I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
permission to use it. And from who, exactly?

Cheers

--
Androo
(Remove your clothes to reply)

"androo"  wrote in message 
news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Androo


It would be wise to obtain permission from Northern Rail especially as it is 
being used in an Annual Report and as such could be in existence for several 
years.
If it was for a private photographic collection then permission is not 
really required.

androo wrote:

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
> It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
> Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
> think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>


Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying differently.

You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
asking permission.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:34:29 +0100, "androo"
 wrote:


>I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
>illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
>station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
>permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>
>Cheers


Depends mainly on where you took it from, but TOCs are encouraged now
by ATOC to allow and indeed to encourage photography.  If you took it
from the public highway and it is not indecent and not of MOD property
then I think.you can publish.
I have published many recently on the web, and some have appeared in
journals, all being taken either from the public highway, a public
footpath or, slightly more contentiously, from a Pay & Display car
park run and owned by the local authority.  Having paid my fee it
becomes a place to which the public has access.

Guy Gorton

<snip>
Whilst we're talking about photos, I was thinking of putting the
different TOC's logos at the top of each of their respective pages on
my website, however, I heard somewhere that if I want to copy their
logo off their website, I must ask permission, which is understandable,
but if I take a photo of their logo, on the side of a train/on a sign
etc, then I do not need to ask permission.
Does anyone know if this is correct?

In message , at 14:50:33 on 
Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Guy Gorton  
remarked:

>I have published many recently on the web, and some have appeared in
>journals, all being taken either from the public highway, a public
>footpath or, slightly more contentiously, from a Pay & Display car
>park run and owned by the local authority.  Having paid my fee it
>becomes a place to which the public has access.


No need to be so cautious. If the public has access *ever*, it's a 
public place.

Although they will sometimes try it on, there's no such thing as a place 
that's "public", which is encouraged for the purposes of prosecuting you 
for doing things (eg driving a car without a licence); but at the same 
time "private", in the sense that you are trespassing and infringing 
some (also non-existent) law about being a non-sexual peeping tom, or 
whatever it is they think might prevent you from taking photos.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:JbTZIpWHmJBDFAeu@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at 14:50:33 on 
> Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Guy Gorton  remarked:
>>I have published many recently on the web, and some have appeared in
>>journals, all being taken either from the public highway, a public
>>footpath or, slightly more contentiously, from a Pay & Display car
>>park run and owned by the local authority.  Having paid my fee it
>>becomes a place to which the public has access.
>
> No need to be so cautious. If the public has access *ever*, it's a public 
> place.
>
> Although they will sometimes try it on, there's no such thing as a place 
> that's "public", which is encouraged for the purposes of prosecuting you 
> for doing things (eg driving a car without a licence); but at the same 
> time "private", in the sense that you are trespassing and infringing some 
> (also non-existent) law about being a non-sexual peeping tom, or whatever 
> it is they think might prevent you from taking photos.
> -- 
> Roland Perry


The station is property of the railway company, which is a private company, 
so the public do not have automatic right of access.

In message <de2891$26l$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, at 16:08:23 on Thu, 18 
Aug 2005, Capture Boy  remarked:

>The station is property of the railway company, which is a private company,
>so the public do not have automatic right of access.


It is still a public place. Try having sex on the platform and claiming 
it's a place where you had an expectation of privacy!
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:08:23 +0100, "Capture Boy"
 wrote:


>The station is property of the railway company, which is a private company, 
>so the public do not have automatic right of access. 


However this does not prevent you from taking photos of the station
from a public place.

Incidentally, is the legality of publishing a photo affected if was
taken on private property without permission?

In article ,
   Roland Perry  wrote:

> Although they will sometimes try it on, there's no such thing as a place 
> that's "public", which is encouraged for the purposes of prosecuting you 
> for doing things (eg driving a car without a licence); but at the same 
> time "private", in the sense that you are trespassing and infringing 
> some (also non-existent) law about being a non-sexual peeping tom, or 
> whatever it is they think might prevent you from taking photos.


Now you are being misleading. A railway station **is** private property and
you have rights to go there only to conduct your business. On the other
hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
connected with your business with them and ask you to stop. You are not
"breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the law by smoking
in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you to leave; you
**would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

David H Wild wrote:

> Now you are being misleading. A railway station **is** private property and
> you have rights to go there only to conduct your business. On the other
> hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
> connected with your business with them and ask you to stop. You are not
> "breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the law by smoking
> in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you to leave; you
> **would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.



If that is the case, then it shows how trainspotter and
photographer-friendly British Rail was. Back then, the public owned the
stations.

In message , at 17:06:22 on 
Thu, 18 Aug 2005, asdf <invalid@invalid.invalid> remarked:


>Incidentally, is the legality of publishing a photo affected if was
>taken on private property without permission?


You should perhaps ask Hello! Magazine and then get a second opinion 
from Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas. Both sides seem to be 
using up huge amounts of legal time to prove one thing or another. The 
privacy, rather than contractual, issues didn't get much of a look in.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:44:40 on Thu, 18 Aug 
2005, David H Wild  remarked:

>> Although they will sometimes try it on, there's no such thing as a place
>> that's "public", which is encouraged for the purposes of prosecuting you
>> for doing things (eg driving a car without a licence); but at the same
>> time "private", in the sense that you are trespassing and infringing
>> some (also non-existent) law about being a non-sexual peeping tom, or
>> whatever it is they think might prevent you from taking photos.
>
>Now you are being misleading. A railway station **is** private property


So is a supermarket car park, but it's *also" a "Public place".


>and you have rights to go there only to conduct your business.


We were talking about the "rights" of the property owner regarding 
privacy that would be infringed by people attempting to photograph his 
property. I do not believe such rights exist. In some circumstances they 
might exist if people were being photographed, but even then it's not 
100% clear cut.


>On the other
>hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
>connected with your business with them and ask you to stop.


They can ask, but unless it's against the law (and I agree there are 
railway byelaws prohibiting several things - which don't include 
photography) I don't have to submit.


>You are not "breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the 
>law by smoking in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you 
>to leave; you **would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.


I don't think you understand trespass law at all.
-- 
Roland Perry

The InterCity wrote:

> David H Wild wrote:
> > Now you are being misleading. A railway station **is** private property and
> > you have rights to go there only to conduct your business. On the other
> > hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
> > connected with your business with them and ask you to stop. You are not
> > "breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the law by smoking
> > in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you to leave; you
> > **would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.

> If that is the case, then it shows how trainspotter and
> photographer-friendly British Rail was. Back then, the public owned the
> stations.


Sorry, but that's bollocks and we've had this argument here many times
before.

The fact that BR was publically owned does NOT mean that "the public"
owned the stations.  They (and the track, land, coaches, engines,
engine numbers, and everything else) were owned by BR on the behalf of
the people of the country.  But they were still private property and
subject to similar laws to the ones in force today.  You had a limited
right to be on the railway for the business of transportation.  By and
large, enthusiast activity in places to which such limited public
access was granted, was tollerated.  But there was never any automatic
right to take pictures, watch trains, or do anything else other than
basic travel (for which tickets were usually required).

