Where do I stand with this?

D.P. said:
Its not very clear what the OP meant.

Admittedly a bit strange and a needlessly angry request.

However, I don't see why someone would post holiday photos on 28DL, which is a website about illegal urban photography. As an owner of a business I don't think I would want associations with urbex stuff.
But there are much more diplomatic approaches to avoid negative publicity!
Click to expand...

i was angry at the hotel owner trying to stop his holiday photos from being posted online, rather than you :)

Yarde said:
Well, I didn't post my holiday photos on 28DL, I made a report containing the property in question and nothing else.



Right, I want to clarify something, all it was is a bar with an open sort of decking area, all I did was walk through this area, and stick my camera into the bar area through the windows that were there. I never actually entered the building itself. Although I know entering the land itself is probably tresspassing. Please don't take it so abruptly just because i mentioned 28DL!
Click to expand...

ah well thats slightly different

i thought you meant photos of the bar in your resort where you stayed. Unfortunately yes you'll just have to take them down to keep him happy.
 
Out of interest I have a few reservations about what D.P. just said...

Illegal: It is a civil offence (in this country) to trespass (ie no involvement by the police or CPS unless you refuse to leave when asked). Is that still "illegal" in the true sense? I'm not sure. Either way as long as you don't break anything the police won't get involved (again in this country, could be different elsewhere).

Buildings from public property: Again, this may be a bit dubious and akin to the model release for people myth. Photograph a building from public property and I'm pretty sure you don't need a model release, although some companies may ask for one to cover their backs. There are a few exceptions, such as the Eiffle tower, which you can't sell photos of if the lights are on, because they are copyright (the light pattern not the building) AFAIK.

So yeah a bit off topic but can anyone provide links to disprove what I just wrote? (Interested not just being a pain).:)
 
Amp34 said:
Out of interest I have a few reservations about what D.P. just said...

Illegal: It is a civil offence (in this country) to trespass (ie no involvement by the police or CPS unless you refuse to leave when asked). Is that still "illegal" in the true sense? I'm not sure. Either way as long as you don't break anything the police won't get involved (again in this country, could be different elsewhere).

Buildings from public property: Again, this may be a bit dubious and akin to the model release for people myth. Photograph a building from public property and I'm pretty sure you don't need a model release, although some companies may ask for one to cover their backs. There are a few exceptions, such as the Eiffle tower, which you can't sell photos of if the lights are on, because they are copyright (the light pattern not the building) AFAIK.

So yeah a bit off topic but can anyone provide links to disprove what I just wrote? (Interested not just being a pain).:)
Click to expand...

AFAIK, this is correct.
You can photograph most buildings outside from public places, obvious exceptions include airports and military bases that are probably covered by secured acts.
However, once you step inside the building or on to private land of the building, then you will need a model release.

Although trespassing is a civil wrong this doesn't legal action against trespassers. Someone who trespasses and then take photos can be sued depending on the use of the photos.
 
Ah ok, wasn't sure if your mention of "other buildings" meant lots of/most buildings or just certain military and government etc.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom