This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
i was at lulworth this week and on the walk down i noticed a sign saying photography or art for publication is banned....
how do they think they can police this? do they think they have some copyright on the land ?
how do they think they can police this? do they think they have some copyright on the land ?
In reply to mark s:
There's some mention of Lulworth Castle in this thread, dating back to 2006
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wildlife-photography/8997-ban-phot...
and someone responding a while later that they'd bee told to stop taking photos there
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wildlife-photography/8997-ban-phot...
Might be worth getting a photo of the sign, and getting it widely disparaged on various forums on social media sites. there will be someone who knows the exact bit of law to quote to correct any one who tries to enforce it, and it is - of course - worth pointing out that no one is allowed to delete your photographs, or destroy your film.
Obviously, you would contest it in court, and destroying evidence is a criminal offence, I believe.
There's some mention of Lulworth Castle in this thread, dating back to 2006
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wildlife-photography/8997-ban-phot...
and someone responding a while later that they'd bee told to stop taking photos there
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wildlife-photography/8997-ban-phot...
Might be worth getting a photo of the sign, and getting it widely disparaged on various forums on social media sites. there will be someone who knows the exact bit of law to quote to correct any one who tries to enforce it, and it is - of course - worth pointing out that no one is allowed to delete your photographs, or destroy your film.
Obviously, you would contest it in court, and destroying evidence is a criminal offence, I believe.
In reply to mark s: I've seen the sign too and someone told me it was something to do with the MOD owning much of the land in the area.
In reply to mark s: They can ban photography on their land if they want, and if they can get you to leave the land if they want using reasonable force etc etc. If you refuse to leave they can call the police. Neither they or the police can touch any of your property though, and they can't get you to delete photos.
They can't copyright land, that's just daft.
It's all on their website, nothing to do with MOD, just to do with greed.
They can't copyright land, that's just daft.
It's all on their website, nothing to do with MOD, just to do with greed.
In reply to Rob: I think it has more to do with keeping the integrity of the Lulworth 'brand' than state secrets...
In reply to JDal:
Maybe not copyright, but in some cases photography is restricted to using your photographs for personal use only; no sale of them. Not land but there are restrictions on NT properties.
http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/photographic-access
There are also restrictions and fees for commercial photography in some parts of London: Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square
In the USA some land management agencies require you to buy a permit to take photographs of 'land' if they are for commercial purposes; for any photograph that you plan to sell, in some cases this is waived if they are for editorial/news use. Sometimes it is just where models or props are used.
It is hard to enforce and many climbing/outdoor photographers in the USA who sell images of climbers for adverts by outdoor companies should by law should buy a permit.
> They can't copyright land, that's just daft.
Maybe not copyright, but in some cases photography is restricted to using your photographs for personal use only; no sale of them. Not land but there are restrictions on NT properties.
http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/photographic-access
There are also restrictions and fees for commercial photography in some parts of London: Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square
In the USA some land management agencies require you to buy a permit to take photographs of 'land' if they are for commercial purposes; for any photograph that you plan to sell, in some cases this is waived if they are for editorial/news use. Sometimes it is just where models or props are used.
It is hard to enforce and many climbing/outdoor photographers in the USA who sell images of climbers for adverts by outdoor companies should by law should buy a permit.
In reply to mark s:
How do they know you're using it for commercial gain? Will it be like the Heritage Warden pillocks in Trafalgar Sq who harass anyone with a decent SLR, or the London Parks twits who judge using a decent SLR & a tripod as 'commercial use'?
Still, at least the Israeli Embassy is providing amusing photo ops... https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/575364_1015...
How do they know you're using it for commercial gain? Will it be like the Heritage Warden pillocks in Trafalgar Sq who harass anyone with a decent SLR, or the London Parks twits who judge using a decent SLR & a tripod as 'commercial use'?
Still, at least the Israeli Embassy is providing amusing photo ops... https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/575364_1015...