As to the OP's question:  From where, exactly, was the picture of the
station taken?  If it was from the public highway outside, you may do
as you wish.  If it was from railway property, it might be polite to at
least notify the station's operator of your intentions, though I don't
*think* there is any legal requirement to do so.

TBH, unless the picture makes the station look bad (more run down than
it is, for example, or a close up of dog-droppings with the building in
the background, or something similar), no-one's likely to object.

In message , at 
11:43:35 on Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Pyromancer  
remarked:

>You had a limited right to be on the railway for the business of 
>transportation.


BR ran a convict train to Australia?
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at
> 11:43:35 on Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Pyromancer 
> remarked:
>> You had a limited right to be on the railway for the business of
>> transportation.
>
> BR ran a convict train to Australia?


No, it was to the West Indies.

"androo"  wrote in message
news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Androo
> (Remove your clothes to reply)
>
>

"androo"  wrote in message
news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Androo
> (Remove your clothes to reply)


Not if the photo was taken from a public place like the highway.

>
>

"Brimstone"  wrote in message
news:de239u$2cc$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> androo wrote:
> > I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
> > It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
> > Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
> > think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
> >
>
> Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
> take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying
differently.
>
> You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
> asking permission.
>

No. Not if the photo was taken on private land - which is what a railway
station is.

>

"Capture Boy"  wrote in message
news:de23a5$cdf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "androo"  wrote in message
> news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
> > I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> > illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> > station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> > permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Androo
>
> It would be wise to obtain permission from Northern Rail especially as it
is
> being used in an Annual Report and as such could be in existence for
several
> years.
> If it was for a private photographic collection then permission is not
> really required.

> What do you mean by "really" ? It is or is not.
>

"The InterCity"  wrote in message
news:1124384169.100949.143490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> David H Wild wrote:
> > Now you are being misleading. A railway station **is** private property
and
> > you have rights to go there only to conduct your business. On the other
> > hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
> > connected with your business with them and ask you to stop. You are not
> > "breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the law by
smoking
> > in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you to leave; you
> > **would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.
>
>
> If that is the case, then it shows how trainspotter and
> photographer-friendly British Rail was. Back then, the public owned the
> stations.


No. The public did not own nationalised industry property any more than it
owned military property.

>

Brimstone wrote:


> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>>In message , at
>>11:43:35 on Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Pyromancer 
>>remarked:
>>
>>>You had a limited right to be on the railway for the business of
>>>transportation.
>>
>>BR ran a convict train to Australia?
> 
> 
> No, it was to the West Indies.
> 
> 

Jamaica?

In article ,
   Roland Perry  wrote:

> >On the other
> >hand, the owners can object to any behaviour which is not directly
> >connected with your business with them and ask you to stop.

> They can ask, but unless it's against the law (and I agree there are 
> railway byelaws prohibiting several things - which don't include 
> photography) I don't have to submit.


Yes , you do. You can do things not connected with your business with the
owner of property with the consent of the owner - and if that consent is
withdrawn you have to give up. You have **no** **right** to take photoraphs
on someone elses property.


> >You are not "breaking the law" any more than you would be breaking the 
> >law by smoking in my house, but if you were to do that I could ask you 
> >to leave; you **would** then be trespassing if you didn't leave.

> I don't think you understand trespass law at all.


I probaly understand it as well as you do.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

The message <Ce6Ne.9449$bf6.3664@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
from Charlie Hulme  contains these words:


> >>BR ran a convict train to Australia?
> > 
> > No, it was to the West Indies.
> > 
> Jamaica?


I *will* resist the temptation.


I _will_ resist the temptation.

I've got more will-power than I thought...   <g>

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"androo"  wrote in message
news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>

From the National Rail website (the Rail Enthusiasts guidelines section):
Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal
use. For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought from
the appropriate train operator or, from Network Rail at their 17 major
stations.
I presume that this statement is backed up by railway byelaws, and that you
should ask the TOC (Northern) for permission to use the photograph.
Strictly, if the photograph was taken for this purpose you should have asked
first, though a photograph can be taken without consent for personal use,
and the decision to use it for commercial purposes comes later. I cannot
imagine that Northern would be so mean as to refuse, or to demand a fee, to
use the photograph for your stated non-profit purposes.

Peter

>>> BR ran a convict train to Australia?
>> No, it was to the West Indies.
> Jamaica?


Well they certainly didn't go of their own accord.

(I have very little will-power).


Matt Ashby

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:41:45 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>So is a supermarket car park, but it's *also" a "Public place".
>


I think, but I might be wrong, that a supermarket car park is a
"Private place to which the public have access". Having got,
inadvertently, a CCJ courtesy of a motor insurance company arguing the
toss over a minor bump in a Tesco's car park with another motor
insurance company over this detail it seems a minor issue - until the
letter from the court arrives.

I did get the "certificate of satisfaction" but no compensation from
the insurance company for what it cost me (this means that the
insurance company had paid up albeit 10 months after the incident but
I paid for the certificate). I wish I'd claimed against the lying
woman (on the basis that my car could not have damaged hers where it
was damaged) because my claim could have been rather more than
hers............... my theory was shed hit something else but couldn't
risk the claim FWIW.

G

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's
> Annual Report. It's illustrated with local scenes and
> one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge station.
> We got away with taking the photo, but do you think
> we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?


Either you or your organisation holds the copyright to
these pictures, depending on what contract you have
with the organisation. You don't need permission to use
the picture from anyone other than the copyright holder.

The only time when the railway's view of this would come
into play is if they had seen you taking the picture and
asked you to leave the station. In this case you would
have fallen foul of the Railway Byelaws because you
would be loitering after having been instructed to leave
by an authorised person. The maximum fine for this is
'level 3 on the standard scale', which at the moment I
think is £200.

Railway stations are private property. However, as other
contributors have mentioned they are also (when open)
'public places', because a section of the public (i.e.
those with business upon the railway) have access to
them, whether on payment or otherwise. Which is
interesting, and relevant in lots of cases (of which this is
not one).

Owning property means you can ask people to leave it if
you want to. If they refuse to leave then they will indeed
be trespassing, for which they can be sued but (with
certain exceptions, of which the railway is one)
not prosecuted, since simple trespass is not a crime
but a civil matter. Owning property does not mean that
you can chase people through the courts if they have
previously done some legal thing on your land that you
didn't like (such as pressing the shutter button on a
camera while pointing the lens in a particular direction).

Different rules apply on London Underground.

Take the picture, publish the picture, hang it from the
side of Fort Dunlop if you want to - it's yours!


Matt Ashby
not a lawyer

Brimstone wrote:

> androo wrote:
> > I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
> > It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
> > Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
> > think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
> >
>
> Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
> take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying differently.
>
> You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
> asking permission.


Out of interest, if someone visited a station and, whilst changing
trains attempted to take a photo of a departing train, and a member of
staff says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!", despite there being no rule or sign to
say otherwise, would you be allowed to defy them, take a photo that
includes that person and then publish it?

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:31:30 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:

> Brimstone wrote:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>11:43:35 on Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Pyromancer 
>>>remarked:
>>>>You had a limited right to be on the railway for the business of
>>>>transportation.
>>>BR ran a convict train to Australia?
>> No, it was to the West Indies.
> Jamaica?


