London Copyright Law for Selling Prints?

[tdcarroll3]

I know there was another thread about kind of the same topic, but there really weren't any concise answers and the OP was wanting to sell stock photography. I have an online portfolio and have just started selling physical prints of stuff at local shows, and I love England and all things London.

My question is, can I sell artistic photographs of buildings like the Shard, the Gherkin, etc? I prefer abstract art so they would mostly be taken from interesting angles or duplicated and flipped within the same image, given a solid black/white treatment, etc. Going back in May for another trip and also visiting Dorset and Port Isaac, so I'd love to have the legal bits figured out. Even if I never get caught, per se, because I have such a tiny audience, if it's wrong, I won't do it, regardless of how many other people think it's okay. Any tips would be appreciated as my only other option at this point is to actually officially consult a trademark attorney based in London.

 

[Bridges]

The short answer is yes. Some estates (like Canary Wharf *for eg) try to claim ‘copyright’ over any images that contain their buildings, but this is utter rubbish concocted to harass photographers, mainly. It’s all about control. The truth is that pretty much anything that can be photographed from what is deemed a ‘public’ area, ie an area the public are allowed to access, is fair game. You’re not trying to pass off the design of a building as yours, so there’s no infringement of copyright there at all. The only exceptions are stuff like some military and government buildings, and even then only under specific circumstances/conditions. But essentially, nobody can 'copyright' or control a view,

*CW Estates have adopted an aggressive policy regarding photographers; you are supposed to apply for a permit to photograph there, and sign some waiver about not doing it for commercial gain or whatever, but it's all just BS. They have no legal right to stop you taking photogrpahs there; all they can do, as it's a private estate where there ar eno public highways etc, is ask you to leave under trespassing legilsation. They do this via bored and generally unknowledgeable security guards, who really don't know what the actual law is. If asked to leave, you must do so or you couldbe comitting an act of trespass. All they can actually do is call the police, who will really not want to deal with it and are understaffed as it is. The sensible way to go about it is to be as unobtrusive as you can; don't wave a massive camera and lens around, don't spend ages setting up tripods etc. The absurdity of CW's own rules don't extend to people using compacts/cmera 'phones etc; I beleive their actual rules state somethingvague aobut the use of 'professional type cameras'. There is no such thing as such a thing; a 'phone can be used 'professionally'. There are so many holes in this legally, that most people will have nothing to worry about. Security guards may waffle something about 'terrorism', but that's another complete load of testicles as well. So if you scope out the shot you want, have you camera ready in your bag, then be ready to whip it our and do your thing, then move on quickly before the rentacops turn up. And of course, if you take pics of the area from outside of their estate boundaries, there's nothing they can do at all.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The thing about copyright is that everyone has an opinion.

Although many people think they know the law, they are forgetting the scales of justice, which are easily moved in the direction of he who can put the most money on his side of the scales.

Although there's a general belief that a photograph of a building doesn't create an infringement, it's possible that the organisation which owns the building may decide to test that theory. They will have more money than you, at a guess, and that is something which is very weighty in a court.

On the other hand, many people take and offer for sale pictures of buildings, such as here...

London Building Pictures | Download Free Images on Unsplash

Download the perfect london building pictures. Find over 100+ of the best free london building images. Free for commercial use ✓ No attribution required ✓ Copyright-free ✓

unsplash.com

 

[Bridges]

The thing about copyright is that everyone has an opinion.

Although many people think they know the law, they are forgetting the scales of justice, which are easily moved in the direction of he who can put the most money on his side of the scales.

Although there's a general belief that a photograph of a building doesn't create an infringement, it's possible that the organisation which owns the building may decide to test that theory. They will have more money than you, at a guess, and that is something which is very weighty in a court.

On the other hand, many people take and offer for sale pictures of buildings, such as here...

