In 'curious' case, judge denies a photographer's copyright

AnCatDubh

From the British Journal of Photography via @pixfan @richflintphoto on Twitter

So, yes you have your copyright - just don't do anything illegal in order to get the shot.

Borderfox

Thats fair enough in my opinion.

sineadw

Hmmm.. I dunno - setting a dangerous precedent maybe?

And who the hell is editing the BJP?! Terrible...

seamus

AnCatDubh wrote: »

So, yes you have your copyright - just don't do anything illegal in order to get the shot.

This ruling isn't actually all that uncommon, and journalists have often been pardoned for criminal deeds or have won civil cases where the journalists shown that their publication served the greater public interest.

For example, take a product X, which can be very dangerous, but perfectly safe when produced correctly - think kids toys. Let's a say a company was producing copies of product X, which were illegal to produce without licence. If a journalist obtained one unlawfully (i.e. stole it) in order to test it and show that these copies are very dangerous, he is unlikely to be charged with theft because his actions were in the greater public interest, and were not selfishly motivated.

However, If this guy's photos had been taken and used by a company on their marketing material, for example, the same outcome probably wouldn't have happened.

Masada

Its essential newpapers are not hindered in helping the police and protecting the community we serve

Protecting the community from very dangerous photographer types who zoom in ad shoot things i suppose. thats ridiculous.

Seems a little harsh really. i'd hate to see that sort of thing spill over to here.

sasar

Completely disagree with judge's decision. It's photographers work and he needs to be paid for it by the newspaper.

K_user

The photographer, chances are, took the photographs for personal enjoyment.
The newspaper profited off their sale.

Unless it was proven that the photographer was breaking the law, which isn't mentioned in the article, then his rights have been infringed on.

Does this ruling mean that newspapers can take any image off the internet and use it for "protecting the community"? So if I post a picture of a barking pitbull, can a newspaper take that image and use it in an article about dangerous dogs?

A dangerous precedent has been set IMHO.

Covey

sasar wrote: »

Completely disagree with judge's decision. It's photographers work and he needs to be paid for it by the newspaper.

Agree 100%. Unfortunately this is the UK we're talking about where photography per se is being turned into something bordering on criminality!

If the BJP were serious in protecting photographers rights ( which I often doubt) they should be contributing to the cost of an appeal.

Freddie59

Covey wrote: »

Agree 100%. Unfortunately this is the UK we're talking about where photography per se is being turned into something bordering on criminality!

If the BJP were serious in protecting photographers rights ( which I often doubt) they should be contributing to the cost of an appeal.

So let me get this straight:

It's illegal to download movies or songs (even for personal use) but NOT illegal to download an image which belongs to someone else for COMMERCIAL use?

Covey

Freddie59 wrote: »

So let me get this straight:

It's illegal to download movies or songs (even for personal use) but NOT illegal to download an image which belongs to someone else for COMMERCIAL use?

Perhaps you've misread me :eek:

charybdis

I'm not certain, but I suspect the judge has exceeded his remit in this case and the decision would not be upheld if they escalate the case to a higher court. This seems like an awfully big precedent in intellectual property case law and one not likely to be set by a judge in the Swindon Small Claims Court.

Ridiculous decision to be honest.Your photos are your property,a newspaper shouldn't be able to steal and reproduce them en masse.Then claim it is in the public's interest.Let's look at the reason that it was in the public's interest...

The Post's defence was that there was a public interest in identifying individuals whom the police wished to question.
Officers were keen to trace these people as they believed they may have committed criminal damage to get into the secure buildings and could be linked to a spate of graffiti

Since the police were so interested in this case you think they would have done a bit of research on the topic of urban exploration and the site it was posted on.If they even had the tiniest bit of intelligence they would realise that criminal damage and graffiti is completely condoned in this activity.There is absolutely no evidence that they have broken into or vandalised the said sites.The grounds for questioning the individual are very very thin.