No, Trinidad. There's a song about it.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633035.html
(47 333 at Southampton Central, 1985)

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:34:29 +0100, androo wrote:

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
> It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
> Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
> think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly? 


Are you asking because you've had a run-in with someone? I was just down
the road at Dewsbury this evening waiting to take a pic of a TPX 158
passing through when a yellowcoat came up and asked me if I had got
permission to take pictures. He then proceeded to tell a story about the
current security situation etc. etc. Since dusk was falling and the TPX
was a non-stopper, there wasn't much to be gained by debating the matter
anyway. My wife witnessed the exchange, but I'll refrain from passing on
her comments about the yellowcoat in question.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633001.html
(44 D4 at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987)

In message <z06Ne.865$jr4.373@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 20:16:31 on 
Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Tom Haliax  remarked:

>> You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
>> asking permission.
>>
>No. Not if the photo was taken on private land - which is what a railway
>station is.


Could you quote what particular law you think this comes under?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:25:21 on
Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Gavin Hamilton
<gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> remarked:

>
>I think, but I might be wrong, that a supermarket car park is a
>"Private place to which the public have access".


Here's a random piece of advice from a police website, which may assist:

        "The police can only investigate off-road collisions in a public
        place, e.g. a council car park or supermarket car park. If the
        collision occurred in a private car park, e.g. a car park not
        for public parking, then no action can be taken."

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/faq/detail.asp?pk_main=1
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:36:13 on Thu, 18 Aug 
2005, David H Wild  remarked:

>> I don't think you understand trespass law at all.
>
>I probaly understand it as well as you do.


In which case, why post here in a way that leads me to think otherwise?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <1tx9z4jccfhj7$.vkkrmkd3badm.dlg@40tude.net>, at 00:39:40 on 
Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>Are you asking because you've had a run-in with someone? I was just down
>the road at Dewsbury this evening waiting to take a pic of a TPX 158
>passing through when a yellowcoat came up and asked me if I had got
>permission to take pictures. He then proceeded to tell a story about the
>current security situation etc. etc.


As the police now commonly ask for the assistance of the public in the 
form of photographs taken near the scene of incidents, I wonder if the 
yellowcoat would acknowledge that you were in fact assisting in making 
the place more secure by gathering what might one day be vital evidence?
-- 
Roland Perry

Pyromancer wrote:


> Sorry, but that's bollocks and we've had this argument here many times
> before.



Quite frankly, I disagree.

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:de2tcm$eoe$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "androo"  wrote in message
> news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
>> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
>> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
>> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
>> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>>
> From the National Rail website (the Rail Enthusiasts guidelines section):
> Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal
> use. For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought from
> the appropriate train operator or, from Network Rail at their 17 major
> stations.
> I presume that this statement is backed up by railway byelaws, and that 
> you
> should ask the TOC (Northern) for permission to use the photograph.
> Strictly, if the photograph was taken for this purpose you should have 
> asked
> first, though a photograph can be taken without consent for personal use,
> and the decision to use it for commercial purposes comes later. I cannot
> imagine that Northern would be so mean as to refuse, or to demand a fee, 
> to
> use the photograph for your stated non-profit purposes.


I don't see how any one person or company can "demand a fee" for something 
they do not own or have copyright of.

Could be wrong though?

KW

"Tom Haliax"  wrote in message 
news:E16Ne.876$jr4.323@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Capture Boy"  wrote in message
> news:de23a5$cdf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "androo"  wrote in message
<SNIP>
>>
>> It would be wise to obtain permission from Northern Rail especially as it

<SNIP>

Would Northern Rail have any say, if the pictures were taken before their 
tenancy?

KW

"Ken Ward"  wrote

>
> I don't see how any one person or company can "demand a fee" for something
> they do not own or have copyright of.
>
> Could be wrong though?
>

Anyone can demand a fee for anything, I suppose. Whether they can do
anything about it if told to get lost is another matter.

Peter

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:34:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>I was at Dewsbury this evening waiting to take a pic of a TPX 158
>>passing through when a yellowcoat came up and asked me if I had got
>>permission to take pictures. He then proceeded to tell a story about the
>>current security situation etc. etc.
> 
> As the police now commonly ask for the assistance of the public in the 
> form of photographs taken near the scene of incidents, I wonder if the 
> yellowcoat would acknowledge that you were in fact assisting in making 
> the place more secure by gathering what might one day be vital evidence?


I didn't think it worth pursuing that line: apart from myself, my wife
and said yellowcoat, the station was deserted. I expect he was bored.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632938.html
(43 025 at Reading, Jul 1985)

androo (andrew.YOURCLOTHESbutterfield@bradford.gov.uk) said:

> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's
> Annual Report. It's illustrated with local scenes and one
> we want to use is of Hebden Bridge station. We got away
> with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>
> Cheers


AFAIK once you've taken a photo you can do whatever you like with it. If 
you're trespassing, however, it provides pretty good evidence against 
you should they decide to pursue it!

(Which wouldn't happen - it would be a waste of their time.)

-- 
Andrew

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:hrbTEPBl3cBDFAo3@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <EDjNe.92050$G8.64961@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 11:45:40 
> on Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Andrew Bell  remarked:
>
>>AFAIK once you've taken a photo you can do whatever you like with it.
>
> There are some complications if identifiable people are in the picture.


Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal 
acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the clear"?

Always struck me as odd. They probably have more "rights" than the rest of 
us.

KW

In message <atkNe.13107$JB4.3167@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, at 12:42:46 on 
Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:

>> There are some complications if identifiable people are in the picture.
>
>Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal
>acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the clear"?


The guilty ones are less likely to have signed the relevant release form 
proffered by the film company.
-- 
Roland Perry

Ken Ward wrote:


> Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal 
> acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the clear"?


If their case has not yet come to trial, it might be considered
contempt of court to show their face.

Charlie

Chris Tolley wrote:

 > I was just down

> the road at Dewsbury this evening waiting to take a pic of a TPX 158
> passing through when a yellowcoat came up and asked me if I had got
> permission to take pictures. He then proceeded to tell a story about the
> current security situation etc. etc. 


So much for the ATOC guidelines then.

I encountered one of these guys riding the train the other night when I 
was trying to get my luggage-loaded bike on to a 156. Rather then help 
me (as many real railway staff are happy to do), he just stood
gormlessly in the doorway blocking my way, and when he finally
moved I found he was than gormlessly standing in the bike
space blocking my way again!

Sorry, but I don't think these people do anything to enhance
the experience of train travel.

Charlie

androo  wrote:


> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?


If the pic was taken on public land,(side of road etc), then you can do
what you want with it.You do not need permission from anyone to use it
however you want.

Even if a building has "No photography" signs on it, they cannot stop
you taking pics from the other side of the road.Some restrictions may
apply to MOD premises, though I have never seen any written rules about
this.(I took a pic of Tom King (he was defence secretary at the time)
entering a MOD radar supplying company, a couple of minutes later one of
the bodyguards/police came up and asked me why I was taking pics, I told
him I always took pics of 'famous' people when I saw them, he was then
happy for me to carry on after checking my name/address).

