"This selfie photobombed by a horse has sparked a row in Prestatyn over a £2,000 holiday"

What a miserable cow... Can't imagine legally she has a claim, but sure she is hoping for some sort of freebie out of Thomsons. the publicity though will backfire except among her circle of friends whom I'm sure are as hard nosed as she is and thinks she's right
 
Strictly speaking if it was a footpath on the horse owners land then she might have a case for civil trespass, because being on a PRoW doesnt actually confer the right to do anything other than freely pass and repass . That said I suspect it wouldnt even get to court on grounds of lack of reasonableness (and of course the land on which the path runs may not even be hers anyway)

Also even if she did have a case this would be irrelevant to the matter of the thompsons holiday, and her ... ahem... damages, would be based on any harm/distress the actual trespassing action caused not the fact that the photographer subsequently won a holida and she's bitter and twisted about not winning it herself
 
Last edited:
According to WalesOnline, a legal expert has looked into this:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/lawyer-looked-photobombing-horse-competition-10822722

The intellectual property specialist with Capital Law said: “From a legal perspective, the owner of the horse has no cause for complaint. The father and child were on a public footpath (and not in the field) and so there is no issue of trespass.

“A photographer automatically owns copyright in the image and does not require permission of the horse (or its owner) to take the photo – much in the same way as photographers don’t require permission to take pictures of celebrities when they are out in public.

“The only issue from an intellectual property perspective, is whether the father, David, obtained his son’s permission, as owner of copyright in the photos, to use them in the competition – but given that young Jacob is getting a holiday out of it, I guess he’d say he gave consent.”
 
Byker28i said:
According to WalesOnline, a legal expert has looked into this:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/lawyer-looked-photobombing-horse-competition-10822722

The intellectual property specialist with Capital Law said: “From a legal perspective, the owner of the horse has no cause for complaint. The father and child were on a public footpath (and not in the field) and so there is no issue of trespass.

“A photographer automatically owns copyright in the image and does not require permission of the horse (or its owner) to take the photo – much in the same way as photographers don’t require permission to take pictures of celebrities when they are out in public.

“The only issue from an intellectual property perspective, is whether the father, David, obtained his son’s permission, as owner of copyright in the photos, to use them in the competition – but given that young Jacob is getting a holiday out of it, I guess he’d say he gave consent.”
Click to expand...


bloody awful advice from a supposed legal specialist - being on a public footpath does not automatically mean there is no issue of trespass for any activityother than walking (or using a class one or two mobility scooter) the really key thing is who owns the land the footpath crosses

Also the issue about the IP and consent seems unlikely to be right either - at his age jacob probably isnt legally competent to give consent so it would be up to his parent anyway
 
big soft moose said:
bloody awful advice from a supposed legal specialist - being on a public footpath does not automatically mean there is no issue of trespass for any activityother than walking (or using a class one or two mobility scooter) the really key thing is who owns the land the footpath crosses
Click to expand...

A few years ago I went on a guided walk which was being lead by a retired lawyer who did legal work for the National Trust. It was his opinion that things which seemed to be quite reasonable to do on a public footpath such as photography were permitted and would not be cause for a trespass claim.

In any event, if the land owner wanted to impose a no photography rule, wouldn't the photographer need to be advised of this in order for disobeying the rule to become trespass?

But that is still irrelevant because even if there was a breach of trespass when the photograph was taken, the photographer still owns its copyright.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
A few years ago I went on a guided walk which was being lead by a retired lawyer who did legal work for the National Trust. It was his opinion that things which seemed to be quite reasonable to do on a public footpath such as photography were permitted and would not be cause for a trespass claim.

In any event, if the land owner wanted to impose a no photography rule, wouldn't the photographer need to be advised of this in order for disobeying the rule to become trespass?

But that is still irrelevant because even if there was a breach of trespass when the photograph was taken, the photographer still owns its copyright.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I agree that its irrelevant in this case - even if she owned the path and she could sue for trespass, given that theres no harm caused she' wouldnt get much in damages, at best a court order not to do it again i'd suspect.

What your friend is talking about is 'reasonable accompaniements' - that is things its reasonable to have with you while exercising your right to freely pass and repass - for example a dog which is under control is on the list hence why you can legally walk your dog on any PRoW (excepting anywhere theres a byelaw forbidding it) , a donkey isn't which is why while working as a PRoW officer i had to deal with a case involving a bloke who got most excised that he couldnt take his donkey for a walk on a footpath (he'd have been fine on a bridleway/rstricted byway /byway) (that case was also complicated by criminal damage to a fence to gain access for said animal)

Cameras and photography equipment are not specifically listed as usual accompaniements but nor are they on the list of things specifically forbidden in annex 2 (metal detectors are an example of one such) except where they are used comercially (commercial activitty being an annex 2 activity ). That tends to mean that a court would have to decide if it were reasonable (and if they did the relevant case law would be added to the long list in the next edition of the "blue book" I can't remember exactly what its called and don't have my copy handy but its the definitive work PRoW use in interpreting CRoW and associated acts)

