Stephen Streater wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006, at 21:56, Ray Saintonge wrote:
[[User:Unforgettableid]] wrote:
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
In English law, if you go into a Royal Park to film you have to obey their terms and conditions - no commercial use without permission.
Similarly, it is illegal to film on British Rail property without consent, which is often refused or charged for. The Railways are covered by their own bylaws.
Here's a link for more info: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/ uk_photographers_rights_guide
OK, point taken. However, it seems to me the UK has stricter copyright laws than other countries. For example, in the UK, modern skillfully-made photos of two-hundred-year-old paintings are automatically copyrighted to the author. On the other hand, I do not know of any other country with such strict laws regarding old paintings.
I have just reviewed the pamphlet, and it seems that Stephen has done an excellent job of mireading and distorting the material. The question of old paintings has often been discussed before, so I don't need to go into that.
The restrictions relating to Royal Parks, British Rail or Trafalgar Square have nothing to do with copyright. In the case of British Rail the pamphlet declares it a trespass to enter such property without permission. This alone does not make the pictures that you take while there illegal.
For the Royal Parks and Trafalgar Square the pamphlet speaks of restrictions of photography for business or commercial purposes. It does not restrict amateur or personal photography. Overtly commercial photographic activities are not the same as amateur photographs that are subsequently used for commercial purposes. The restriction applies to the activity, not to the product.
Students on a summer job at my company did ask for permission to film on British Rail property, and this request was refused. I think if the people involved filmed there "for personal use" and then the content was used commercially, this would be highly dubious.
There are two aspects to your request from British Rail - entering the property and filming. If the real issue was whether you could enter the property, and you were forbidden entry, the permission to film would be moot.
Is your interpretation that photographs can be used commercially as long as that was not the intention when they were made?
Exactly.
I did consider that interpretation, but it seems odd as intention is hard to prove.
Intention is indeed hard to prove, but the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. Possible ways for them to prove that would be to prove that you are in some kind of photography business in which you normally sell that kind of photo. Technically they could probably convict you if you were a wedding photographer who was fulfilling a contract to take pictures of the newlyweds in the Royal Park.
If you are right, I can release my Park videos under a free licence.
Yes. It's not a copyright issue. Filming and uploading are two different acts. Whenever a statute proclaims an act to be somehow worthy of punishment it needs to be read perfectly literally sometimes even when the logical consequences of such a reading are ridiculous. One should never impute to parliament anything more than what is actually said.
This seems sufficiently odd to find the actual regulations, rather than the summary in the pamphlet, the link to which I included to allow people to form their own view.
Actual statutes are preferable, but can be difficult to read.
Ec