to yours.
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  4. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    My 1st thoughts was in terms of buildings. The location of the shot is certainly public highway.

    But now after a lot of digging around found that temporary art installations could be covered by the UK copyright act.

    Only a permanent art feature is not protected.

    The Poppies Wave is temporary coming down after the 25/06/2017

    Where it gets messy is international law. In the USA any object it seems visible from public space is fair game. There are a few exceptions. But art installation, building, street furniture in general seem not protected.

    The reason I asked the question is Photocrowd which AP has been supporting readers to join.

    They have option to sell prints of images you post.

    So the big question is, am I in trouble already? :)

    Because by posting on here in Appraisal Gallery which is connected to a commercial structure in that visitors of the forum via the website see advertising therefore indirectly my image could be making money for AP. :eek:

    In fact with FB now and other social media they make advertising income from the fact people view the shared content.
  5. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Ah well now I don't really care :p LOL

    Because as it turns out TAX PAYERS money funded this project.

    I thought it was charity based. But no, we all stumped up for this. Which I am not sure is right.

    So this artist has been paid by me without me being asked and a lot other people I suspect. LOL
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Commercial use generally doesn't refer to selling the odd print, but to advertising shoots and the like.
    Geren and Roger Hicks like this.
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Also, there's generally accepted to be a big difference between a photograph that includes a work of art as part of the composition, and a photograph which reproduces that work of art and nothing else


  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    If you want to give a more refined opinion the shots are on show in the Appraisal Gallery :)

  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    I had in fact already checked it, and in my non-binding legal opinion, without prejudice, the creators of the artwork wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they complained about your photograph. Quite a nice pic, by the way.


  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Why not? Should there be NO public art of any kind? No art galleries? No flower beds?


  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    I didn't say that LOL

    I just talking in this narrow situation. :)
  12. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Fair enough, but who decides? And when and how?

    Taken to its logical conclusion, this comes down to "I should be personally consulted before any public art is commissioned."

    From what I can see, I don't think I'd like the work itself very much; I prefer your photograph of it. But no one likes everything...


  13. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    I can only speak for the situation in Germany where works of art are covered by copyright. Taking a photograph of a work of art for personal use is OK and believe me, with the advent of digital cameras, smartphones and the like there's a lot of it about. I see it every time I go to an exhibition. As long as you're not trying to pass things off as your own work this is OK and (grudgingly?) accepted but, as we know from numerous cases from Flickr etc. etc. some people regard other peoples art as 'freeware', which is most definitely NOT ON! However, whether you are taking a 'documentary style' shot of the art or whether you're transforming it into something completely different with no obvious identifiable relationship to the original also plays a role. In the latter case, the position is that a new work of art has been created and you, as 'creator/artist' hold the copyright. I've occasionally photographed works of art -sculptures, installations- standing around in parks or wherever and, with one exception, I would defy anybody- even the artists involved- to identify the works that I've photographed!

    I seem to recall that, a few years ago, France tried placing modern architecture under copyright protection. Nobody stopped me snapping the new National Library though! (Holiday snaps!)

    As the jazz song has it, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it!"

    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  14. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Yes France has the somewhat ludicrous situation whereby the Eiffel Tower is no longer protected by copyright and so anyone can photograph it but the lighting display that comes on at. Ought ISOrotected by copyright!
  15. GlennH

    GlennH Well-Known Member

    The Moulin Rouge tried to discourage photography five years ago, particularly of the windmill, on the basis that it was protected as a trademark. In reality, I don't think any restriction is enforceable or likely to be acted upon unless the photo is used commercially (i.e. in advertising) without permission. Nonetheless, a photo library removed my small selection of Moulin Rouge photos from its collection as a consequence.
  16. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    This is what all the fuss comes down to, isn't it? Is the 'offending' photo going to simply hang on a private wall or will it be turned into, say, a postcard or marketed on Internet?
    In any case, when it comes to landscape art what can the artist do - put up sight screens to limit viewing to the desired axis? And in these days of camera-phones...................

  17. GlennH

    GlennH Well-Known Member

    Yes, it's about "maximising profit". A photo library might find it difficult to micromanage every single image use of such an iconic building, so the threat of legal action may well prompt a complete removal of pictures - a good hit for the litigious party. I note that photos of the windmill have seeped back into the collection, so the threat must have dissipated.

Share This Page