photo of us used to advertise hol cottages

Freddie_Snowbits

superscaper wrote: »

I suppose video is also covered which explains this video posted here a while ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

The guy is a bit of a twit but it shows how bullying police can be when even they don't know the law.

I think harrasment in this situation. If he was a so called film maker and not a numpty, he would have ID ad explain his role. Clearly as he did not have this, then I would say he was harrassing the police and as such should be ... .

As a semi professional photographer, I always carry ID with me. On public property, I do not need permission t take phoos, although some numpties around think they have rights to see what I have taken. For most scenes in today's world, I set the camera so that most people are blurred in movement when the picture is taken, only those who are still could be identified.

Still, that is why on the BBC, they lop the heads off people in the stills!

littlelibrarylass

a few years back we were at a farm park and the owners were entering a tourism competition. they asked if we could be filmed for a short piece for the local news which would be used to try and win the award. we agreed and they filmed us enjoying ourselves. we then got a lovely cup of tea and tray of cakes and biscuits and had a really nice chat. i do think that the op should have been asked by the photographer as presumably he knew what the photos might be used for in the first place.
personally i wouldn't be expecting much more than an apology .
LLL

superscaper

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I think harrasment in this situation. If he was a so called film maker and not a numpty, he would have ID ad explain his role. Clearly as he did not have this, then I would say he was harrassing the police and as such should be ... .

I think the point was that you don't need to be a film maker. I certainly don't think you should need ID to film from standing on your own private property. I'd hardly say that filming the police on your land is harassing them, from what I can see on the video they were the ones exacerbating the situation by going onto the the private land to confront him under the incorrect knowledge of the law.

devonpaul

I am still waiting for a response I will let you know as soon as/if I recieve one. Say the company was for double glazing for instance, most people would expect to have to give permission and get something for it . I cant really see any difference...thanks fo your opinions !

suckmaster.burstingfoam

superscaper wrote: »

From what I've read so far, in the UK in a public place you can take photos of anyone you wish (with or without their permission) and you as the photographer own the copyright of the photos and can do what you wish with them (e.g. sell them, publish them etc). It's only other laws that may apply in conjunction with the photos such as libel, blackmail, indecency etc.

That's not quite correct. As a photographer, I have had to deal with this kind of stuff every now and again.

A photographer owns copyright on any photograph that they take. But that doesn't mean they can do as they like with them, if the images give strong prominence to a person, or an item that is protected by copyright (e.g. a work of art, building etc).

In order to use an image of a person to sell a product, for instance, a signed model release form must be obtained. This isn't true if the person concerned is unidentifiable, or is one person in a big crowd - it all depends upon whether or not they are the focus of the image, and whether they can be personally identified.

In this case, the OP would seem to have a perfectly valid case to demand compensation.

superscaper

suckmaster.burstingfoam wrote: »

That's not quite correct. As a photographer, I have had to deal with this kind of stuff every now and again.

A photographer owns copyright on any photograph that they take. But that doesn't mean they can do as they like with them, if the images give strong prominence to a person, or an item that is protected by copyright (e.g. a work of art, building etc).

In order to use an image of a person to sell a product, for instance, a signed model release form must be obtained. This isn't true if the person concerned is unidentifiable, or is one person in a big crowd - it all depends upon whether or not they are the focus of the image, and whether they can be personally identified.

In this case, the OP would seem to have a perfectly valid case to demand compensation.

Well I was going by what I read which seems to only confirm what you say in other legal juristictions. What it says in the UK is that no model release form is needed at all but they tend to be used because many institutions require them (libraries etc) where access to their material may be international and hence be governed by more than just UK law, but the UK itself has no legal requirement for model releases whether they're prominent in the picture or not. As for the prominence and copyright of art etc, I did actually say that any other laws affecting it would override that freedom to sell the photos.

I can't quite remember where I saw it but if there is a law about model release etc then that should be easier for you to cite (because it would have to be in the statutes or be recorded in case precedent) than for me to prove the non existence of something (which is actually impossible).

suckmaster.burstingfoam

superscaper wrote: »

I can't quite remember where I saw it but if there is a law about model release etc then that should be easier for you to cite (because it would have to be in the statutes or be recorded in case precedent) than for me to prove the non existence of something (which is actually impossible).

Nope, you're absolutely right, I apologise. I was quoting US law. As it turns out, there is no legal requirement in the UK, although there is in many other countries.

It's still a good idea to get a model release though, to cover your !!! should anything go awry.

Again, sorry for talking such tosh.

superscaper

suckmaster.burstingfoam wrote: »

Nope, you're absolutely right, I apologise. I was quoting US law. As it turns out, there is no legal requirement in the UK, although there is in many other countries.

It's still a good idea to get a model release though, to cover your !!! should anything go awry.

Again, sorry for talking such tosh.

Actually it's a breath of fresh air for someone to admit being in the wrong and to be honest I was only going by what I'd read and wasn't certain of it because I'm no expert in any related field. At least I haven't lost my wiki/googling skills

Ruadh

OP, did you ever receive a response from the holiday company?