In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH:
>
As I tried to say, they can 'ban' you from taking photos ON their property, not OF their property. If you look at that NT site it's about photography AT their properties, indoor and outdoor.
They are not saying anything about the photos themselves, they are trying to control the process of Commercial Photography on their sites, which is fair enough if you ask me. How they police it other than getting you to leave the property is anyone's guess. I don't think they can. If I took a photo for personal use, posted it on Flickr and then someone offered me £50 for it, and the NT found out, could they sue me? I doubt it. But maybe some legal expert could clarify.
As to the USA, who cares. They can probably shoot you, with a gun.
> (In reply to JDal)
>>
> [...]
>> Maybe not copyright, but in some cases photography is restricted to using your photographs for personal use only; no sale of them. Not land but there are restrictions on NT properties....
As I tried to say, they can 'ban' you from taking photos ON their property, not OF their property. If you look at that NT site it's about photography AT their properties, indoor and outdoor.
They are not saying anything about the photos themselves, they are trying to control the process of Commercial Photography on their sites, which is fair enough if you ask me. How they police it other than getting you to leave the property is anyone's guess. I don't think they can. If I took a photo for personal use, posted it on Flickr and then someone offered me £50 for it, and the NT found out, could they sue me? I doubt it. But maybe some legal expert could clarify.
As to the USA, who cares. They can probably shoot you, with a gun.
In reply to mark s:
So technically they could stop you from doing a water colour painting?
> i was at lulworth this week and on the walk down i noticed a sign saying photography or art for publication is banned....
So technically they could stop you from doing a water colour painting?
In reply to mark s:
Any owner of private land can make any stipulation they wish on access to it and what may be done thereon, provided it is not itself illegal e.g. racial discrimination.
I would not permit you to carry on commercial photography in my back garden, even if I otherwise let you in, unless you gave me a suitable cut of any fees and I was happy with where you were publishing, for instance. Why any different if my back garden was a few acres rather than tiny as it is?
As for enforcement, one way is if you see the images in print. Another is questioning anyone carrying an SLR as regards the intent of their photography, particularly if carrying many expensive lenses.
Like it or not, it's private land.
Neil
Any owner of private land can make any stipulation they wish on access to it and what may be done thereon, provided it is not itself illegal e.g. racial discrimination.
I would not permit you to carry on commercial photography in my back garden, even if I otherwise let you in, unless you gave me a suitable cut of any fees and I was happy with where you were publishing, for instance. Why any different if my back garden was a few acres rather than tiny as it is?
As for enforcement, one way is if you see the images in print. Another is questioning anyone carrying an SLR as regards the intent of their photography, particularly if carrying many expensive lenses.
Like it or not, it's private land.
Neil
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
They can stop you doing absolutely anything they like, provided the reason is not e.g. racial or sexual discrimination,
Neil
They can stop you doing absolutely anything they like, provided the reason is not e.g. racial or sexual discrimination,
Neil
In reply to TryfAndy:
'How do they know you're using it for commercial gain?'
The National Trust search through the online agencies ie Getty and Alamy and try and get pictures of their properties removed - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/536679/10-000-photos-in-nat...
'How do they know you're using it for commercial gain?'
The National Trust search through the online agencies ie Getty and Alamy and try and get pictures of their properties removed - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/536679/10-000-photos-in-nat...
In reply to ChrisJD:
mmm - that link still says climbing is banned, which isn't the case.
But it also claims there have been less accidents since the ban was placed. Strange however, that the popularity of climbing at Lulworth actually increased massively since the ban was first placed in about 1994!!!
I've used a few photos of Lulworth commercially in the mags and in guidebooks - as have quite a few others - doesn't look like they enforce the photography ban too rigidly. I assume it's there to stop big film companies rocking up and using their property to make money without paying Lulowrth anything.
mmm - that link still says climbing is banned, which isn't the case.
But it also claims there have been less accidents since the ban was placed. Strange however, that the popularity of climbing at Lulworth actually increased massively since the ban was first placed in about 1994!!!