The signing thing is a bit of a red herring - that turns on whether users would be reasonable in considering it (whatever action "it" is) legal without additional signage - for example i was involved in more than one case involving cycling on a footpath where courts found that it was not reasonable to assume that you can cycle on a footpath just because there arent no cycling signs because the footpath directional signing itself clearly indicates that it is a footpath and that the onus is on the user to know what rights they have before exercising them. - photography is more of a grey area although the same principal could be applied. Camera phones of course didnt really exist when CRoW was drafted , but it is likely that a court might feel that the taking of selfies is a usual behaviour and therefore part of your right to pass and repass.

At the end of the day it is highly likely that no landowner is going to sue for trespass unless the actions are causing him harm /loss/nuisance anyway so its all more theory than practice
 
Keith W said:
Why?

He said public footpath

Not public right of way

Not private footpath
Click to expand...

The words public footpath are synomonous with public right of way - if you are talking about a path along a road the legally correct term is "public foot way" (because the right of access along a public footpath (or bridlepath, restricted byway or byway) is granted under the Countryside and Rights of Way act 2000, whereas access along a footway is under whichever highways act authorises the road. Also Foot paths cross private land, footways run in the road corridor which is generally owned/maintained by the appropriate highway authority)

Given that the father concerned mentions the horse being clearly visible from the road, this may well have been a footway, in which case the advise that no trespass occured is probably correct , however if its a foot path then whether trespass occured would turn partly on whether the owner of the horse owns the land on which the footpath runs (other considerations being per my post above)

Of course theres a high probablity that the horse owner doesnt even own the feild in which the horse is grazing so all of this is moot
 
Last edited:
She would lose any case for civil trespass.
Is it even clear if the horse is on land owned by her? (Let alone the land the footpath crosses).
If the horse is in rental livery, and turned out on land owned by the livery, her greedy whining becomes even more laughable.
Still, judges do love to ridicule publicly those who bring frivolous cases. :D
 
Hmm, not read the whole story, but if the image with the horse in is used for commercial purposes, which I guess the competition organisers are going to, then the horse owner would need to sign a property release form. Domesticated animals generally belong to someone, and the owners have the right to say if an image is to be used to not.

But agreed, would be very petty in this case.
 
treeman said:
Hmm, not read the whole story, but if the image with the horse in is used for commercial purposes, which I guess the competition organisers are going to, then the horse owner would need to sign a property release form. Domesticated animals generally belong to someone, and the owners have the right to say if an image is to be used to not.

But agreed, would be very petty in this case.
Click to expand...


Not in the UK Mark. There is no residual IP right in a property.
 
IANAL:

Normally constraints on photography are not done via an inherent right to control photography as the land owner but via contract law using your the right to deny access to said land. "I'll only let you access my land if you agree not to take photos or assigned the copyright to myself". (or "I'll only let you access my land if you cover yourself in custard and sing Barbie Girl" or whatever). It's why it needs to be notified (n person or clearly posted signs) before access/photography occurs - you can't retroactively impose a contract.

However if there is a right of way in place, the landowner has no right to deny access so they lose their bargaining power to demand copyright / no-photos. They can't use contract law to impose it as a term, and they're going to have to find another means to justify why they can impose a no-photography
 
treeman said:
Hmm, not read the whole story, but if the image with the horse in is used for commercial purposes, which I guess the competition organisers are going to, then the horse owner would need to sign a property release form. Domesticated animals generally belong to someone, and the owners have the right to say if an image is to be used to not.

But agreed, would be very petty in this case.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is so - owners can certain take suit against a publisher , but thats not the same thing has having right of aproval - a lot of stock /comercial end users require a release before they'll use a picture commercially but that doesnt make it a legal requirement

In this case its difficult to see how thompson would use the image comercially anyway - more probably they were interested in good publicity from the competion itself
 
The W said:
IANAL:
However if there is a right of way in place, the landowner has no right to deny access so they lose their bargaining power to demand copyright / no-photos. They can't use contract law to impose it as a term, and they're going to have to find another means to justify why they can impose a no-photography
Click to expand...

INALEBUTBAPROWO (I'm not a lawyer either but used to be a PRoW officer )

and that point is exactly what i was talking about above - the landowner has no right to deny access to freely pass and repass by permitted means, they do however have a perfect right to make restrictions on access to do other things which do not impinge on the right given under CRoW, such as 'no photography' - it doesnt appear that they made an overt statement of this in this case but in theory it is perfectly permissible to say 'no photography' or 'photography only under these conditions' even where access is by public right of way.