If the pic was taken on private land, say, inside the station, then it
is perhaps best to just ask the owners if you can use it, but IMO, they
probably will not be bothered if it is used - there are many railway
magazines with hundreds of pics published every month, I very much doubt
that even 10% of these pics have asked for permission to be used, and I
can never recall of anyone being 'sued' for publishing the usual railway
pictures which were taken from station platforms.
Alan.
-- 
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:de4p2u$2qhk$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

> Ken Ward wrote:
>
>> Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing 
>> criminal acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in 
>> the clear"?
>
> If their case has not yet come to trial, it might be considered
> contempt of court to show their face.


Can we apply this to "speed cameras"?, not that I would ever have to.

KW

"Tom Haliax"  wrote in message 
news:z06Ne.865$jr4.373@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:de239u$2cc$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> androo wrote:
>> > I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
>> > It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
>> > Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
>> > think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>> >
>>
>> Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
>> take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying
> differently.
>>
>> You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
>> asking permission.
>>
> No. Not if the photo was taken on private land - which is what a railway
> station is.


Not so. A railway station is a public place, i.e a place to which the public 
have a right of access for law-abiding purposes. Railways are subject to the 
Railway By Laws which have no law restricting photography. And that's all 
there is to it.

Some officials seem to think they can make up their own rules, but they are 
unenforceable because if there is no official offence then there can be no 
way of preventing the action!

Peter Fox
Peter Fox

"Yorkie"  wrote in message 
news:1124409893.959377.79770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Brimstone wrote:
>> androo wrote:
>> > I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
>> > It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
>> > Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
>> > think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>> >
>>
>> Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
>> take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying 
>> differently.
>>
>> You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
>> asking permission.
>
> Out of interest, if someone visited a station and, whilst changing
> trains attempted to take a photo of a departing train, and a member of
> staff says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!", despite there being no rule or sign to
> say otherwise, would you be allowed to defy them, take a photo that
> includes that person and then publish it?


Yes, because it is Parliament which makes by laws, not little Hitlers at 
stations (or in head offices for that matter).

Peter Fox

> 

"Capture Boy"  wrote in message 
news:de23a5$cdf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "androo"  wrote in message 
> news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
>> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
>> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
>> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
>> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Androo
>
> It would be wise to obtain permission from Northern Rail especially as it 
> is being used in an Annual Report and as such could be in existence for 
> several years.
> If it was for a private photographic collection then permission is not 
> really required.

Not necessary.

PF

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:de2tcm$eoe$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "androo"  wrote in message
> news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
>> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
>> illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
>> station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
>> permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>>
> From the National Rail website (the Rail Enthusiasts guidelines section):
> Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal
> use. For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought from
> the appropriate train operator or, from Network Rail at their 17 major
> stations.
> I presume that this statement is backed up by railway byelaws, and that 
> you
> should ask the TOC (Northern) for permission to use the photograph.


No it isn't and ATOC are exceeding their authority.

Peter Fox

Peter Fox wrote:


> 
> Some officials seem to think they can make up their own rules, but they are 
> unenforceable because if there is no official offence then there can be no 
> way of preventing the action!
> 
>


Not impressed by your fellow journalists' efforts at negotiating with 
ATOC, then, Peter?

To the original poster, I'd say that none of the photographs which
are printed in railway magazines have been given 'permission to
be published' by anyone, except the ones taken inside Depots,
works, etc.

You are absolutely, 100%, in the clear.

Charlie

"Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
news:de54s2$79e$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Yorkie"  wrote in message 
> news:1124409893.959377.79770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Out of interest, if someone visited a station and, whilst changing
>> trains attempted to take a photo of a departing train, and a member of
>> staff says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!", despite there being no rule or sign to
>> say otherwise, would you be allowed to defy them, take a photo that
>> includes that person and then publish it?
>
> Yes, because it is Parliament which makes by laws, not little Hitlers at 
> stations (or in head offices for that matter).


The trouble is though, other posters have pointed out in the past that staff 
have the right within the byelaws to ask you to leave, and any member of 
staff taking the hump about photography may do just that.

As an aside, do TOCs have any power to impose rules on passengers beyond 
those in the byelaws, on stations that they administer?


Regards,

Stuart.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:22:18 GMT, Stuart Smith wrote:

> The trouble is though, other posters have pointed out in the past that staff 
> have the right within the byelaws to ask you to leave, 

Indeed. They need a pretext, though.


> and any member of staff taking the hump about photography may do just
> that.

I can foresee umpteen examples of someone might be asked to desist from
taking pictures, including: use of tripod or flash, going somewhere off
limits for a better view, being a nuisance to other rail users or rail
staff, etc. But if none of that stuff is relevant, then I doubt it.

Of course, the attitude of the photographer is also rather relevant to
the outcome of such encounters. Any railfan who gets lippy with a member
of staff deserves to be ejected, in most conceivable circumstances.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857138.html
(43 034 at Bishops Lydeard, 27 May 1995)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:14:06 +0100, Charlie Hulme wrote:


> Sorry, but I don't think these people do anything to enhance
> the experience of train travel.


Not for you or me perhaps, but there are plenty of thrill-seekers
around. <g>

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632841.html
(33 026 at Basingstoke, 20 Apr 1996)

As a keen photographer, I have had a few minor (and one major - see
below) arguments with staff in the past about taking pix, but generally
asking them which bye-law are they enforcing and asking when Parliament
changed the laws usually works. I tend to find it's smaller stations,
where gricers are not common (and, as per previous posting, you might
have a bored/bullying yellowcoat) that are the problem. Oddly enough,
the police are not a problem - in recent weeks I have been taking pix
at various suburban stations in London and even when police have been
about, they have not said anything. I presume it is because they know
the law (I'd hope so) and don't want to be seen to be aggravating
law-abiding citizens.

I think the ATOC guidelines are to be welcomed because now, for the
first time, there is an official document that states we are welcome to
take pix. Since they came out, I have followed them when at smaller
stations for more than a few minutes (eg Hertford North, Tonbridge) and
had no problems.

As far as publishing is concerned, if you have told the member of staff
that your pix are for private purposes, then morally, I believe you
should not submit them for publication. If nothing else, if the staff
member you spoke to found out, you could end up queering the pitch for
others.

My worst incident with agrressive staff was many years ago at
Inverkeithing (in class 117 DMU days) when I had abuse shouted at me
and was told that because I was "near Rosyth naval base", I could not
take pix. I asked to speak to his manager and the gentleman I spoke to
on a telephone confirmed this, although I suspected he was simply
backing up his subordinate. I felt like complaining because I do not
like being shouted at by anyone - especially anyone in a uniform -  but
I decided not to as I feared that even then (this was before 0.8182 (9
divided by 11)) I might find myself on someone's unofficial "register"
of "troublemakers".

I've had little trouble about using tripods as long as you're not in
anyone's way or doing anything illegal or dangerous - was at Brighton
last night for the last (?) Mk1s and was using it there, for example.
Ditto at Norwich for 86s some time ago. Once at Newcastle, I was
politely reminded not to use a flash which was fair enough.

billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:


> As far as publishing is concerned, if you have told the member of staff
> that your pix are for private purposes, then morally, I believe you
> should not submit them for publication. 


Even on your own website?

Charlie

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:30:48 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:

> billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:
>> As far as publishing is concerned, if you have told the member of staff
>> that your pix are for private purposes, then morally, I believe you
>> should not submit them for publication. 
> Even on your own website?