London Building Pictures | Download Free Images on Unsplash

Download the perfect london building pictures. Find over 100+ of the best free london building images. Free for commercial use ✓ No attribution required ✓ Copyright-free ✓

unsplash.com

I really don’t understand why you’ve made this post, beyond wanting to unnecessarily cause an argument. If you can provide evidence where any organisation has successfully sued any photographer for ‘infringement of copyright’ (in this context), please feel free to do so.

 

[Bridges]

I agree that actual facts trump mere opinions. So let’s start with some:

Filming Buildings | Film London

Buildings are protected by copyright under English law but there is a specific exception under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 wh

filmlondon.org.uk

Buildings are protected by copyright under English law but there is a specific exception under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which permits you to take a photograph or film of a building without infringing its copyright.

That’s pretty much all anyone needs to know, really.

 

[steve_lyt]

IF YOU TAKE THE PHOTGRAPH from a public area then theres nothing anyone can do. As long as you are not breaking any laws.

 

[Bridges]

IF YOU TAKE THE PHOTGRAPH from a public area then theres nothing anyone can do. As long as you are not breaking any laws.

Even if you take a photo from within the boundaries of private land, it’s not illegal (unless as I said earlier, it’s government or military etc land, or court buildings and certain other specific cases). The act of taking a photograph isn’t illegal (unless it’s part of activity that is, ie robbery or somesuch). Trespass is a civil offence that can become criminal in certain circumstances. But mostly it’s just a civil offence. If you are in land you are invited into by the landowner or their agents, photography is still perfectly legal regardless of whatever rules imposed. Law trumps landowners rules.

So once again; selling prints of buildings is perfectly fine. There really is no need to be concerned.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I really don’t understand why you’ve made this post,

That really doesn't surprise me...

 

[Faldrax]

Even if you take a photo from within the boundaries of private land, it’s not illegal (unless as I said earlier, it’s government or military etc land, or court buildings and certain other specific cases). The act of taking a photograph isn’t illegal (unless it’s part of activity that is, ie robbery or somesuch). Trespass is a civil offence that can become criminal in certain circumstances. But mostly it’s just a civil offence. If you are in land you are invited into by the landowner or their agents, photography is still perfectly legal regardless of whatever rules imposed. Law trumps landowners rules.

So once again; selling prints of buildings is perfectly fine. There really is no need to be concerned.

If you are on private property (and this can include 'public spaces' such as shopping centres), then the owner of that property can make 'no photography' a condition of being on that property - and if you break such a rule then they are within their rights to stop you breaking that rule and escort you off the property.

 

[Willid1]

After a few Urbexers upset CWG a few years ago they have a High Court Injunction to stop trespass into buildings and work sites.

This has had the effect that they can require anyone to leave if asked over a wide area of Canary Wharf.

This is a link to the map

https://group.canarywharf.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/canary-wharf-estate-plan-injunction-23022018.pdf

The only reason I looked into this was I wanted to know if when using a tripod at night there were any places where CWG did not have jurisdiction and you could be left alone by the security staff - it would seem not!

D

 

[sphexx]

If you are on private property (and this can include 'public spaces' such as shopping centres), then the owner of that property can make 'no photography' a condition of being on that property - and if you break such a rule then they are within their rights to stop you breaking that rule and escort you off the property.

You may or not be correct their “contract” but it would still be a civil matter and they could only ask you to leave and call the police if you did not.

 

[realspeed]

tdcarroll3​

From what I understand photos taken by you then you own the copyright to them. Generally if you can see it then you can photographic if in a public place. As Richard pointed out if on private property then one needs to seek permission ( best in writing ) incase of being challenged by security guards etc. The best protection on your photo examples is to watermark them to stop copies and with low pixel count so they can't be blown up and used by someone else.

The problem I can forsee is if someone does copy your photo as their own but with a few alterations ,IE removing an object from the original. Then it raises the question of do you still own the copyright or does the person who did the alteration to your photo own the copyright to their version? this could be a grey area and legal advise would be needed.

