Possible fine for photo of building?

[Thomas Kyhn]

Earlier today when I was taking photos of this building (again), someone from the company who owns the building politely informed me that I would have to pay (335 euro for each fraction of an hour) to photograph the building, otherwise I would be fined by the company if any of the photos were published.

 

Before I ask Alamy to delete the photo I've already uploaded, I just wanted to hear if anyone here has ever been fined for a similar reason? Right away I should imagine that it would be the publisher who would be responsible for not having obtained permission to publish a photo of the building. Any opinions on this?

[wiskerke]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Denmark#Freedom_of_panorama

 

wim

 

edit:

table https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/table

[spacecadet]

Forget it.

You're being lied to and threatened. If the image was taken from the public street, they have no control over it, certainly for editorial use.

IMO they weren't being polite- it's not "polite" to threaten someone with an unlawful fee. I'd be surprised if it were even lawful to make such a claim.

[Colblimp]

Ignore it, don't take any notice of those type of lies.  As SC says, if you were shooting from a public street, you've done no wrong.

[Thomas Kyhn]

Thanks for your comments!

 

I forgot to add that I was actually on their property. The building is a parking house, so it's open to the public, but as it's located in a yard behind another building, you need to enter the yard in order to get a proper view of it.

[spacecadet]

Then in theory they can demand a fee, but they've got to stop you taking the picture in the first place.

I'd leave any existing ones but probably not upload any more. Galling but everyone seems to be encroaching on our right to make a living. We have a similar problem in England with the National Trust charity.

[Thomas Kyhn]

46 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Then in theory they can demand a fee, but they've got to stop you taking the picture in the first place.

I'd leave any existing ones but probably not upload any more. Galling but everyone seems to be encroaching on our right to make a living. We have a similar problem in England with the National Trust charity.

 

At least it says in the Danish copyright law that you're free to depict buildings.

[spacecadet]

Freedom of panorama  is from a public place. What control a building owner has otherwise is a grey area in English law but Alamy takes down images of National Trust property whenever the NT threatens it. You'll have to form your own view, but if the owners of that building get around to threatening Alamy, they will remove it.

[Thomas Kyhn]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Freedom of panorama is from a public place. […] You'll have to form your own view, but if the owners of that building get around to threatening Alamy, they will remove it.

 

I'm sure you're right that Alamy will remove it if it comes to that. Freedom of panorama isn't mentioned in the Danish copyright law, at least there's no direct reference to the concept; it only says that buildings can be depicted freely, not from where they can be depicted, though obviously there must be certain requirements.

[Starsphinx]

I still wish one of the stock agencies would stand up to the NT and call their bluff when it comes to images of their property taken from a public highway.

[Gilwen]

Actually Alamy don’t take down photos of NT property if you can show that the photo was taken from public land, ie., public highway or footpath, or that it was a free to enter property.  You might have to challenge them when they tell you they are removing images upon the request of The National Trust, but I’ve always found that Alamy have accepted my argument and left them for sale, and actually have sold some.

[Bryan]

17 hours ago, Gilwen said:

Actually Alamy don’t take down photos of NT property if you can show that the photo was taken from public land, ie., public highway or footpath, or that it was a free to enter property.  You might have to challenge them when they tell you they are removing images upon the request of The National Trust, but I’ve always found that Alamy have accepted my argument and left them for sale, and actually have sold some.

 

Indeed, one of life's greatest pleasures is to sell a photo of a NT property taken from public land. OK I don't get out much... 😉

 

 

[Niels Quist]

On 02/06/2019 at 18:10, Thomas Kyhn said:

I forgot to add that I was actually on their property. The building is a parking house, so it's open to the public, but as it's located in a yard behind another building, you need to enter the yard in order to get a proper view of it.

 

The problem is that you have entered the gate to the parking facilities from Dronningens Tværgade, which will  be private property - but with public access if  you have a business/errand.

His threat, which is probably meant to threat you, is actually a demand for a fee to photograph the building.

Personally I don't think it would be worth taking the risk, trouble and hassle for this rather unimportant image. On the other hand you took the photo in question without knowing their policy.

[Mr Standfast]

Photgraphing the NT? It would be rude not to do it!  Every trip to lacock I take a picture of the Abbey from the road with a little bit of the wall in the bottom of the frame, just for foreground interest of course...

[Thomas Kyhn]

3 minutes ago, Niels Quist said:

The problem is that you have actually entered the gate to the parking facilities from Dronningens Tværgade, which, I take it, will  be private property - but with public access. 

His threat, which is probably meant to threat you, is actually a demand of a fee to photograph the building.

Personally I don't think it would be worth taking the risk, trouble and hassle for this rather unimportant image.

