No commercial photography allowed

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,799
Location
What used to be a UK
I went to photograph the Weeping Poppies display at Middleport Pottery with a view to hoping to eventually sell and display my photographs. On finishing I noticed a number of signs saying "no commercial photography allowed".

Does anybody know if this would actually be enforceable? Seems quite stupid really since you can photograph the poppies from the canal towpath which is a public footpath.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Posts
3,242
Location
Earth
These days anyone with an actual camera body is classed as a pro yet smart phone users are fine. Though we all know some of the higher end smart phones capture great quality images.

Here in London I get this often that one place is private or I need a permit. It's a shame but yea gotta live with it.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,799
Location
What used to be a UK
It may well be classed as a work of art where the creator (or commissioner) owns the copyright.
Perhaps as a direct copy but not for something you contribute to or can express as your own?

This is where it begins to get a bit confusing and somewhat silly. For example, I noticed there was no sign saying artists not allowed or no painting.

I'm sure I read somewhere that if you could produce a piece of work constituting 75% of your own idea/input you couldn't be done for copyright violation regardless of the notice or the medium in which you choose to express it. I'm a digital artist.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
Perhaps as a direct copy but not for something you contribute to or can express as your own?

This is where it begins to get a bit confusing and somewhat silly. For example, I noticed there was no sign saying artists not allowed or no painting.

I'm sure I read somewhere that if you could produce a piece of work constituting 75% of your own idea/input you couldn't be done for copyright violation regardless of the notice or the medium in which you choose to express it. I'm a digital artist.

No, not at all - if the land is private and it says no commercial photography - then no you CANNOT make money off your photos - I'm a full time photographer so know the law on this.

This is simply because if the land is private and they invested in what your going to see, the owners wish to make the profit.

You would have to be specific if the display is on public land and the display itself is private property or not - it gets more complex here because you can have a privately run venture on public land if they were granted a public land use license.

If they were granted a license from the council on public land for a privately owned area of interest/display of some sort in many cases you can still enforce a copyright law.

It's the same for example with drone photography - I can fly a drone freely, if someone wants to pay me to fly it and take a photo for them, I need a license.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
The photo is being used as a reference/ base on which to produce something that isn't a direct copy.

It doesn't matter, if the digital work produced is obviously directly descended from a photo and you then make money, you can still be done for copyright IF they hold a license/right to enforce no commercial photos.

If you take a photo as a reference to work from - your net result is commercial gain.

If you take a snap on your phone, then work from that and produce your work then delete the original photo......still technically not allowed but hard to prove.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,799
Location
What used to be a UK
I hadn't previously mentioned this but the base photo was taken from a public canal tow-path not on their premises. I take your point about deleting the reference material. Do you still think the no commercial photography sign still applies to photographs taken from public land opposite the display?

Where I was standing there were no prohibitions listed along the tow path, only from within the premise's in Middleport Pottery.

Nothing was mentioned about reproductions based on natural/digital media that can be painted anywhere and no commercial photography must apply specifically to a commercial photograph (only)?

I remember a recent copyright case involving Toblerone trying and failing to copyright their chocolate bar shape because somebody came along with the same Shape bar but with a different name.

This is a same shape bottle kiln, painted instead of photographed from reference material taken from a public canal tow-path.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
Do you still think the no commercial photography sign still applies to photographs taken from public land opposite the display?

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/expert_advice/street-photography-and-the-law-96304

Understand the difference
If you intend to sell your photography it’s important to know the difference between editorial and commercial usage. Editorial use means that a picture can be used to illustrate an article, story or educational text, but not to sell a product or promote something. Commercial use means that a picture can be used to sell a product, promote something, or raise money for a cause.

Stand on public property
If you and your subject are standing on public property, generally you do not need permission to take a picture of them – but there are a few exceptions. If your subject is engaged in a personal or private activity (such as leaving a hospital) you need to respect their privacy. If you plan on selling your work, these ‘people’ shots can only be used for editorial purposes – unless you have obtained a model release, or the subject appears as part of a crowd.

Obtain a model or property release
If you intend to license your people or property pictures for commercial use it’s a good idea to obtain a signed release form (you can print out a model release form from the Association of Photographers’ website at www.the-aop.org). Companies can be wary of purchasing pictures without these forms because the onus is increasingly on them to ensure that no laws have been broken. Generally, if the buildings and/or people in your image are not recognisable you do not need a release.

Laws are so convoluted :confused:
 

And

And

Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Posts
1,079
They sell souvenirs, presumably things like postcards of the display, so surely that is what they are seeking to protect.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,799
Location
What used to be a UK
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
This is part of my point. How is it possible or even remotely practical to obtain a signed release form for every commercial photograph you take? These are just general guidelines and not necessarily specific to all things at all times.

You probably need to ask a business lawyer really to get a definitive answer but I bet if you asked 2 the answers would be slightly different :D
 
Back
Top Bottom