For me I could not care less if others used my photos as they must be good enough to want to do so, and consider it a compliment. There are far more things to worry about than photo copyright. If you don't want them copied then don't display them or sell them would be my answer

 

[Bodian]

If you are on private property (and this can include 'public spaces' such as shopping centres), then the owner of that property can make 'no photography' a condition of being on that property - and if you break such a rule then they are within their rights to stop you breaking that rule and escort you off the property.

Would that extend to 'copyright' though? If they have a 'no photography' clause, and escort you from the premises - surely any photo you have taken before they did so is still 'yours' and they have no actual copyright over it?

 

[DemiLion]

Although there's a general belief that a photograph of a building doesn't create an infringement,

It isn't a belief, it is statue law. Section 62 CDPA 1988.

Whether you have a right to take the image is another matter.

 

[DemiLion]

Trespass is a civil offence that can become criminal in certain circumstances. But mostly it’s just a civil offence. If you are in land you are invited into by the landowner or their agents, photography is still perfectly legal regardless of whatever rules imposed. Law trumps landowners rules.

Sorry, but that is utter BS. If you are on private land then you are allowed access under licence. The land owner has the right to decide what that licence allows or does not allow.

For example National Trust and English Heritage are very specific about what type of photography is allowed - commercial is not one of those.

Taking that further, Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Royal Parks have byelaws which legally prevent photography for commercial use without a licence.

This is not Scotland and you do not have the right to go where you want and do whatever you want there.

 

[DemiLion]

Would that extend to 'copyright' though? If they have a 'no photography' clause, and escort you from the premises - surely any photo you have taken before they did so is still 'yours' and they have no actual copyright over it?

Correct. You own the copyright. That does not, however, mean that you can do whatever you want with the image (ie sell it for retail purposes).

 

[realspeed]

How many times has this issue been bought up before? I seem to remember several times in the past

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

How many times has this issue been bought up before? I seem to remember several times in the past

Perhaps it's a case of newer members not being able to find the previous discussions, or perhaps just not being aware of the search facility.

 

[Bridges]

Sorry, but that is utter BS. If you are on private land then you are allowed access under licence. The land owner has the right to decide what that licence allows or does not allow.

What you refer to are bylaws relating to the usage of images, not the taking of them. You are still perfectly legally entitled to take photographs in such places. What you’re talking about is what is deemed as ‘commercial use’. Thousands of tourists take photographs in such places every single day. And they all do so perfectly legally. No landowner bar very few exceptions, have any legal power to prevent you taking photographs even on their land.

But the reality is that even if the OP were to take pictures of the Houses of Parliament or Trafalgar Square and flog prints, it is incredibly unlikely that they would face any real action. There simply aren’t the resources to do so, and the GLA would have to go after countless numbers of people if they actually enforced the bylaws. They exist more for big, staged commercial shoots, not someone hoping to sell a few prints.

Correct. You own the copyright. That does not, however, mean that you can do whatever you want with the image (ie sell it for retail purposes).

Hmm; even here, I think a landowner would find it difficult to bring a case against someone. They have to prove some sort of loss or defamation to be able to claim any sort of remuneration.

I think the key here really is just don’t be a dick. If you grab a few snaps and are challenged by security guards, the best policy is to simply apologise and leave the area. They have no power to restrain you unless they have good cause to believe you constitute any form of danger to safety etc. I have faced off such challenges many times; knowledge of actual law is quite helpful in such situations. Discussions such as these are useful in determining what rights as photographers we actually have. And we actually have more than many people realise. It’s important to establish this.

 

[DemiLion]

This argument could stretch out over the next couple of days but to be honest, I've become a little bit bored with trying to educate idiots.

Suffice it to say that this:

No landowner bar very few exceptions, have any legal power to prevent you taking photographs even on their land.

..is utter balls. A landowner can impose whatever restrictions that he/she/they want on their own property.