I've used a few photos of Lulworth commercially in the mags and in guidebooks - as have quite a few others - doesn't look like they enforce the photography ban too rigidly. I assume it's there to stop big film companies rocking up and using their property to make money without paying Lulowrth anything.
In reply to steve taylor:
If you are on public right of way or between High & Low Water (Crown estate?), they cant 'ban' photography anyway?
Discuss!
If you are on public right of way or between High & Low Water (Crown estate?), they cant 'ban' photography anyway?
Discuss!
In reply to ChrisJD:
No, you don't have a right to snap away on a a ROW because a ROW isn't a public place, all you have a right to do is walk along it.
No, not all land between high and low water (foreshore) is Crown Estate. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/214264/shoreline_management_briefing_...
Yes, we can discuss
Nobody can stop you taking photographs anywhere except where specifically forbidden by law. All they can do is ask you to leave their property. This doesn't stop arguments, breaches of the peace and pitched battles though, things I prefer to avoid. So I tend to be a good boy and do what the signs say.
> (In reply to steve taylor)
>
> If you are on public right of way or between High & Low Water (Crown estate?), they cant 'ban' photography anyway?
>
> Discuss!
No, no and yes.>
> If you are on public right of way or between High & Low Water (Crown estate?), they cant 'ban' photography anyway?
>
> Discuss!
No, you don't have a right to snap away on a a ROW because a ROW isn't a public place, all you have a right to do is walk along it.
No, not all land between high and low water (foreshore) is Crown Estate. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/214264/shoreline_management_briefing_...
Yes, we can discuss
Nobody can stop you taking photographs anywhere except where specifically forbidden by law. All they can do is ask you to leave their property. This doesn't stop arguments, breaches of the peace and pitched battles though, things I prefer to avoid. So I tend to be a good boy and do what the signs say.
In reply to mark s: I know that this rule is about commercial photography only, but I'm still a little unconvinced that if I stopped to get a shot for my upcoming walking guide (the hypothetical one, of course) and came up with something similar to this: http://www.pooleharbourguide.co.uk/images/lulworth-cove-photos/lulworth-cov...
...then I'm open to prosecution? Or at the very least, I'm banned from taking such a photo if I'm on their land?
The Lulworth people seem to be claiming that they control copyright of the landscape. Surely that's not feasible? I hope not!
...then I'm open to prosecution? Or at the very least, I'm banned from taking such a photo if I'm on their land?
The Lulworth people seem to be claiming that they control copyright of the landscape. Surely that's not feasible? I hope not!
In reply to JDal:
What about this:
http://www.standrewsphotographicsociety.com/id90.html
http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm
http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/walking/rowfaqs
Interesting - cheers!
As an aside, also just learnt this:
"It is an offence to keep a dairy bull, or a non-dairy bull unaccompanied by heifers or cows, in a field or enclosure crossed by a public right of way. But any bull under the age of eleven months or a bull not of a recognised dairy breed may be at large in a field."
> No, you don't have a right to snap away on a a ROW because a ROW isn't a public place, all you have a right to do is walk along it.
What about this:
http://www.standrewsphotographicsociety.com/id90.html
http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm
http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/walking/rowfaqs
> No, not all land between high and low water (foreshore) is Crown Estate. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/214264/shoreline_management_briefing_...
Interesting - cheers!
As an aside, also just learnt this:
"It is an offence to keep a dairy bull, or a non-dairy bull unaccompanied by heifers or cows, in a field or enclosure crossed by a public right of way. But any bull under the age of eleven months or a bull not of a recognised dairy breed may be at large in a field."
In reply to ChrisJD: What a load of bullocks, an 11 year old bull could certainly inflict serious damage on a person, but I doubt that the taking of a photograph would do much harm to anybody, unless it was in a war sensitive zone. The whole issue is a load of blox and should be quashed by a government of any persuasion, even the tories.