How they came to believe that they have committed criminal damage and could be linked to a spate of graffiti is beyond me.The only thing the police have evidence of is trespassing and that is only a civil offence both in Britain and here I believe.How in god's name does this mean it is in the public's interest.If it's that easy to prove then we could be seeing a lot more photos being stolen and reproduced by media outlets.Copyright laws should not be cast aside as easy as this,in my eyes this is an absolute disgrace.

sprinkles

sasar wrote: »

Completely disagree with judge's decision. It's photographers work and he needs to be paid for it by the newspaper.

Agreed. Seems to me like a spurious excuse by the newspaper for stealing someone else's work.

Freddie59

Covey wrote: »

Perhaps you've misread me :eek:

Was just commenting really.:)

Covey

Freddie59 wrote: »

Was just commenting really.:)

So why quote me then

kjt

Sounds like a harsh and stupid decision by the judge imo! Also, what I really don't get is the last paragraph..

Asked if this was standard procedure for a newspaper to use, without credit or compensation, images found a website, the Reading Post spokeswoman says that 'all journalists on the Reading Post are trained in copyright law, and we would never knowingly use copyrighted material without paying. The recent court case is very unusual and was an exceptional circumstance.'

Taken from bjp-online

They are all trained in copyright law, would never knowingly use copyrighted material without paying.... yet this is what the whole article is about..

robinph

I read that story as the police were having trouble identifying the photographer, so they pursuaded the new paper to print their photos and hope that the person then came forward. If they were that desperate to find the photographer then they should have been able to track him down via the website rather than getting the newspaper to breach the copyright and do the dirty work for them.

It may have been illegal for the person to be where he was, but I cannot see that the taking of photos was part of that crime, unless he was on some top secret military base at the time. The photos merely implicate him in the trespassing charge but they themselves are not illegal.

Fenster

This is quite an interesting case, and it confirms to me that you have to be mindful when accessing derelict buildings of any type for the sake of photography.

pixbyjohn

Deleted User wrote: »

Since the police were so interested in this case you think they would have done a bit of research on the topic of urban exploration and the site it was posted on.If they even had the tiniest bit of intelligence they would realise that criminal damage and graffiti is completely condoned in this activity.There is absolutely no evidence that they have broken into or vandalised the said sites.The grounds for questioning the individual are very very thin.

Did you mean this ?

Slidinginfinity

Deleted User wrote: »

Ridiculous decision to be honest.Your photos are your property,a newspaper shouldn't be able to steal and reproduce them en masse.Then claim it is in the public's interest.Let's look at the reason that it was in the public's interest...

The Post's defence was that there was a public interest in identifying individuals whom the police wished to question.
Officers were keen to trace these people as they believed they may have committed criminal damage to get into the secure buildings and could be linked to a spate of graffiti

Since the police were so interested in this case you think they would have done a bit of research on the topic of urban exploration and the site it was posted on.If they even had the tiniest bit of intelligence they would realise that criminal damage and graffiti is completely condoned in this activity.There is absolutely no evidence that they have broken into or vandalised the said sites.The grounds for questioning the individual are very very thin.

How they came to believe that they have committed criminal damage and could be linked to a spate of graffiti is beyond me.The only thing the police have evidence of is trespassing and that is only a civil offence both in Britain and here I believe.How in god's name does this mean it is in the public's interest.If it's that easy to prove then we could be seeing a lot more photos being stolen and reproduced by media outlets.Copyright laws should not be cast aside as easy as this,in my eyes this is an absolute disgrace.

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Did you mean this ?

I certainly hope you meant to say condemned NOT condoned.
Anyone in the Urban Exploring community would not condone this behavior.
It is much like hiking or camping, "Bring what you need, take what you bring and leave everything as you found it."
Trespassing can sometimes be avoided by asking for and being granted permission, but in most cases that is, unfortunately, not an option.

Ah yes thanks for pointing that out,condemned was the word I was looking for,saying it's condoned is going entirely against what I was saying in the rest of the post.I probably should have re read it before posting to be honest

Also it's quite ironic that I was calling other people unintelligent in the same sentence,ah well

Anyway the point was that urban explorers don't cause damage to get into these buildings and even though the police may have seen the building as "secure" there is nearly always a way in without causing damage and if there isn't an urban explorer will walk away.

Anyway sorry for the confusion

Chorcai

Dont post images on the interwebs ! It getting more true everyday.