The categories of "use" mentioned in the guidelines are "personal" and
"commercial". "Publication" is not mentioned at all in the guidelines.

I (FWIW) would interpret commercial use to include photographs taken for
inclusion in print media, but not websites unless those were either run
as part of a business (including advertising that business) or the pages
were pay-per-view.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683770.html
(143 624 at Bridgend, 2 Jul 1999)

Chris Tolley wrote:


> The categories of "use" mentioned in the guidelines are "personal" and
> "commercial". "Publication" is not mentioned at all in the guidelines.
> 
> I (FWIW) would interpret commercial use to include photographs taken for
> inclusion in print media, but not websites unless those were either run
> as part of a business (including advertising that business) or the pages
> were pay-per-view.


This gets rather subtle, doesn't it. Fotopic, for example, offers 
premium membership with the option of commission on copies of your work 
that others buy online from the Fotopic site. Does this change you site 
from a 'personal' to a 'commercial' one?

But the fact remains that the contributors and staff of Railway 
Magazine, Modern Railways, etc. don't spend hours contacting train 
companies getting permission to publish pictures taken on (or of) stations.

If I'm wrong, someone who publishes pictures in magazines
can contradict me.

Charlie

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:33:29 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> The categories of "use" mentioned in the guidelines are "personal" and
>> "commercial". "Publication" is not mentioned at all in the guidelines.
>> I (FWIW) would interpret commercial use to include photographs taken for
>> inclusion in print media, but not websites unless those were either run
>> as part of a business (including advertising that business) or the pages
>> were pay-per-view.
> This gets rather subtle, doesn't it. Fotopic, for example, offers 
> premium membership with the option of commission on copies of your work 
> that others buy online from the Fotopic site. Does this change you site 
> from a 'personal' to a 'commercial' one?


I believe so, and consequently I am not a fotopic premium user. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633063.html
(50 009 at Exeter St Davids, 1985)

Charlie Hulme  wrote:


>But the fact remains that the contributors and staff of Railway 
>Magazine, Modern Railways, etc. don't spend hours contacting train 
>companies getting permission to publish pictures taken on (or of) stations.
>
>If I'm wrong, someone who publishes pictures in magazines
>can contradict me.



There is no restriction on publication of photographs for news and
editorial purposes.  Commercial is usually taken to imply use in
advertising, which normally requires permission in the manner of a
signed release form.

Chris Tolley (cjt.7@supanet.com) said:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:33:29 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:
> > This gets rather subtle, doesn't it. Fotopic, for
> > example, offers premium membership with the option of
> > commission on copies of your work that others buy
> > online from the Fotopic site. Does this change you site
> > from a 'personal' to a 'commercial' one?
>
> I believe so, and consequently I am not a fotopic premium
> user.


Which of course you are welcome not to use.

-- 
Andrew

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:03:34 GMT, Andrew Bell wrote:

> Chris Tolley (cjt.7@supanet.com) said:
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:33:29 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:
>>> Fotopic, for example, offers premium membership with the option of
>>> commission on copies of your work that others buy online from the
>>> Fotopic site. Does this change you site from a 'personal' to a
>>> 'commercial' one?
>> 
>> I believe so, and consequently I am not a fotopic premium user.
> 
> Which of course you are welcome not to use.


I have a fotopic site, but because I am only interested in exhibiting
pictures, rather than using it to make money, I elect not to have a
premium account. I don't understand your comment. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309747.html
(47 196 at Clapham Junction, 19 Jul 1981)

Chris Tolley wrote:


> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:03:34 GMT, Andrew Bell wrote:
> 
>>Chris Tolley (cjt.7@supanet.com) said:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:33:29 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fotopic, for example, offers premium membership with the option of
>>>>commission on copies of your work that others buy online from the
>>>>Fotopic site. Does this change you site from a 'personal' to a
>>>>'commercial' one?
>>>
>>>I believe so, and consequently I am not a fotopic premium user.
>>
>>Which of course you are welcome not to use.
> 
> 
> I have a fotopic site, but because I am only interested in exhibiting
> pictures, rather than using it to make money, I elect not to have a
> premium account. I don't understand your comment. 


No, neither do I.

Charlie

The InterCity wrote:


> If that is the case, then it shows how trainspotter and 
> photographer-friendly British Rail was. Back then, the public owned 
> the stations.


No, British Rail owned the stations. It may have been a publicly
owned, funded and run body, but the stations were still private
property, and the public had no more or less right of access to them
than they do now.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

The InterCity wrote:


> Quite frankly, I disagree.


Which you are free to do.

Doesn't make you right though...

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Charlie Hulme (info@davenportstation.org.uk) said:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:03:34 GMT, Andrew Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Tolley (cjt.7@supanet.com) said:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:33:29 GMT, Charlie Hulme
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Fotopic, for example, offers premium membership
> > > > > with the option of commission on copies of your
> > > > > work that others buy online from the Fotopic
> > > > > site. Does this change you site from a 'personal'
> > > > > to a 'commercial' one?
> > > >
> > > > I believe so, and consequently I am not a fotopic
> > > > premium user.
> > >
> > > Which of course you are welcome not to use.
> >
> >
> > I have a fotopic site, but because I am only interested
> > in exhibiting pictures, rather than using it to make
> > money, I elect not to have a premium account. I don't
> > understand your comment.
>
> No, neither do I.
>
> Charlie


The two main benefits I can think of about premium is the removal of 
advertising and the extra storage space. The sales features are optional 
and for most people irrelivant.

-- 
Andrew

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:de4p2u$2qhk$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

> Ken Ward wrote:
>
> > Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing
criminal
> > acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the
clear"?
>
> If their case has not yet come to trial, it might be considered
> contempt of court to show their face.
>
> Charlie


Not to say slander (or is it libel for pictures with commentary) if not
charged or found not guilty

>

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:bc6eg19mj4n1vi06aurf1ueliibnlgqu6i@4ax.com...

> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>
> >But the fact remains that the contributors and staff of Railway
> >Magazine, Modern Railways, etc. don't spend hours contacting train
> >companies getting permission to publish pictures taken on (or of)
stations.
> >
> >If I'm wrong, someone who publishes pictures in magazines
> >can contradict me.
>
> There is no restriction on publication of photographs for news and
> editorial purposes.  Commercial is usually taken to imply use in
> advertising, which normally requires permission in the manner of a
> signed release form.


Correct - although many station staff don't understand this!

In addition we often get calls from TOCs asking "do you have a picture of a
certain type of train at xx station? we need one for a leaflet!"
So in the main there is a mutual trade off in getting access to our
archives.

(out of interest, those who have pictures used in the railway press could
hardly describe the process as a "commercial venture" - it probably just
about covers the cost of taking the photo and the time to edit or process it
and mail it off.. Add in a contribution to the cost of the equipment,
computer etc. and its certainly loss-making.)

Tony

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:bc6eg19mj4n1vi06aurf1ueliibnlgqu6i@4ax.com...

> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>
> >But the fact remains that the contributors and staff of Railway
> >Magazine, Modern Railways, etc. don't spend hours contacting train
> >companies getting permission to publish pictures taken on (or of)

stations.