As for Traf Sq:

Yes the restrictions in place forbid commercial photography without a licence. That is the taking of images in the first place.

And this thread is about commercial photography. Not happy tourist snaps.

 

[DemiLion]

Hmm; even here, I think a landowner would find it difficult to bring a case against someone. They have to prove some sort of loss or defamation to be able to claim any sort of remuneration.

No. They would just have to show that the photos that were taken breached the access licence. At which point any money made from those images would be forfeit.

 

[Bridges]

This argument could stretch out over the next couple of days but to be honest, I've become a little bit bored with trying to educate idiots.

Wow. Ok.

Have a read up on the law regarding photography. Then come back and we’ll have a discussion.

Night.

 

[DemiLion]

Wow. Ok.

Have a read up on the law regarding photography. Then come back and we’ll have a discussion.

Night.

Read up on it?

I did a year long media law course.

And then scored the highest result ever in the final exams.

Come back when you aren't posting total BS.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The way you can really get in trouble is via trademark infringements, particularly where the placement is not just incidental. I see The Shard is a trademark, so basically I would want to talk to the lawyers before heavily featuring in my works marketed for sale.

One of my clients decided to market their product by printing postcards featuring a trademark of an accessory maker, without written agreement. Needless to say I vetoed it at the last minute.

 

[DemiLion]

The way you can really get in trouble is via trademark infringements, particularly where the placement is not just incidental.

Erm, yeah.

No.

 

[Bridges]

Read up on it?

I did a year long media law course.

And then scored the highest result ever in the final exams.

Lol! Amusing. You are Dwight K Shrute and ICMFP.

The way you can really get in trouble is via trademark infringements, particularly where the placement is not just incidental. I see The Shard is a trademark, so basically I would want to talk to the lawyers before heavily featuring in my works marketed for sale.

One of my clients decided to market their product by printing postcards featuring a trademark of an accessory maker, without written agreement. Needless to say I vetoed it at the last minute.

The Shard, like other recent London buildings, may well be 'trademarked', but that doesn't prevent people from being able to photograph them from a public place. The trademark relates more to use of images for commercial purposes; say for eg floorplans/cross sections of the buildings, or a recognisable silhouette, being used in promotional material; imagine say a company that calls itself 'Shard Burgers/Dry Cleaners/Minicabs', and uses the Shard in promotional material such as on a website, flyer or business card etc. It's that kind of thing that the owners are trying to protect against. But they simply cannot trademark a view. The Shard is simply a 'building in London', so is 'incidental' in any views of the city skyline. Things may get a bit murky if you had a picture of just the Shard, say, but even then I think it would be difficult for them to take any action at all.

So to re-iterate; photos of buildings taken from public places; perfectly legal. Photos taken on private land; the act of taking the photo is perfectly legal, regardless of the owners 'rules'. In the case of Trafalgar and Parliament Squares, there are bylaws, which can only be imposed by a local authority, and need to be passed via a legal mechanism. No private landowner can impose any such bylaws, as these only relate to 'public' land. No rules imposed by any landowner have any legal power outside of the framework of existing laws. So; a landowner can impose rules such as no singing or dancing; they can't actually prevent you from singing or dancing on their land. The only power they have, legally, is to ask you to leave, and to use 'reasonable force' if they have the belief that you pose a danger to safety etc. The 'reasonable force' bit is very tricky, which is why most security firms will not physically eject anyone, they'll just wait for the police to arrive. No landowner of their agents can legally touch your camera/equipment, nor demand that you delete any images. If you flout the rules imposed, then you may be committing trespass. See above.

No. They would just have to show that the photos that were taken breached the access licence. At which point any money made from those images would be forfeit.

I would really like to see how this would work. Please explain using examples of case law. I l know of someone who has published and sold several books on URBEX, where they had no permission to be on the land at all. To date, they have not been sued. I myself have had work published by a national newspaper, photos taken in a place covered by aforementioned bylaws. To date, I have not been sued...

