the Photo thread

[Bruce Rioja]

Err, has anyone considered ringing the club and asking them, like?

[Bijou Bob]

I've taken mine in without a problem, but I did hide it under my coat as I went in!

[clapton is god]

[The guy behind us brought his a few years ago & got no grief. I suspect it's a matter of how flagrant you are.

The very worst they could do (in the digital age) is confiscate it and have you delete the pics you took. It IS, strictly, copyright within the grounds, but they aren't going to be up to saleable quality & really for 'personal use'.

No, they cannot make you delete any photo's. Not even the Police can do that. It requires a court order. But yes, they hold copyright on the stadium and whatever goes on in there so can chuck you out if they were so minded as an alternaitive. Having said that, I have a couple of floodlight images for sale (looking pretty generic) but taken with a compact G10 rather than a DSLR.

I'm sorry but this is not accurate.

Football clubs can make it part of the terms and conditions of entry that you do not take photos in the ground, but it is not true to say that they own the copyright in photos taken in breach of these terms and conditions.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that they can possibly hold copyright on any photo anyone takes. I am very jealous of copyright of my work. What I meant was that they hold copyright on the stadium rather than any photographs of it and will never grant property release on any such photo.

[thebish]

I've taken mine in without a problem, but I did hide it under my coat as I went in!

I did that for the athletico madrid game - dslr with 300mm lens... nobody said out - but I was quite surreptitious!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What I meant was that they hold copyright on the stadium rather than any photographs of it and will never grant property release on any such photo.

What does "they hold copyright on the stadium" mean though?

[clapton is god]

What I meant was that they hold copyright on the stadium rather than any photographs of it and will never grant property release on any such photo.

What does "they hold copyright on the stadium" mean though?

I would imagine they hold the intellectual property rights on the design having commissioned the building of it. Yes, an architect, or a team of them, would have designed it but I can't imagine that BWFC haven't tied up the image rights to the place and want to protect them. In short the bricks and mortar rather than someone else's pictures of the bricks and mortar. But that would only apply when on their property. In a public place you can go about your lawful business taking photos to your hearts content.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What I meant was that they hold copyright on the stadium rather than any photographs of it and will never grant property release on any such photo.

What does "they hold copyright on the stadium" mean though?

I would imagine they hold the intellectual property rights on the design having commissioned the building of it. Yes, an architect, or a team of them, would have designed it but I can't imagine that BWFC haven't tied up the image rights to the place and want to protect them. In short the bricks and mortar rather than someone else's pictures of the bricks and mortar. But that would only apply when on their property. In a public place you can go about your lawful business taking photos to your hearts content.

On the design itself, yes. But people can take photos outside of the stadium, with the stadium in the background, in the same way they can take a photo outside of any other public building.

Now, the club are entitled to ban the taking of photos within the ground if they come to the decision that they want to preserve the commercial value in that activity for themselves. It's the same as the National Gallery banning photos on the premises because they want to preserve the value in their images of the paintings.

I would say it's an odd construct to say that the above is the same as the Club 'tying up the image rights to the stadium'. It just doesn't mean very much.

[clapton is god]

^ I think we are in total agreement here. Every time I write something you rephrase it but it is essentially what I just wrote.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

^ I think we are in total agreement here. Every time I write something you rephrase it but it is essentially what I just wrote.

Fair enough. I am just saying that in legal language some the discussion above grated a bit in its misuse of terms, but the practical result is the same, I agree.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

^ I think we are in total agreement here. Every time I write something you rephrase it but it is essentially what I just wrote.

Fair enough. I am just saying that in legal language some the discussion above grated a bit in its misuse of terms, but the practical result is the same, I agree.

[clapton is god]

As for selling image rights, well I sell on a Rights Free basis rather than Rights Managed, which has much stricter controls as the library I sell though don't want to infringe image rights from around the world. There are dozens of instances in this country where it is impossible to sell RF images. All castles, all royal properties, the Gherkin, the London Eye for eg's are all strictly out of bounds (unless simply incidental in the background) so I always err on the side of caution in these matters, and it most certainly does mean much.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As for selling image rights, well I sell on a Rights Free basis rather than Rights Managed, which has much stricter controls as the library I sell though don't want to infringe image rights from around the world. There are dozens of instances in this country where it is impossible to sell RF images. All castles, all royal properties, the Gherkin, the London Eye for eg's are all strictly out of bounds (unless simply incidental in the background) so I always err on the side of caution in these matters, and it most certainly does mean much.

I would quite like to get to the bottom of this.

The law is quite clear in my mind.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says the following:

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

(1)This section applies to—
(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a)making a graphic work representing it,
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or
(c)[F1making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.

(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [F2communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I made a postcard of the London Eye and sold it, my view is that there is very little they could do about it.

I suppose they could object if they could demonstrate that I took it on their land against their rules.

Or, I suppose they could make a case in the tort of passing off, along the lines that I was deceiving the public into thinking I owned the London Eye, or was selling it as an official seller. If I made it absolutely clear that I did not own the London Eye and had no connection whatsoever with the company, then they'd have no case.

This 'image rights in a building' stuff just doesn't exist.

[clapton is god]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ah, that's interesting.

I know that Australia has pretty much the same arrangements as UK law, but I'm not sure about Canada.

Monty?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Monty, can you solve this one?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Monty, can you solve this one?

I've just come across this. I don't really have time to plough throw the whole Copyright Act

However, I note

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

(e) the reproduction is used only for the individual’s private purposes.

So I suspect selling post cards of a copyrighted work would be an infringement of copyright in Canada.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Photographed this fella in the garden this afternoon.

[thebish]

an american drone??

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Monty, can you solve this one?

I've just come across this. I don't really have time to plough throw the whole Copyright Act

However, I note

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

(e) the reproduction is used only for the individual’s private purposes.

So I suspect selling post cards of a copyrighted work would be an infringement of copyright in Canada.

I suspect 2.2(2) has similar intentions as our law:

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the issue of photographs and engravings of sculptures and architectural works is not deemed to be publication of those works.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

an american drone??

(nice photo AT. I've tried to get dragonflys but they're skittery buggers)