Poppies weeping window

[Nick Hatton]

Just been to see the weeping window poppies display as part of its UK tour at Middleport Pottery Stoke on Trent, taken a few usable photos but not quite sure where I stand legally,signs up to say no commercial photography but no admission charge was made so not sure if that is enforceable, Any views would be welcome.  

[vpics]

Mark it as editorially only - just to be on the safe side.

[Joseph Clemson]

I work on the basis that if I am on someone else's private property I have to abide by the terms and conditions of entry they impose, regardless of whether they have charged me for the privilege. If one of those conditions is 'no commercial photography', they almost certainly mean images which the photographer intends to offer for sale, so putting them on Alamy would be a non-starter, unless I I previously obtained permission from the property owner (which would almost certainly come at a cost). I doubt that any location which has troubled to indicate that commercial photography is forbidden is trying to differentiate between commercial and editorial use of such photography, they are just trying to control the flood of stock photographers making use of their assets. 

 

It may come about that a photog captures a genuinely newsworthy incident on such a property, in which case, I believe, a 'public interest' argument would trump their conditions of entry when it came to editorial publication.

[spacecadet]

I work on a different basis- if I'm not prevented from taking photographs, they're fair game until the proprietor whinges to Alamy, at least. The only exception is the National trust, but I don't visit their properties anymore and the draconian policy is one of the reasons.

If asked, which I never have been, of course I'm not taking photograph for stock. I'm just a tourist.

There are no real legal implications in the UK that we know of. The NT was threatening to prosecute some photographers a while back, according to Alamy, but I think someone would have made a stink about it somewhere if it had actually happened. My theory is that they may not want the byelaw tested in court for fear of losing. They would rather continue to threaten.

[Bryan]

I suspect that a lot of this no commercial photography thing is to prevent film crews taking over the place and making a nuisance of themselves. That said, I would be reluctant to upload a photo when that stipulation had been clearly made. For the potential reward, is it worth the hassle?

 

In the case of the weeping window whatsit, I wonder if the artist concerned applied the restriction, or was it in place prior to the artwork being installed? We've recently had the problem of murals being wiped, and this might be in the same category?

 

In the 10+ years I have been with Alamy I have been asked to take down a photo by the owner/artist of a subject on only three occasions ( ignoring the dreaded NT) one a church which, it transpired, was on private land, one of a statue in France, and one of a B&B establishment. The first two I complied with, the third I successfully argued that it was taken from a public footpath, and refused.

[Nick Hatton]

Thanks all, think I will just keep them for PU! as nice as they were.

[spacecadet]

My view is that it doesn't help us in the long run to give in too easily to arbitrary conditions with no basis in law. Our stock in trade is being chipped away at- w've lost the NT, we've lost murals- what next? Fight the good fight. Keep pushing back.

All that actually happens if you break a condition of contract is that you might become a trespasser and be asked to leave. That doesn't mean the proprietor can do anything about images you already have.

I was preposterously told at a Welsh NT house that the reason I couldn't take photographs was because of copyright. Yeah right. It didn't stop me photographing a Dalek in the stables..

[John Mitchell]

There is still a difference between commercial and editorial use; so in cases like these where editorial use isn't mentioned in the prohibition, I tend to mark images as editorial use only.