PS

Forgot this line - a number of railway journos are members of appropriate
press or journalist trades unions or similar bodies and are able to show a
press pass if attending an incident or reporting on a specific subject. It
does make things a lot easier.

TM

Ken Ward wrote:

> "Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
> news:de2tcm$eoe$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> 
>>"androo"  wrote in message
>>news:J3ydnZZJ7NNgH5neSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
>>
>>>I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report. It's
>>>illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of Hebden Bridge
>>>station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you think we need
>>>permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>>>
>>
>>From the National Rail website (the Rail Enthusiasts guidelines section):
>>Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal
>>use. For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought from
>>the appropriate train operator or, from Network Rail at their 17 major
>>stations.
>>I presume that this statement is backed up by railway byelaws, and that 
>>you
>>should ask the TOC (Northern) for permission to use the photograph.
>>Strictly, if the photograph was taken for this purpose you should have 
>>asked
>>first, though a photograph can be taken without consent for personal use,
>>and the decision to use it for commercial purposes comes later. I cannot
>>imagine that Northern would be so mean as to refuse, or to demand a fee, 
>>to
>>use the photograph for your stated non-profit purposes.
> 
> 
> I don't see how any one person or company can "demand a fee" for something 
> they do not own or have copyright of.
> 
> Could be wrong though?
> 
> KW
> 
> 


I seem to recall having read in a photographic magazine that there
is a law brought out during WW2 that prevented any photography within
docks, harbours, estuaries, bus or railway stations that have never been
repeiled.

"DJ_Crazy_Frog"  wrote in message 
news:Ok5Oe.93497$G8.23008@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> I seem to recall having read in a photographic magazine that there
> is a law brought out during WW2 that prevented any photography within
> docks, harbours, estuaries, bus or railway stations that have never been
> repeiled.


In that case I have NEVER seen a picture of the waterfront at 
Liverpool...Honest Guv.

KW

Andrew Bell wrote:


>
> The two main benefits I can think of about premium is the removal of
> advertising


Two words - 'Firefox', 'Adblock'.


> and the extra storage space. The sales features are optional
> and for most people irrelivant.

Chippy (kev@minimoke.net) said:

> Andrew Bell wrote:
>
> >
> > The two main benefits I can think of about premium is
> > the removal of advertising
>
> Two words - 'Firefox', 'Adblock'.
>


Not really the point - it removes the advertising from only your own 
site, and for everyone - not just those that have seeken out ways to 
remove it. This results in a much more professional looking site in the 
case of those using it to promote a business, or a much more friendly 
site in the case of those using it as a friends/family affair.

-- 
Andrew

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:39:08 GMT, Andrew Bell wrote:


> Not really the point - it removes the advertising from only your own 
> site, and for everyone - not just those that have seeken out ways to 
> remove it. This results in a much more professional looking site in the 
> case of those using it to promote a business, or a much more friendly 
> site in the case of those using it as a friends/family affair.


A sense of proportion often helps. Effectively, I have about 3,500 pages
at my fotopic site. The ads which you say make the site unfriendly
constitute a small portion of *1* page.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633124.html
(D2271 (no TOPS class) at Minehead, 27 May 1995)

If this is true, then probably most of the population of this country
is guilty of breaching it! It reminds me of other (more ancient) laws
that have never been repealed, eg that it is illegal to have more than
three courses for Christmas dinner and to eat mince pies (allegedly
dating from the Cromwell era), or that you cannot beat your wife after
9pm.

I am not sure about the specific law, though. AIUI the principal law
passed during those years was the Emergency Powers Act 1940 and this
either had to be repealed on cessation of hostilities or contained a
"self-destruct" clause invalidating it from the same date. In any case,
if someone did try to bring a prosecution under such an Act, it is
highly unlikely even to get to court, let alone result in a conviction,
because any defence barrister would argue that the law has not been
enforced for "x" years, so why now?

billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:

> If this is true, then probably most of the population of this country
> is guilty of breaching it! It reminds me of other (more ancient) laws
> that have never been repealed, eg that it is illegal to have more than
> three courses for Christmas dinner and to eat mince pies (allegedly
> dating from the Cromwell era), or that you cannot beat your wife after
> 9pm.
>
> I am not sure about the specific law, though.


Its the Man In The Pub (Talking Absolute Bollocks) Regulations 1970.
See also the Amazing Thing (Friend Of A Friend's Experience) Act.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:33:19 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>
>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>news:ufvkg1hdttf17ke8t0el4fsutmfhla7atp@4ax.com...
>>>> There are some complications if identifiable people are in the picture.
>>>
>>>Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal
>>>acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the
>>>clear"?
>>>
>> Unless the person has been located and their permission has been
>> granted there is a danger that they could be currently awaiting trial
>> on a more recent offence with the photograph being a contempt of
>> court.
>> <snip>
>
>And yet people (the very same people) have to do their best to hide under a
>shirt or coat when being transferred from Vans to a Court or Police station.
>There seem to be double standards but, it's probably me being a "thick 'owd
>bowtner!"
>

The contempt of court aspect is concerned more with the accused's face
not being publicly broadcast until witnesses to the offence do so in
court rather than any official consideration for the accused's
embarrassment. It is fairly rigidly enforced in Scotland where
newspaper editors can be deeply into the brown and nasty if
photographs are published after a person has been charged but before
the stage during the trial when the accused has been formally
identified by witnesses and publication would no longer be an
interference. What is being prevented is the possibility that
witnesses (usually innocently) remember not the face seen at the crime
but the face they have seen splashed across the television and
newspapers. With the increasing disrespect for due process shown by
certain publications based East of London (which IIRC has resulted in
at least one major murder trial collapsing in recent years) we can
probably see more of the same being applied in England and Wales.


>I'll go listen for the postperson (she's rather nice!).
>


-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:rbqkg1lm05hneao3hks9irlesb1drnk4kl@4ax.com...

> yyOn 18 Aug 2005 17:04:53 -0700, "Yorkie" 
> wrote:
>>take a photo that includes that person and then publish it?
>
> Depending on the actual nature of the "publication", in the absence of
> a release form from that person they might be entitled to payment if
> they were the main subject of the photograph.


So how do the papers get any photgraphs published? Of celebs on beaches, or 
arriving at the airport?


Regards,

S.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:01:52 GMT, "Stuart Smith"
 wrote:


>
>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:rbqkg1lm05hneao3hks9irlesb1drnk4kl@4ax.com...
>> yyOn 18 Aug 2005 17:04:53 -0700, "Yorkie" 
>> wrote:
>>>take a photo that includes that person and then publish it?
>>
>> Depending on the actual nature of the "publication", in the absence of
>> a release form from that person they might be entitled to payment if
>> they were the main subject of the photograph.
>
>So how do the papers get any photgraphs published? Of celebs on beaches, or 
>arriving at the airport?
>

Unlike the example to which I replied they probably haven't actively
tried to prevent being photographed. There is also the element that
some "public places" are more public than others which to some extent
messes up any demand for privacy by persons remaining there
voluntarily for extended periods and ISTR judgements in recent years
involving comments on the lines that so-called celebrities must due to
their supposed status expect less privacy than ordinary members of the
public. WRT airports if someone really is that shy they are often
sneaked out through another exit as shown more than once on the
programme involving Heathrow's resident snapper; getting the
photograph will often be a matter of luck rather than ease.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote in reply to me:


>>  2. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents
>>     photography on railway property (or other private
>>     property for that matter)
>
> There are however the long-existing legal rights of a property owner
> to control the use of his property which do not require the creation
> of new statutes or byelaws for them to be enforced.