(as i said above it is likely that the horse owner doesnt even own the field -they were probably just renting the grazing rights, in which case this whole avenue is moot unless the landowner gets involved)

The woman concerned doesnt apear to be saying 'because trespass' anyway - shes saying ' because its my horse (essentially model/property release)'
 
Last edited:
I have always wondered how this works, I have taken photos of dogs at crufts and never asked for permission ( lots of dogs are just left relaxing on the benches) Have sent photos into channel 4 when they broadcast it. Also street photography, am I right in thinking you only need to get permission if the person is recognisable/famous?
 
You don't ever 'need' permission (in that you can't be sued simply for the act of not getting permission) but it is wise when the photo might provide grounds to sue - locations with a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the photo meets the requirements to count as personal information under the Data Protection Act, when the photo might be used to imply endorsement (an ad for viagra) or used in a way that might impact their standing (using their photo in a story about prostitution when they're not prostitutes), etc. There's nothing that means that being there subject of a photo grants you rights over it's use.

Also, the T&C for entry to Crufts almost certainly includes something about accepting that you might be in photos/video and waiving all rights with regards to that.
 
'Er indoors is heavily involved in Working Dog Trials including running the trials, competing therein, judging therein and training for entry into. She has just told me that if anyone wants to take shots of the dogs with or without their handlers/owners they must obtain the permission of said handler/owner first even if this is only a verbal request.
 
Giblets said:
'Er indoors is heavily involved in Working Dog Trials including running the trials, competing therein, judging therein and training for entry into. She has just told me that if anyone wants to take shots of the dogs with or without their handlers/owners they must obtain the permission of said handler/owner first even if this is only a verbal request.
Click to expand...
I just wonder, other than this being her belief, what she's basing that statement on?

Because as above, we have lots of pro's round here that shoot events (including dogs and horse events) and usually as a condition of entry the organiser gets written media release. Members of the public paying admission then usually are free to shoot what they like but have no commercial rights to the images, commercial rights are generally agreed with hired professionals. But nowhere in that relationship is there usually a mention of permission between an individual photographer and competitor.
 
Phil V said:
I just wonder, other than this being her belief, what she's basing that statement on?

Because as above, we have lots of pro's round here that shoot events (including dogs and horse events) and usually as a condition of entry the organiser gets written media release. Members of the public paying admission then usually are free to shoot what they like but have no commercial rights to the images, commercial rights are generally agreed with hired professionals. But nowhere in that relationship is there usually a mention of permission between an individual photographer and competitor.
Click to expand...

I will ask her when she get back in. It is, however, most unusual to have members of the public attending such events as it's not exactly a spectator sport. Maybe there is mention in the rules that the trials have to be run under.
 
Giblets said:
I will ask her when she get back in. It is, however, most unusual to have members of the public attending such events as it's not exactly a spectator sport. Maybe there is mention in the rules that the trials have to be run under.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not sure you'd actually want any photographers at working dog trials, the chance of becoming a distraction is maybe a bit much.
 
Giblets said:
I will ask her when she get back in. It is, however, most unusual to have members of the public attending such events as it's not exactly a spectator sport. Maybe there is mention in the rules that the trials have to be run under.
Click to expand...


Having attended a few, they are generally run on private land....and also the rules set by the organisers shouldn't be interpreted as a guide to the law.
 
Seen this on the Guardian; this years 'cat bin woman'
Given its 2016 she can expect ultimate trollage, horse sh!te through her letter box, and Anonymous exposing the contents of her pant drawer online.
 
boyfalldown said:
Having attended a few, they are generally run on private land....and also the rules set by the organisers shouldn't be interpreted as a guide to the law.
Click to expand...

It also depernds on the trial - at the big ones like the international you generally see a lot of people taking shots and video with their camera phones (and it would be impossible to ask the handler as they are too busy working to be bothered by people asking can i take a photo) - you don't see many DSLRs but I don't think its banned (except that comercial work would need licencing)

IIRC they did say no flash for obvious reasons
 
boyfalldown said:
On the first photo, remind me which one is the horse
Click to expand...
OUCH! :D

From the article,
The horse is no longer being kept in the field behind David's house and has now been moved to another location.

Is that in case someone else try's to win a holiday from the nags picture also ?
 
BlackCloud said:
What a miserable cow... Can't imagine legally she has a claim, but sure she is hoping for some sort of freebie out of Thomsons. the publicity though will backfire except among her circle of friends whom I'm sure are as hard nosed as she is and thinks she's right
Click to expand...

I agree she just after what she can get (n)
 
I just had another look at the linked site in the op and the recent comments (of the ones I read) are all quite damning of her behaviour. Including one that points out/asks whether the fence with its top string of barbed wire is suitable for horses and whether the RSPCA should be involved?

The can of worms she has opened by acting as she did is not in her favour and looks like it is rumbling on.
 
Being a cynical type I am beginning to wonder if this story is not just a massive PR stunt. Think of the free advertising that's been generated! :whistle:
 
Money.......causes nothing but upset and agro.

Another pathetic jealousy situation over it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top