 

[Musicman]

imagine say a company that calls itself 'Shard Burgers/Dry Cleaners/Minicabs', and uses the Shard in promotional material such as on a website, flyer or business card etc. It's that kind of thing that the owners are trying to protect against.

In June 2010, ‘The Shard Indian Restaurant’ opened on Tooley Street, a couple oh hundred metres away from The Shard

In May 2011, while The Shard was still under construction, they renamed it to ‘The Shad Indian Restaurant’ - Shad Thames happens to be the name of one of the streets nearby.

Shad Indian Restaurant, 96 Tooley Street SE1 2TH

Shad Indian Restaurant, London SE1 2TH: contact details, location and user reviews.

www.london-se1.co.uk

All I can say is that the architects in Renzo Piano’s office, who originally came up with the name for the skyscraper, were highly amused by the whole thing

 

[4wd]

You can imagine situations where the right to photograph from a public place is abused.
Say you had a pretty thatched cottage or similar photogenic or well known building and were regularly inconvenienced by people posing in front of it for selfies and how about filming a commercial advert or movie.
The Eiffel tower is an often quoted example the tower itself is not 'copyrighted' but the various lighting displays on it generally are which makes things tricky

 

[DemiLion]

Photos taken on private land; the act of taking the photo is perfectly legal, regardless of the owners 'rules'.

To reiterate, no it is not. The landowner can impose any conditions of access that they want. In Scotland it is different.

The fact that you don't seem to understand that does not make it any less so.

The regs governing Traf and Parl. Sq are passed by act of parliament, not by local authority.
As are those for the royal parks.

I would really like to see how this would work. Please explain using examples of case law. I l know of someone who has published and sold several books on URBEX, where they had no permission to be on the land at all. To date, they have not been sued. I myself have had work published by a national newspaper, photos taken in a place covered by aforementioned bylaws. To date, I have not been sued...

The fact that someone has not been sued does not make it legal.

The National Trust is particularly active in having images removed from photo libraries where it thinks that the shots have been taken without permission.

 

[sphexx]

I note the OP posted a very similar question in his/her other post back in March and doesn’t seem to find any of the answers, here or there, helpful

 

[Bridges]

To reiterate, no it is not

And to re-re-iterate; yes it is. The ACT of taking photographs is not illegal (unless of course as part of an illegal act such as taking indecent photos etc); it’s what you do with the pictures after that might be tricky.

The regs governing Traf and Parl. Sq are passed by act of parliament, not by local authority.
As are those for the royal parks.

Ok, right.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-05/trafalgar_square_byelaws.pdf

The fact that you don't seem to understand that does not make it any less so.

Lol! Ok then. I’d be seeking a refund for that ‘law’ course if I were you…

The fact that someone has not been sued does not make it legal.

The photography itself remains legal regardless. The use of the images is the point of contention. That is a very important distinction to make.

 

[Bridges]

I note the OP posted a very similar question in his/her other post back in March and doesn’t seem to find any of the answers, here or there, helpful

I believe such discussions are important, as they help people to understand what their rights actually are.

Also what is important, is understanding how the Law actually works, in the real world. As we've seen here, there is a misunderstanding of what the law actually is, regarding photography in public and private places. That someone can do a year long law course, and receive top marks yet still not fully understand how the law works and what your legal rights are, shows just how murky and unfathomable the Law can seem at times. So I think it's important to clarify such issues. And not even those charged with upholding the Law get it right all the time: remember when police officers arrested someone for taking photos of a bus station? Which is why it's important to arm yourself with the facts, and a decent understanding of the laws that allow you to enjoy your hobby or pursue your career.

 

[sphexx]

I believe such discussions are important, as they help people to understand what their rights actually are.

Yes.

