London London - what exactly are we allowed to do?

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
17,630
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
I am considering doing some stock landscape / architecture work in London. The goal is to simply get some iconic imagery by any [legal] means it takes - something along the lines of my best selling Bristol work. Don't worry I can think creatively, just need some help with the 'legal' bit.

I've done a little research, and found an incredible amount about filming, permits and so on. It sounds it is not permissible to sneeze in London without a written permit from a number of organisations including police. Yet, I opened Getty and Alamy, full of London landmarks without any releases. Apparently you can't go to Richmond park without paying £280 but there are plenty of deer shots all round going for £30. Is somebody doing us some charity work or what?

Effectively, I just want to know how and if I can get away with taking and selling pics of South bank, parliament, bridges, telephoto shots of the city, maybe something areal or anything else interesting. I don't care about individual street characters unless they seriously enhance the scene and are ideally not recognisable.

It is fair to say this is not a hobby any more, so no interest going there just to spend a day in a wet and cold and get rid of some money (done way more than enough of that already)... it has got to have a clear business sense from now on.

P.s. What would be high and unrestricted (or possible reasonably to deal with) vantage points?

P.P.S. Any free parking spots coming from M4? I can do Saturday or Sunday if it helps.

Thanks
 
If it's a Sunday there's plenty of free parking in London itself, otherwise you could come off the M4 earlier and park up near one of the West london tube stations and tube it in. There'll be a great deal of tourists about at any weekend. Seen a lot of people "hassled" once they get a tripod out infront of some buildings by security guards etc . Technically you need a permit to take photographs and record moving images in Royal Parks I've never seen anyone taking shots asked for a permit though.
 
Hello,

If you follow the M4 all the way to the A4 you can park on street near Calumet Drummond St (round the corner from Euston) at the weekend. Parking at the Ibis in the same area used to £17 a day which isn’t too bag for London.
 
Parking restrictions change from borough to borough and even on the same street. As a rule you can park on a single yellow line in Westminster on a Sunday and that includes Waterloo Bridge.
If I was wanting empty streets I would arrive very early during the summer and get as much done before the Tourists get out.

Dave
 
chivers67 said:
Technically you need a permit to take photographs and record moving images in Royal Parks I've never seen anyone taking shots asked for a permit though.
Click to expand...

No, technically you don't. If your taking photos or videos for non commercial use you need no permit. If you take commercial photos you need a permit. They do check.
 
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice

"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

It doesn't apply to private property though, including the Royal Parks.

Read the rest, too, though. It's important/useful.
 
boyfalldown said:
No, technically you don't. If your taking photos or videos for non commercial use you need no permit. If you take commercial photos you need a permit. They do check.
Click to expand...

You could take some shots for fun and in year change your mind? Anyway, I am least concerned about that, since I don't even have a lens for that kind of work :LOL:
 
daugirdas said:
You could take some shots for fun and in year change your mind? Anyway, I am least concerned about that, since I don't even have a lens for that kind of work :LOL:
Click to expand...


You could, but putting them on a stock site is one thing. Selling them another.

It's worth been a little careful because many areas that appear publicly owned are actually private and have commercial restrictions
 
abdoujaparov said:
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice

"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

It doesn't apply to private property though, including the Royal Parks.

Read the rest, too, though. It's important/useful.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... And how about copyright and any special restrictions with regards to publishing? For example, what if I let's say have the Shard in the photo (the architecture may be subject to copyright)?
 
Some buildings are copyrighted. The Gerkin being one. I don't know about the Shard
 
The area on the south bank of the Thames near Tower Bridge, commonly known as 'More London', where City Hall and the Scoop are located is privately owned.

There are private security guards around and they don't normally hassle photographers, but if you try and set up a tripod it can be a different story.
 
Tripods are fine in more place for stills but I have been warned off videoing (I wasn't) and guard was fine when I explained.

St Katharines dock - full size tripods are a no no, the guards get you every time. Oddly a mini tripod, a'la gorilla pod/joby thing is perfectly fine to use, have used one in front of the guards and they didn't bat an eye lid.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
This saturday there will be Lord Mayor show and fireworks. Anyone going or think it is worth traveling to?
Click to expand...

I will be there for the blue hour this Saturday, where are the fireworks taking place?
 
boyfalldown said:
Some buildings are copyrighted. The Gerkin being one. I don't know about the Shard
Click to expand...

Some buildings are copyright protected but the clue is in the word. You can only infringe it with a copy. i.e an identical or very similar building. A photograph of a building does not infringe its copyright.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Some buildings are copyright protected but the clue is in the word. You can only infringe it with a copy. i.e an identical or very similar building. A photograph of a building does not infringe its copyright.


Steve.
Click to expand...


Maybe or maybe not but either way that's just semantics. You try and sell those photos as stock and see how far you get.
 
boyfalldown said:
Some buildings are copyrighted. The Gerkin being one. I don't know about the Shard
Click to expand...

The issue with the Gherkin (properly 30 St Mary Axe) is not copyright but Trademark. The owners of the Gherkin obtained a Trademark to protect its name and image from being used commercially without permission.

The owners of the London Eye also obtained a similar Trademark on its name and image - largely because it was being used by hotels to promote their London location.

Edit: I am unsure about the TM status of The Shard's image, but "The Shard" is certainly a protected name.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
The issue with the Gherkin (properly 30 St Mary Axe) is not copyright but Trademark. The owners of the Gherkin obtained a Trademark to protect its name and image from being used commercially without permission.

The owners of the London Eye also obtained a similar Trademark on its name and image - largely because it was being used by hotels to promote their London location.

Edit: I am unsure about the TM status of The Shard's image, but "The Shard" is certainly a protected name.
Click to expand...
So what does this mean exactly in terms of selling photographs of these buildings?
 
Just to be even more clear, is this only for stock or what about if i sell prints on my website? or is it any sale at all.
 
boyfalldown said:
You can't in simple terms
Click to expand...

You can't what in simple terms? You can certainly photograph it and you can certainly sell prints of it. You can't use it commercially in a way which would suggest association with something it isn't actually associated with.

Stock photo companies can have their own rules but they are not laws.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
You can't what in simple terms? You can certainly photograph it and you can certainly sell prints of it. You can't use it commercially in a way which would suggest association with something it isn't actually associated with.

Stock photo companies can have their own rules but they are not laws.


Steve.
Click to expand...


No, stock libraries don't make laws (but that's the point of this thread, selling stock). You can sell photos of them. You can also end up with facing a court claim if the rights holder catches you doing it. And you'll probably lose
 
No. Because just selling a print with the building showing does not mis-represent the trademark.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
No. Because just selling a print with the building showing does not misrepresent the trademark.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This was my understanding, but my understanding of this stuff is very limited but I thought this to be true.
 
Trade dress infringement is using a companies image to promote something else. Know as 'passing off' in the UK. A picture with a building in who's image is registered as a trademark is hardly using it to promote anything else.

If they don't want their building photographed they should keep it covered up!

On top of this, people put their logos and trademarks prominently on view to the public as advertising. As long as there is no mis-representation, not many companies are going to complain about their logos and trademarks being seen by a wider audience.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top