ChatterBank0 min ago
Christmas Lights / Copyright
Hi Everybody
I was walking around the other day, looking at some of the fantastic Christmas light displays that some people have on their houses at this time of year. It got me wondering - do they actually own the copyright (or equivalent) of that display? Isn't it essentially an artwork / composition that they have originated? If a company were to photograph the display - who's own the copyright?
Just intrigued...
- Gareth
I was walking around the other day, looking at some of the fantastic Christmas light displays that some people have on their houses at this time of year. It got me wondering - do they actually own the copyright (or equivalent) of that display? Isn't it essentially an artwork / composition that they have originated? If a company were to photograph the display - who's own the copyright?
Just intrigued...
- Gareth
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Harassment is an entirely different matter. The legal definition of harassment is behaviour which causes alarm or distress. Case law also determines that the behaviour cannot be limited to a single occurrence but must be a "programme" of multiple actions (though how many as a minimum is nowhere defined, meaning that two will sometimes do). Simply taking...
14:08 Mon 15th Dec 2014
interesting, thanks both. Although that's not the case with the Eiffel Tower. Maybe French law is different? It's that ruling that made me ponder this case.
I'm also under the impression that while you can take 'a' photograph of a person, taking a second photograph (without their consent) could, in the eyes of the law, be seen as harassment, due to its repetitive nature. Taking a single photograph is not harassment, as it's not repetitive...
I'm also under the impression that while you can take 'a' photograph of a person, taking a second photograph (without their consent) could, in the eyes of the law, be seen as harassment, due to its repetitive nature. Taking a single photograph is not harassment, as it's not repetitive...
Harassment is an entirely different matter.
The legal definition of harassment is behaviour which causes alarm or distress. Case law also determines that the behaviour cannot be limited to a single occurrence but must be a "programme" of multiple actions (though how many as a minimum is nowhere defined, meaning that two will sometimes do). Simply taking two consecutive photographs of the same person is unlikely to meet the definition. In fact taking multiple pictures is unlikely to fall foul of the law and it would have to be shown that the behaviour causes alarm or distress because of aggravating features.
I believe (though cannot be sure) that it is the lighting on the Eiffel Tower that is subject to special regulation. I think it applies to publication of night time photographs (meaning individuals taking pictures for private purposes are not effected) and I also think it was the company who installed the lighting who sought the legal protection.
The legal definition of harassment is behaviour which causes alarm or distress. Case law also determines that the behaviour cannot be limited to a single occurrence but must be a "programme" of multiple actions (though how many as a minimum is nowhere defined, meaning that two will sometimes do). Simply taking two consecutive photographs of the same person is unlikely to meet the definition. In fact taking multiple pictures is unlikely to fall foul of the law and it would have to be shown that the behaviour causes alarm or distress because of aggravating features.
I believe (though cannot be sure) that it is the lighting on the Eiffel Tower that is subject to special regulation. I think it applies to publication of night time photographs (meaning individuals taking pictures for private purposes are not effected) and I also think it was the company who installed the lighting who sought the legal protection.
nj
'' ..or on private property with the owner's permission ''
Just to test my understanding -
- If i take a photo standing on the pavement , of a private property - i dont need the owner's permission .
- If i take a photo standing on the drive of a property - i need the owners permission .
Is the above correct ?
'' ..or on private property with the owner's permission ''
Just to test my understanding -
- If i take a photo standing on the pavement , of a private property - i dont need the owner's permission .
- If i take a photo standing on the drive of a property - i need the owners permission .
Is the above correct ?
comes around every so often
The current owners of Hardys cottage in Bockhampton got the hump at the number of chocco boxies showing it
and as NJ says - it is the photograph and the photographer what owns the copyright.
If you have a portrait done of yourself I was surprised to find it is possible that the sitter owns the piccy and the arteest may retain copyright
The current owners of Hardys cottage in Bockhampton got the hump at the number of chocco boxies showing it
and as NJ says - it is the photograph and the photographer what owns the copyright.
If you have a portrait done of yourself I was surprised to find it is possible that the sitter owns the piccy and the arteest may retain copyright
Yes, as Peter has confirmed , baz, you have got it right.
You cannot own the copyright to an image of your own house provided it was taken from a public place. In fact, even if you give permission to take the photo from your front garden, unless you draw up an agreement as part of granting permission you similarly do not own the copyright to the picture. In principle your house standing where it does is "fair game" for photographers. There was a case a few years ago (can't find it anywhere) where an artist was painting pictures to sell of cottages in local villages. He painted the pictures and tried to sell them in the first instance to the owners. One of the owners tried to claim a proportion of the sale proceeds as he argued that it was his cottage that was providing much of the value in the painting of his cottage. He lost his case and it was ruled that it was the artist who was providing the value and the cottage was simply providing the scene in the same way as the subject of a landscape painting would.
You cannot own the copyright to an image of your own house provided it was taken from a public place. In fact, even if you give permission to take the photo from your front garden, unless you draw up an agreement as part of granting permission you similarly do not own the copyright to the picture. In principle your house standing where it does is "fair game" for photographers. There was a case a few years ago (can't find it anywhere) where an artist was painting pictures to sell of cottages in local villages. He painted the pictures and tried to sell them in the first instance to the owners. One of the owners tried to claim a proportion of the sale proceeds as he argued that it was his cottage that was providing much of the value in the painting of his cottage. He lost his case and it was ruled that it was the artist who was providing the value and the cottage was simply providing the scene in the same way as the subject of a landscape painting would.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.