On 20 Sep 2006, at 09:07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stephen Streater wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006, at 21:56, Ray Saintonge wrote:
[[User:Unforgettableid]] wrote:
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater
<sbstreater(a)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.
Anyone can enter the property every time they go
by train. The issue was whether they could take any
video and publish it - this request was denied.
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.
It looks like a loophole to me, but maybe it is
a deliberate one. Perhaps it is the disruption
of a professional shoot they are trying to avoid,
rather than use of the footage itself.