Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A photographer from the US in Trafalgar Square yesterday complained to me that I'd infringed his copyright by apparently taking the same picture as him.

 

From a distance away I saw an interesting situation and walked over quickly, took a very quick frame only half-aware of a person alongside until he spoke to me. According to him, by standing in the same place and making the same picture with the same lens and perspective (and so replicating the scene) I was copying his picture which would, in effect, stand up in a US court.

 

I said that I'd never heard of such a thing and that it wouldn't apply in the UK: That two images made by different people using different cameras recording two files are the property of two authors. An example I added, is two news photographers standing next to each other photographing the same event wouldn't share the same copyright. 'Ah', he said, 'News is different'!

 

He said he shot stock pictures and assumed I did too so just like him I'd probably been infringed, which I said was the case. But more intriguingly when I asked him who he was he very firmly declined saying, 'if I tell you, many people will find out and they'll all want to ask me out for coffee'. I can't be sure but don't believe my picture look like his - and plagiarising isn't my thing - so I showed him my picture, making the point that it was unlikely I'd made exactly the same composition anyway. He refused to show me his before walking away. The picture got better after that and it made a decent sequence - so his loss.

 

Here's my edit in date taken order.

 

So to our US friends I ask, has he in any way got a half-baked point or is he merely delusional, confused with US copyright law?

 

Who was he! And why doesn't he like chatting with admirers about photography over coffee? Now that really is odd.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's deluded. The scene you both photographed is not copyright. His picture is, but you haven't 'stolen' his picture, you've taken your own.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twit.

Did you take a photo of him?;)

That would really have annoyed him.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete nonsense - and would be in the US also.

 

Kumar

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Twit.

Did you take a photo of him?;)

That would really have annoyed him.

 

To be honest, I thought of it but he left so abruptly into the crowd and I hadn't yet made something of the situation so I stayed put. To my regret now 'cos I really want to know who he is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Doc said:

Complete nonsense - and would be in the US also.

 

Kumar

 

That was my instinct though in the heat of the moment, you keep asking yourself, 'What is he talking about'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity you didn't have time to mention to him that he can't sell stock shots he takes in Trafalgar Square unless he has a press card or has applied for a permit.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2][3] or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,["

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

 

Having a press card or not is irrelevant

Edited by RedSnapper
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

"Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2][3] or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,["

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

 

Having a press card or not is irrelevant

 

It was at the back of my mind but was waiting for someone else to mention it...

 

Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

"Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2][3] or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,["

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

 

Having a press card or not is irrelevant

 

If I'm reading the GLA guidelines correctly, press card carrying professionals are deemed to have been granted permission in those locations while shooting a news story. I as a non-card carrying freelance would not have that privilege.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joseph Clemson said:

 

If I'm reading the GLA guidelines correctly, press card carrying professionals are deemed to have been granted permission in those locations while shooting a news story. I as a non-card carrying freelance would not have that privilege.

 

 

 News is a diiferent matter..

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

If I'm reading the GLA guidelines correctly, press card carrying professionals are deemed to have been granted permission in those locations while shooting a news story. I as a non-card carrying freelance would not have that privilege.

 

Meanwhile, we just get on with it under the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Meanwhile, we just get on with it under the radar.

 

98,000+ on Alamy which don't look very newsy either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

 

 News is a diiferent matter..

 

km

So 'live news' photos are permissible without permission and a press card etc. but all other commercial photos in those two locations require permission/a fee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jansos said:

So 'live news' photos are permissible without permission and a press card etc. but all other commercial photos in those two locations require permission/a fee?

Just get on with it. You're a tourist.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like the guy is Delusional. The word "NUMPTIE" springs to mind.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Futterwithtrees said:

Sounds to me like the guy is Delusional. The word "NUMPTIE" springs to mind.

Arrogant more like.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of folk out there with pretty bizarre ideas about copyright. Best just let them dream on. But there have been some nonsense taken seriously; take the monkey copyright uproar. How did that ever get any credibility? And the US sculptor who got a result over his footprint piece! I did once have a German tourist approach me out of a crowd I had been photographing  around Eros in Piccadilly. I just walked away rather than engaging in a conversation about UK copyright and privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jansos said:

So 'live news' photos are permissible without permission and a press card etc. but all other commercial photos in those two locations require permission/a fee?

 

 

Yes, that's situation

More often ignored . Really only enforced if , say, you were there with a crew/model/assistants doing a commercial (advertising) shoot....

One person with a camera shooting stock is going to look just like a tourist doing holiday snaps

km

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's the production teams they don't want taking over busy streets. That's why I didn't use a tripod in NYC in recent years. Traveling in other countries, I always had a letter of introduction from their tourist office in their own language. 

 

And that wasn't me, Richard -- honest. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

And that wasn't me, Richard -- honest.

 

I never for one moment suspected he was an Alamy contrib. Had he spouted that sort of nonsense here, I'd have remembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Richard Baker said:

 

I never for one moment suspected he was an Alamy contrib. Had he spouted that sort of nonsense here, I'd have remembered.

 

There are plenty of Alamy contributors who don't join discussions on the Alamy forums...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this still baffles me...he has no assertion...you can prove your image is yours, let him rant...makes him look like an idiot.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard Baker said:

A photographer from the US in Trafalgar Square yesterday complained to me that I'd infringed his copyright by apparently taking the same picture as him.

 

From a distance away I saw an interesting situation and walked over quickly, took a very quick frame only half-aware of a person alongside until he spoke to me. According to him, by standing in the same place and making the same picture with the same lens and perspective (and so replicating the scene) I was copying his picture which would, in effect, stand up in a US court.

 

I said that I'd never heard of such a thing and that it wouldn't apply in the UK: That two images made by different people using different cameras recording two files are the property of two authors. An example I added, is two news photographers standing next to each other photographing the same event wouldn't share the same copyright. 'Ah', he said, 'News is different'!

 

He said he shot stock pictures and assumed I did too so just like him I'd probably been infringed, which I said was the case. But more intriguingly when I asked him who he was he very firmly declined saying, 'if I tell you, many people will find out and they'll all want to ask me out for coffee'. I can't be sure but don't believe my picture look like his - and plagiarising isn't my thing - so I showed him my picture, making the point that it was unlikely I'd made exactly the same composition anyway. He refused to show me his before walking away. The picture got better after that and it made a decent sequence - so his loss.

 

Here's my edit in date taken order.

 

So to our US friends I ask, has he in any way got a half-baked point or is he merely delusional, confused with US copyright law?

 

Who was he! And why doesn't he like chatting with admirers about photography over coffee? Now that really is odd.

 

 

Brilliant story,  meeting completely deluded people can be funny afterwards, but as you said later, often when confronted with things like that, you think eh? is he right?....probably never sold a photo ever.

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.