All of which are enforced by asking a person who is doing something
you don't like to leave, and then taking action against them for
trespass if they remain on your property, rather than by taking
action against the person for what they were actually doing.


>>  3. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents you
>>     from doing whatever you like with a photograph that
>>     you own the copyright to
>
> There are many laws which prevent you from doing what you like with
> material which is your copyright, in particular but not limited to
> anything offending laws concerning pornography, libel, official
> secrets, harassment, undue enrichment etc, etc.


Which is all nice and interesting but hardly relevant. I had
considered mentioning defamation but I decided that it was
beyond the topic of this thread because any defamation would
most likely be caused by the publication of the annual report
not the taking and use of the photograph.

Charles, do you disagree with me that the bottom line is
that as far as the railway is concerned in terms of permission
the OP may use the picture in his organisation's annual
report?


Matt Ashby
(neither Charles Ellson or myself are lawyers)

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
news:ufvkg1hdttf17ke8t0el4fsutmfhla7atp@4ax.com...

>>> There are some complications if identifiable people are in the picture.
>>
>>Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal
>>acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the
>>clear"?
>>
> Unless the person has been located and their permission has been
> granted there is a danger that they could be currently awaiting trial
> on a more recent offence with the photograph being a contempt of
> court.
> <snip>


And yet people (the very same people) have to do their best to hide under a
shirt or coat when being transferred from Vans to a Court or Police station.
There seem to be double standards but, it's probably me being a "thick 'owd
bowtner!"
I'll go listen for the postperson (she's rather nice!).

KW

Matt Ashby wrote:

> Charles Ellson wrote in reply to me:
>
> >>  2. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents
> >>     photography on railway property (or other private
> >>     property for that matter)
> >
> > There are however the long-existing legal rights of a property owner
> > to control the use of his property which do not require the creation
> > of new statutes or byelaws for them to be enforced.


Just so the trainspotters don't get too paranoid, they're giving
photographers a hard time at the Bullring:

http://tinyurl.com/ajeuy

"Matt Ashby"  writes:


> You cannot copyright a building. The relevant law is
> section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
> 1988, which states that the following work can be
> copyrighted:

>    * original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
>      works


Actually works of architecture can be protected as artistic works 
(cf section 4(1)(b)). Section 62 does however permit various means of
depicting buildings (&c) "permanently situated in a public place or
in premises open to the public", including photography.

Matt Ashby (mpjashby@gmail.com) said:

> Charles Ellson wrote:
>
> > Not if the photograph consists substantially of
> > something which is subject to another's copyright,
> > which can include a building or more commonly
> > WRT copyright law a painting or photograph on
> > display in e.g. a gallery.
>
> You cannot copyright a building. The relevant law is
> section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
> 1988, which states that the following work can be
> copyrighted:
>


French law, and I think others, provides for exactly that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright

It's a really stupid situation, and goes against the idea of copyright 
IMO.

-- 
Andrew

On 24 Aug 2005 17:48:48 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>Matt Ashby wrote:
>> Charles Ellson wrote in reply to me:
>>
>> >>  2. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents
>> >>     photography on railway property (or other private
>> >>     property for that matter)
>> >
>> > There are however the long-existing legal rights of a property owner
>> > to control the use of his property which do not require the creation
>> > of new statutes or byelaws for them to be enforced.
>
>Just so the trainspotters don't get too paranoid, they're giving
>photographers a hard time at the Bullring:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ajeuy


Nothing new there. Various shopping centres have an established
history of being awkward with photographers (including those taking
just the one snapshot while walking through) with previous letters to
such as "Amateur Photographer" documenting events of assault (removing
camera from hands of user) and criminal/malicious damage (removal and
exposure of film from camera). In some cases the preceding attitude of
the camera user probably hasn't helped but in others it seems to have
been clear cases of a uniformed gorilla picking on an easy target
rather then the resident neds who are much more likely to fight back.
The "security" excuse is often rubbish as anyone really "casing the
joint" photographically should be be able to do so without being
obvious about it, as demonstrated on the number of occasions when
television programmes involve a request to "turn the camera off" and
the subject fails to appreciate that just because the camera is not
being aimed it doesn't mean it isn't recording. This is not to say
that some places don't have a real problem, usually more to do with
maintaining free movement rather than specific activities being
undesirable.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

yyOn Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:26:11 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
 wrote:

<snip>

>
>Not so. A railway station is a public place, i.e a place to which the public 
>have a right of access for law-abiding purposes.
>

Incorrect. A "public place" in England and Wales is any highway and
any premises or place to which at the material time the public have
access (i.e. a station is not necessarily a public place outside
opening hours) whether on payment or otherwise; apart from a highway
there is no general right of access, in the case of a railway station
there is an implied licence (by virtue of the door being open and no
actual access restriction generally existing on the "street" side of
any barrier) for the public to enter and use the premises for their
_intended_ purpose, other secondary activities while inherently
law-abiding outside the door are not necessarily exempt from valid
restrictions being imposed by the persons entitled to control the use
of a station.
<snip>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:43:26 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>androo wrote:
>> I'm helping prepare our (non-profit) organisation's Annual Report.
>> It's illustrated with local scenes and one we want to use is of
>> Hebden Bridge station. We got away with taking the photo, but do you
>> think we need permission to use it. And from who, exactly?
>>
>
>Sorry to deflate you, but you didn't "get away with" anything. anyone can
>take photos of anything unless there is an official sign saying differently.
>

There is no general right to freely photograph _anything_ that you
wish. The only places which are in practice unrestricted are highways
and your own home but in other places you are subject to any
restrictions which might be imposed by the persons in control of the
premises. While criminal law doesn't currently impose much restriction
(but no doubt the Home Sec is working on it) you might find life
getting very awkward if you insist on using a camera where someone
with a bigger lawyer than yours doesn't want you to do so.


>You are also at liberty to publish any such photos as you see fit without
>asking permission.
>

Not if the photograph consists substantially of something which is
subject to another's copyright, which can include a building or more
commonly WRT copyright law a painting or photograph on display in e.g.
a gallery.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

yyOn 18 Aug 2005 17:04:53 -0700, "Yorkie" 
wrote:

<snip>

>Out of interest, if someone visited a station and, whilst changing
>trains attempted to take a photo of a departing train, and a member of
>staff says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!", despite there being no rule or sign to
>say otherwise, would you be allowed to defy them, 


Not if he was acting in accordance with the instructions of his
employer, because by that point you would have become a trespasser
(you do not have a specific right to use another's premises for
photography unless it is an activity which is permitted or naturally
associated with your presence there) and subject to any treatment
which the relevant laws allow which can include the use of force to
remove you if you refuse to leave. If you consider a scale running
from e.g. someone snatching a photograph on their mobile phone while
walking to their train to another setting up a tripod and getting in
everyone's way then at some point on that scale will be a fuzzy point
where the trespass ceases to be a trifle that the law does not concern
itself with and moves from being a theoretical act to a practical one
which might land you in court.