 

You may be right that it isn't worth the risk. But I don't quite believe the threat. If you google the the building, you'll find numerous photos of it. There's a series here, for instance: https://www.arkitekturbilleder.dk/bygning/palaegaragerne/ – I doubt that they've paid to photograph the building.

 

Another thing is when I took the photo that's already on Alamy, another guy from the company was working outside the building, and he didn't say anything, apart from hello.

 

In any case, I'd like to know what exactly is legal. The Danish copyright law (§ 24, stk. 3) says that buildings can be depicted freely, also for commercial use. Karnov's Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer – 'The Danish copyright law with commentary' – (I have the 5th edition from 2011, but nothing appears to have changed since then, at least not in this section) only specifies what is included in the category "buildings"; it says nothing about the circumstances under which a photograph was taken. And I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on this anywhere else.

[Niels Quist]

10 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

In any case, I'd like to know what exactly is legal. The Danish copyright law (§ 24, stk. 3) says that buildings can be depicted freely, also for commercial use. Karnov's Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer – 'The Danish copyright law with commentary' – (I have the 5th edition from 2011, but nothing appears to have changed since then, at least not in this section) only specifies what is included in the category "buildings"; it says nothing about the circumstances under which a photograph was taken. And I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on this anywhere else.

 

Agree, not as easy as it should be to achieve clear information. Much of it on the Internet is interpreted by photo clubs, etc. - a few years ago Journalistforbundet had a page about it - but it seems to have disappeared.

And as you said, the image on line was taken without knowing anything about the fee.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Niels Quist said:

 

The problem is that you have entered the gate to the parking facilities from Dronningens Tværgade, which will  be private property - but with public access if  you have a business/errand.

His threat, which is probably meant to threat you, is actually a demand for a fee to photograph the building.

Personally I don't think it would be worth taking the risk, trouble and hassle for this rather unimportant image. On the other hand you took the photo in question without knowing their policy.

As Niels says if you have business on the premises- such as parking your car- you're not trespassing. Under English law you'd be entitled to do anything reasonable and lawful. Although I have heard that the NT is trying to say that you can't photograph from a right of way running through their property because that's not what a ROW is for. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be tested in court.

[MDM]

8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

As Niels says if you have business on the premises- such as parking your car- you're not trespassing. Under English law you'd be entitled to do anything reasonable and lawful. Although I have heard that the NT is trying to say that you can't photograph from a right of way running through their property because that's not what a ROW is for. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be tested in court.

 

 I wonder what this might lead to.

[aphperspective]

This was part of an article in www.photographers-resource.co.uk

The National Trust is an example of this, they have their own commercial picture library and try to maintain a monopoly of supply of images of their properties. There have been occasions where photographers have taken images and they have been published and the National Trust has then sent them a bill for 50% of what they assume they received for the images, equivalent of their share had they sold one of the images on their library, taken by you, had you submitted it and had it accepted to be included. Many photographers will just pay this, but my understanding is that if you do not they will not test it by taking it to court as they are not convinced they would win. A lot would depend on if you were aware of restrictions and how you were told, particularly as they generally encourage people to go and photograph the outside of their properties.

[MDM]

 

20 minutes ago, aphperspective said:

This was part of an article in www.photographers-resource.co.uk

The National Trust is an example of this, they have their own commercial picture library and try to maintain a monopoly of supply of images of their properties. There have been occasions where photographers have taken images and they have been published and the National Trust has then sent them a bill for 50% of what they assume they received for the images, equivalent of their share had they sold one of the images on their library, taken by you, had you submitted it and had it accepted to be included. Many photographers will just pay this, but my understanding is that if you do not they will not test it by taking it to court as they are not convinced they would win. A lot would depend on if you were aware of restrictions and how you were told, particularly as they generally encourage people to go and photograph the outside of their properties.

 

A move home to Ireland is looking more and more attractive by the day 😀. 

[Ed Rooney]

I don't trust the National Trust.

[spacecadet]

43 minutes ago, aphperspective said:

the National Trust has then sent them a bill for 50% of what they assume they received for the images

I'd be very keen to see evidence of this. It sounds doubtful.

[MDM]

31 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'd be very keen to see evidence of this. It sounds doubtful.

 

My concern in relation to the Guardian article is that they are effectively buying the view so how long will it be before they try to charge to see the view or impose restrictions or permit requirements for photography outside of the properties where they charge entry fees.

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

My concern in relation to the Guardian article is that they are effectively buying the view so how long will it be before they try to charge to see the view or impose restrictions or permit requirements for photography outside of the properties where they charge entry fees.

That quote of mine was for the suggestion that NT had been trying to extort licence fees from photographers by way of alleged damages. I agree it reads like a Trojan horse and the NT has form for it.

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

 

A move home to Ireland is looking more and more attractive by the day 😀. 

 

I would have thought you would be going to Tenerife when you moved.

 

Long way to come to one of the Cambridge meet ups though.

 

Allan