In reply to Al Evans: Sorry 11 month old bullock.
In reply to ChrisJD:
..
Yep, you're right. From Gateshead Council's website:
"Many public rights of way run across private land, but the ownership of the land does not affect the public’s right to use the path. No-one can prevent the use of a right of way simply because they own the land which it crosses.
Even on private land, the Council can be assumed to own the surface of the path and the ground immediately beneath."
So the path is a public place and you can photo what you want from a public place. Excellent.
> (In reply to JDal)
>
> [...]
>
> What about this:
> http://www.standrewsphotographicsociety.com/id90.html
> http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm
> http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/walking/rowfaqs
...>
> [...]
>
> What about this:
> http://www.standrewsphotographicsociety.com/id90.html
> http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm
> http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/walking/rowfaqs
..
Yep, you're right. From Gateshead Council's website:
"Many public rights of way run across private land, but the ownership of the land does not affect the public’s right to use the path. No-one can prevent the use of a right of way simply because they own the land which it crosses.
Even on private land, the Council can be assumed to own the surface of the path and the ground immediately beneath."
So the path is a public place and you can photo what you want from a public place. Excellent.
In reply to Al Evans:
Write a strongly worded letter to the HSE:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais17ew.pdf
Write a strongly worded letter to the HSE:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais17ew.pdf
In reply to JDal:
But whether that is accurate or not doesn't change the fact that a public footpath is a public place. The public is always allowed there, and the ownership is thus irrelevant from this point of view.
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
> Even on private land, the Council can be assumed to own the surface of the path and the ground immediately beneath."
>
> So the path is a public place and you can photo what you want from a public place. Excellent.
Assuming that Gateshead Council have checked their facts here, it's interesting to note that the Local Authority "own" all public rights of way.> Even on private land, the Council can be assumed to own the surface of the path and the ground immediately beneath."
>
> So the path is a public place and you can photo what you want from a public place. Excellent.
But whether that is accurate or not doesn't change the fact that a public footpath is a public place. The public is always allowed there, and the ownership is thus irrelevant from this point of view.
In reply to Andy Stephenson:
There are two types of public place - places the public have permissive access to but are private land (e.g. shops, railway stations) and the public highway where the public have the absolute right to be.
The former is also a public place in terms of e.g. knife law (you can be prosecuted for carrying a locking or non-folding knife "in public" without good reason in a shopping centre even though it is privately-owned land, say), but it isn't in terms of what you're allowed to do there (whatever the owner wants, basically - and many shopping centres prohibit photography).
Neil
There are two types of public place - places the public have permissive access to but are private land (e.g. shops, railway stations) and the public highway where the public have the absolute right to be.
The former is also a public place in terms of e.g. knife law (you can be prosecuted for carrying a locking or non-folding knife "in public" without good reason in a shopping centre even though it is privately-owned land, say), but it isn't in terms of what you're allowed to do there (whatever the owner wants, basically - and many shopping centres prohibit photography).
Neil
In reply to JDal:
My uncle is a retired BBC producer, years ago as a unit director doing some local news filming in the Lakes the NT tried to bill they £400 for filming a view of NT owned land. At no time where they on NT land. As you can imagine the bill was filed in the bin.
My uncle is a retired BBC producer, years ago as a unit director doing some local news filming in the Lakes the NT tried to bill they £400 for filming a view of NT owned land. At no time where they on NT land. As you can imagine the bill was filed in the bin.
In reply to JDal:
Here is the case law on use of footpaths - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones02...
Here is the case law on use of footpaths - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones02...
In reply to scott titt:
Cheers. More to it than one would ever imagine.
> (In reply to JDal)
> Here is the case law on use of footpaths - ...
> Here is the case law on use of footpaths - ...
Cheers. More to it than one would ever imagine.
In reply to mark s:
Sadly the NT (of which I am a member, as are many on here), along with many other landowners are very zealous in what they perceive as 'theirs'. Most of their properties are 'left' to the nation 'in trust' so that the legacy & proporties are preserved for future generations.
'Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley, Octavia Hill set up the National Trust to own beautiful places on behalf of the broader public.'
Is this what they had in mind?
In nearly 50 years as a photographer I have observed this gradual erosion of the 'rights' of the photographer, and the imposition of often draconian regulations and restrictions. I have had individuals stop me from photographing climbing because children were also within the frame (and demanding that I delete all the images!) The advent of digital photography has only made the matter worse.
Some museums/galleries ban photographs, others don't. At the end of the day it is all about protecting their commercial rights/income.
The restriction on 'Art' is on dodgy ground as in a House of Lords ruling stated this was specifically given as an example of 'non-tresspass' and that an individual engaged for example, in producing a painting on private land but from a public footpath was permissable.
but until these bodies/groups are challenged then they will continue to ride roughshod over the rights of the photographer/artist. Let them sue!
It will be interesting to see the response of Alamy...
> i was at lulworth this week and on the walk down i noticed a sign saying photography or art for publication is banned....
> how do they think they can police this? do they think they have some copyright on the land ?
> how do they think they can police this? do they think they have some copyright on the land ?
Sadly the NT (of which I am a member, as are many on here), along with many other landowners are very zealous in what they perceive as 'theirs'. Most of their properties are 'left' to the nation 'in trust' so that the legacy & proporties are preserved for future generations.
'Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley, Octavia Hill set up the National Trust to own beautiful places on behalf of the broader public.'
Is this what they had in mind?
In nearly 50 years as a photographer I have observed this gradual erosion of the 'rights' of the photographer, and the imposition of often draconian regulations and restrictions. I have had individuals stop me from photographing climbing because children were also within the frame (and demanding that I delete all the images!) The advent of digital photography has only made the matter worse.
Some museums/galleries ban photographs, others don't. At the end of the day it is all about protecting their commercial rights/income.
The restriction on 'Art' is on dodgy ground as in a House of Lords ruling stated this was specifically given as an example of 'non-tresspass' and that an individual engaged for example, in producing a painting on private land but from a public footpath was permissable.
but until these bodies/groups are challenged then they will continue to ride roughshod over the rights of the photographer/artist. Let them sue!
It will be interesting to see the response of Alamy...
In reply to Sean Kelly: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=226471
copies can be bought off me,suck on that lulworth estates
copies can be bought off me,suck on that lulworth estates
In reply to mark s:
As a ranger that works for the estate, I can guarantee that the 'ban' is merely a result from an over zealous property manager, and applies only to big productions: such as World War Z, filmed last year and an adaption of Hardy's 'far from the madding crowd' to be filmed soon.
It's basically their way of making sure any production companies go through the correct channels and that anyone else filming (e.g. university students) ask permission first.
As a ranger that works for the estate, I can guarantee that the 'ban' is merely a result from an over zealous property manager, and applies only to big productions: such as World War Z, filmed last year and an adaption of Hardy's 'far from the madding crowd' to be filmed soon.
It's basically their way of making sure any production companies go through the correct channels and that anyone else filming (e.g. university students) ask permission first.
In reply to mark s:
All of the above makes me very glad I live in Scotland and not in Englandshire.
All of the above makes me very glad I live in Scotland and not in Englandshire.
In reply to mark s:
Security
It's a perfect location for Al Queda to mount a Pont de Hoc type invasion
Security
It's a perfect location for Al Queda to mount a Pont de Hoc type invasion
In reply to Removed Userrabthecairnterrier:
I was asked (politely) by security at Quarter Mile in Edinburgh to stop taking photos. I could get a permit if I applied to their site manager (or similar). I had no idea I was on "private property" but since I'd got the shot I wanted I left.
I was asked (politely) by security at Quarter Mile in Edinburgh to stop taking photos. I could get a permit if I applied to their site manager (or similar). I had no idea I was on "private property" but since I'd got the shot I wanted I left.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...