>take a photo that includes that person and then publish it?


Depending on the actual nature of the "publication", in the absence of
a release form from that person they might be entitled to payment if
they were the main subject of the photograph. If however you
accompanied the photograph with anything which could be regarded as
derogatory or tended to harass the person then you could be really in
the sh1t.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:21:59 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 14:50:33 on 
>Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Guy Gorton  
>remarked:
>>I have published many recently on the web, and some have appeared in
>>journals, all being taken either from the public highway, a public
>>footpath or, slightly more contentiously, from a Pay & Display car
>>park run and owned by the local authority.  Having paid my fee it
>>becomes a place to which the public has access.
>
>No need to be so cautious. If the public has access *ever*, it's a 
>public place.
>

A public place is only such when "at the material time the public have
access". In general (but not always, some laws might exclude that bit)
when the doors shut at closing time it is no longer a public place. In
the above example the car park is already a "public place" during its
physically open hours if the "public have access whether on payment or
otherwise".
<snip>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

yyOn Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:06:22 +0100, asdf <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:


>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:08:23 +0100, "Capture Boy"
> wrote:
>
>>The station is property of the railway company, which is a private company, 
>>so the public do not have automatic right of access. 
>
>However this does not prevent you from taking photos of the station
>from a public place.
>
>Incidentally, is the legality of publishing a photo affected if was
>taken on private property without permission?


Yes, the owner is entitled to relieve you of any gain you have been
able to make by using his premises without permission on the basis
that you have received an "undue enrichment". Even if no gain has been
made you could find the photo being used as evidence of trespass if
the owner still wishes to "get legal" about it. It really depends on
how "private" the property was; if it was e.g. unfenced land
immediately adjoining a highway then I would expect most judges to
refer the land-owner to the nearest taxidermist as in many cases the
law treats that in practice (if not actually in law) as an open
invitation to enter. 
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

yyOn Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:15:02 +0100, Roland Perry
 wrote:


>In message , at 23:25:21 on
>Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Gavin Hamilton
><gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> remarked:
>>
>>I think, but I might be wrong, that a supermarket car park is a
>>"Private place to which the public have access".
>
>Here's a random piece of advice from a police website, which may assist:
>
>        "The police can only investigate off-road collisions in a public
>        place, e.g. a council car park or supermarket car park. If the
>        collision occurred in a private car park, e.g. a car park not
>        for public parking, then no action can be taken."
>
>http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/faq/detail.asp?pk_main=1


That seems about right. There is IMU no rigid delineation to prevent a
"per case" consideration if e.g. a public car park includes spaces
specifically excluded from use by the general public as may happen
when a company pays for exclusive use of a number of spaces by its own
employees. This can result in a specific location being a "public
place" for one purpose (if e.g. pedestrian access is intentionally
unrestricted) but not for another (if e.g. vehicular access is
physically and consistently restricted); ISTR legal difficulties have
been anticipated in the case of car parks at motoring events which
have no clear seperation between public parking and use by unlicensed
and/or uninsured vehicles and/or drivers taking part in the events
(but who have not used the highway).
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:42:46 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>
>"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
>news:hrbTEPBl3cBDFAo3@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...
>> In message <EDjNe.92050$G8.64961@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at 11:45:40 
>> on Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Andrew Bell  remarked:
>>
>>>AFAIK once you've taken a photo you can do whatever you like with it.
>>
>> There are some complications if identifiable people are in the picture.
>
>Is this why, obviously guilty people, when shown on TV committing criminal 
>acts have there faces "distorted" and the innocent are shown "in the clear"?
>

Unless the person has been located and their permission has been
granted there is a danger that they could be currently awaiting trial
on a more recent offence with the photograph being a contempt of
court.
<snip>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Joe Patrick"  wrote in message
news:1124374676.378338.89050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> <snip>
> Whilst we're talking about photos, I was thinking of putting the
> different TOC's logos at the top of each of their respective pages on
> my website, however, I heard somewhere that if I want to copy their
> logo off their website, I must ask permission, which is understandable,
> but if I take a photo of their logo, on the side of a train/on a sign
> etc, then I do not need to ask permission.
> Does anyone know if this is correct?


there is "incidental inclusion". it depends how prominently the logo is
featured as part of the work as a whole.
cheers
james

Charles Ellson wrote:


> Not if the photograph consists substantially of
> something which is subject to another's copyright,
> which can include a building or more commonly
> WRT copyright law a painting or photograph on
> display in e.g. a gallery.


You cannot copyright a building. The relevant law is
section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, which states that the following work can be
copyrighted:

   * original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
     works
   * sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable
     programmes
   * the typographical arrangement of published editions

The position regarding taking pictures is this:

  1. you may enter the designated public areas of a
     railway station
  2. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents
     photography on railway property (or other private
     property for that matter)
  3. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents you
     from doing whatever you like with a photograph that
     you own the copyright to
  4. if an "authorised person" asks you to leave the
     station (or any other bit of railway property) you
     must do so immediately or be in breach of Railway
     Byelaw 13(2) and be liable for a fine not exceeding
     level 3 on the standard scale (which I think is
     currently £200, but I may be wrong on this)
  5. if an "authorised person" requests your name and
     address because he thinks you have broken a byelaw
     you must give him that information
  6. an "authorised person" may remove you from railway
     property if he thinks that you have breached the
     railway byelaws (this power is under byelaw
     24(2)(ii)), using reasonable force if necessary

An "authorised person" is:

  * any railway employee or a person authorised by a
    train operating company
  * anyone holding the office of constable (which for
    these purposes basically means a police officer)

So you may take pictures from the public areas of a
railway station and do with these pictures as you wish
provided that you are not asked to leave.


Matt Ashby

On 23 Aug 2005 02:26:07 -0700, "Matt Ashby" 
wrote:


>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>> Not if the photograph consists substantially of
>> something which is subject to another's copyright,
>> which can include a building or more commonly
>> WRT copyright law a painting or photograph on
>> display in e.g. a gallery.
>
>You cannot copyright a building. 

It isn't so much the building which is copyrighted, but the building's
design or probably in practice particular design elements which are
capable of being copyrighted. 

<snip>

>The position regarding taking pictures is this:
<snip>
>  2. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents
>     photography on railway property (or other private
>     property for that matter)

There are however the long-existing legal rights of a property owner
to control the use of his property which do not require the creation
of new statutes or byelaws for them to be enforced.


>  3. there is no statute or byelaw that prevents you
>     from doing whatever you like with a photograph that
>     you own the copyright to

There are many laws which prevent you from doing what you like with
material which is your copyright, in particular but not limited to
anything offending laws concerning pornography, libel, official
secrets, harassment, undue enrichment etc, etc.

<snip>

>So you may take pictures from the public areas of a
>railway station and do with these pictures as you wish
>provided that you are not asked to leave.
>

IANAL but next time you're in the pub have a chat with someone who is.

-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

In message , at 15:15:26 on Tue, 
23 Aug 2005, "O-V R:nen"  
remarked:

>Section 62 does however permit various means of
>depicting buildings (&c) "permanently situated in a public place


So photographing trailer-parks might be more of a problem?
-- 
Roland Perry