quick "photo copyright" kind of question!

Uncertain

moonrakerz wrote: »

The copyright of a photograph does belong to the photographer, unless he is working for/being paid by a third party.
However, if the photograph is taken from private property ("our beach" ?) and the copyright holder "publishes" this photograph, he may lay himself open to legal action by the owner of the property. Just because the owner of the property allows photography to take place does not mean that the photographer has unfettered "use" of the photograph. Strictly speaking, these photographs should not have been "published" without your permission.

Sorry but this is at best confusing and, unless I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say, partially wrong.

As you say the copyright by default in the first instance belongs to the photographer unless he is either

1. Working as a member of staff for a company in which case the copyright belongs to the company and not to the individual. This assumes that taking the photo was actually part of his job.

or

2. The photographer has agreed with the commissioning client to transfer the copyright to them. Note, copyright can only be assigned in writing - one of the few areas in English law where a verbal contract is not valid.

Regarding taking a photo from private property.

The landowner has no interest in the matter unless he has made access to the property conditional on agreeing to certain rules. If one of those rules was no photography then he has some claim against the photographer if he makes money from the photograph. If photography is being carried our where the landowner has prohibited it then all the land owner can do is to ask the photographer to leave. He cannot force the photographer to delete the images, seize the camera or whatever!

A variation on this might be "no commercial photography" in which case the photographer could legally use the photos in any non money making way but not sell them.

In the real world most of these rights are hard to police and enforce!

moonrakerz

serious_saver wrote: »

This is assumes that the photograph was taken on private property. If a photograph is taken of private property but from a public place then this doesn't apply.

I highlighted that point and queried it................

greenbee

Trip advisor terms of use state that all content is their copyright, and according to these the reviewer will have agreed with the statement "you grant TripAdvisor and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right" so you could probably try contacting trip advisor at the address supplied in the copyright section of the terms of use and ask to sublicense the image

moonrakerz

As I said, "it is not as simple as it first appears" !!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3549213

pitkin2020

steve1980 wrote: »

It's a real grey area. Personally, they have posted on a website that would appear not to have a photograph copyright paragraph anywhere so it's free usage.

Secondly, what is the actual quality like? I assume if it's a 8meg picture it would have been compressed down to a 150kb picture for the website.

If only I were near you......:D

Sorry Steve but there is no grey area at all. The photo belongs to the photographer regardless. There are extreme circumstances where by if the website has some outrageous T&C's where they claim ownership of any posted material but even then it would be the website who set the T&C's who would then get ownership not a viewer of the site. There are a few free stock photo type sites where by the poster allows free usage but this doesn't sound like one of those sites lol

Jexygirl only you can decide to use the image but if you do you obviously have no legal right to the image as its not yours. Depending on the photographer they may not mind and maybe just happy to see it in print and even happier to have been credited. You could also end up with the other photographer who will bill you and that could be a substantial amount as its unauthorised use.