Also what is important, is understanding how the Law actually works, in the real world. As we've seen here, there is a misunderstanding of what the law actually is, regarding photography in public and private places. That someone can do a year long law course, and receive top marks yet still not fully understand how the law works and what your legal rights are, shows just how murky and unfathomable the Law can seem at times. So I think it's important to clarify such issues. And not even those charged with upholding the Law get it right all the time: remember when police officers arrested someone for taking photos of a bus station? Which is why it's important to arm yourself with the facts, and a decent understanding of the laws that allow you to enjoy your hobby or pursue your career.

This has mostly become a ”discussion between you and @DemiLion . I’m inclined to think you are both right but coming at it from different angles but I’m more inclined to your view than Mark’s.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

I believe such discussions are important, as they help people to understand what their rights actually are.

Also what is important, is understanding how the Law actually works, in the real world. As we've seen here, there is a misunderstanding of what the law actually is, regarding photography in public and private places. That someone can do a year long law course, and receive top marks yet still not fully understand how the law works and what your legal rights are, shows just how murky and unfathomable the Law can seem at times. So I think it's important to clarify such issues. And not even those charged with upholding the Law get it right all the time: remember when police officers arrested someone for taking photos of a bus station? Which is why it's important to arm yourself with the facts, and a decent understanding of the laws that allow you to enjoy your hobby or pursue your career.

What are your credentials in relation to copyright law?

 

[sphexx]

What are your credentials in relation to copyright law?

Without going back through all the posts, I don’t think @Bridges has opined on copyright law. One can take a photograph of any trademark or anything copyrighted the law only affects what you do with it afterwards.

 

[DemiLion]

And to re-re-iterate; yes it is. The ACT of taking photographs is not illegal (unless of course as part of an illegal act such as taking indecent photos etc); it’s what you do with the pictures after that might be tricky.

Look up 'Trespass Ab Initio'. Just because something is part of civil law does not make it any less illegal. Like copyright.

 

[Bridges]

Look up 'Trespass Ab Initio'. Just because something is part of civil law does not make it any less illegal. Like copyright.

Sigh. Are you sure there are enough straws for you to clutch at?

What are your credentials in relation to copyright law?

See what Sphexx said.

 

[Bridges]

This has mostly become a ”discussion between you and @DemiLion . I’m inclined to think you are both right but coming at it from different angles but I’m more inclined to your view than Mark’s.

I think the most embarrassing thing is, that we're both essentiualy on the sameside. For eg, I agree with rthis:

It isn't a belief, it is statue law. Section 62 CDPA 1988.

However, it became somewhat unedifying following these comments:

This argument could stretch out over the next couple of days but to be honest, I've become a little bit bored with trying to educate idiots.

Come back when you aren't posting total BS.

The fact that you don't seem to understand that does not make it any less so.

There was really no need for that was there? Very rude. Especially considering the fact that nothing I've posted has been proven wrong. And even more so when we can quite clearly see that DemiLion has a confused misunderstanding of the very law they claim to have studied, and scored top marks in...

I'd like to move on from this anyway. There is lots of information about such matters available online. You really don't have to pay money to do a year long course on it; it'll take a couple of hours at most really. All for free!

 

[DemiLion]

I'm not deluded in the slightest,

This has moved from copyright (which was sorted out in the first couple of posts) to the right to access and take photos.

You seem to believe that you can do whatever you want on any land, public or private.

You can't.

 

[lindsay]

I think the information required by the OP was answered and given early in the thread, so the rest is a not terribly helpful discussion about the points of law and their application, which actually is not that useful; I say this because whilst it is likely that Bridges may be right in terms of ones likelihood of being prosecuted, DemiLion has given the basis of why he believes we shouldn't take the risk of being able to get away with doing something. We know that DemiLion has had some education in the subject whereas we don't know what factual basis Bridges has for his opinion other than that he and some others have not yet been prosecuted or litigated against. On the strength of that, I'm rather inclined to play it safe and take DemiLions guidance.
If the two protagonists want to keep discussing this, then maybe it should be taken to The Lounge because it's no longer about Locations per se.