Photography lisence ..does it exist

[pistnbroke]

I got some vague idea that you need a lisence to photograph on the canal bank ..maybe if its of a commercial nature..doing a wedding in birmingham and hoped to do photos by the cut ....does british waterways only own to 6 ft from the canal bank..??

[adam1uk]

There are signs by the canal in central Birmingham about needing permission for filming. Maybe someone who's there could have a look and see what they say.

[pistnbroke]

have written to canal trust..will let you know .....permission is fine £££ is not

[BargeeSpud]

Utter cobras. If its a public space, you are entitled to take photographs & I think you'll find that canal towpaths are considered public spaces. As the OP points out, commercial photography & filming might be different. Besides, the only people who can stop you filming are the police & only then if its in an area where security or public order might be an issue.

 

Be interesting to know what the Birmingham signs actually say & just who is behind them.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Spuds

[grey wolf]

I would not have thought you need a licence to take pictures on the tow path unless it is owned privately. certain parts of the canal in Birmingham i believe are owned by the local wharf .

[Laurence Hogg]

This is a grey area, we used to pay a licence for filming until I found out that I seemed to be the only one doing so, but thats back in the 1990's. The notices are old and probably have an old tel number on them. I have heard nothing recently about licencing for small things like weddings or minor documentaries and being as we have had the waterway manager aboard whilst doing so I think that says a lot.

[pistnbroke]

Canal trust put me on to itsalocation.com who run the lisence for them.....

 

Quote

"Hi Steve,

 

 

Thanks for your email, as the images are not for commercial use you will not need to get permission from us for the shoot.

 

 

Hope its a good day!

 

So to be sure I have added to my contract that all photography taken in Birmingham canal basin is outside the contract and will be undertaken free .The images will only be available for use by friends and family of the couple .

 

Check out how I go on at www.1and1photography.co.uk

 

so with a copy of he Itsalocation letter and a copy of the contract that should shut the jobsworth up long enough...say 1/60 at F11.....

Edited January 21, 2013 by DHutch
link made dead by members request

[BargeeSpud]

I would not have thought you need a licence to take pictures on the tow path unless it is owned privately. certain parts of the canal in Birmingham i believe are owned by the local wharf .

Doesn't matter. If its considered a public place, by which I mean free & unfettered access, they can't stop you. If you've paid a fee for entrance or access, then you will have to abide by their rules including not taking pictures or filming.

[alan_fincher]

I thought the signs in Brum specifically refer to commercial photography. The answer you have received would seem to support that.

 

There have been stories in the past of thesecurity men at Paddington basin trying to stop people taking photographs there too.

 

May have had a thread on here at the time - I can't exactly recall.

[PiRSqwared]

In this context, I believe that "commercial" means that the pictures will be used to promote or sell something rather than if you are being paid. You shouldn't need to put any clause in your contract saying you're working gratis as this is not the intended use.

Edited October 17, 2012 by PiRSqwared

[pistnbroke]

Well it wont be in the contract just on a bit of paper saying contract ammendment to stuff under the jobsworths nose.....

[Jerra]

From UK Photographers Rights V2

 

There is also no general restriction on taking photographs while on private property, provided the photographer has permission to be on the property. However the owner has the right to impose whatever restrictions he wishes on entry to his property, including a restriction on photography.

 

To me this means that as the land in question is owned by a charity or a private company/individual restrictions can be imposed.

[Dave_P]

I have been involved in commercial filming on the canal in Birmingham and yes there are signs with a number to ring but I don't remember being charged anything. They just want to have a record of what you are doing. I don't have the number on me but a good place to start would be these guys who are always very helpful http://www.filmbirmingham.co.uk/ If it's for a wedding I'd give them a call and be sure of your position. You don't want some jobsworth coming down on the day and disrupting things.

[pistnbroke]

dave you forgot to read post no 7

[BargeeSpud]

From UK Photographers Rights V2

 

There is also no general restriction on taking photographs while on private property, provided the photographer has permission to be on the property. However the owner has the right to impose whatever restrictions he wishes on entry to his property, including a restriction on photography.

 

To me this means that as the land in question is owned by a charity or a private company/individual restrictions can be imposed.

I think the operative phrase is "provided the photographer has permission to be on the property". If the general public has free access to it, as a right of way for example, then the landowner cannot enforce any rules such as the one being discussed if they are of a non commercial nature. They would be un-enforceable IMO.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Spuds

[carlt]

BW used to issue a photography licence but, because displaying it in the only available porthole was detrimental to the quality of the image, it became totally unenforceable and was quickly abandoned.

[Bobbybass]

Many councils have laws governing the taking of COMMERCIAL video/photos...although this isn't always obvious as we tend to think that if its a 'public space' we can do what we like.

 

Try taking a commercial film unit around...say..Leicester Square in London..without a permit..and the boys in blue will be feeling your collar. I know..I'VE DONE IT !!

 

Its the same with any mobile video units as well..

Richard Hammond and his team.. were once carted off because they did not have the correct permit to film him driving a car over Westminster bridge....(good on the Mets I say !!)

[oldironsides]

Having been involved several times with television filming on CRT canals and towpaths, you do need a licence for commercial filming. As in #7, BW subbed out the licence giving a year or two back and there is no longer the flexibility that BW people used to give. There is a charge, producers have to send in risk assesments etc. etc. Theoretically, BW/CRT people then know when you are around and will help, but in practice, the details don't seem to get to the operatives who might help.

 

Not sure about stills photography, but I suspect it will be similar to filming.

 

There are very few places where there is a right of way access to canals and CRT can theoretically control who does what on their property. It could be very expensive to pay a retrospective fee or even to have a tv programme stopped by CRT.

 

I did enquire of BW what they considered to be theirs, where there was no actual boundary fence or hedge by a towpath. They do have a very accurate GIS map which shows all boundaries but they said that I could reckon on the towpath boundary being about four yards from the edge of the canal.

[ditchcrawler]

I think the operative phrase is "provided the photographer has permission to be on the property". If the general public has free access to it, as a right of way for example, then the landowner cannot enforce any rules such as the one being discussed if they are of a non commercial nature. They would be un-enforceable IMO.

But not all towing paths are rights of way. They can stop you photographing in shopping centres where they are part of a complex, i.e. not facing onto a public highway/pavement. Also they don't need to call the police, their security chaps can ask you to leave, but once you are off their property, back on the pavement they are powerless.

[BargeeSpud]

My posts have come at the issue from the perspective of Jo Public with his Box Brownie, so if I've caused any confusion I can only apologise for not being clear about that.

 

Guess I assumed the OP was coming at it from the same perspective & that the wedding he wanted to photograph wasn't a commercial photo shoot.

 

Check out this web page & scroll down to a question by Pawel & the response by Linda Macpherson. I think it might clarify things plus it has a link to the UK Photoghraphers Rights V2 already mentioned earlier.

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

Edited October 17, 2012 by Spuds

[BargeeSpud]

But not all towing paths are rights of way. They can stop you photographing in shopping centres where they are part of a complex, i.e. not facing onto a public highway/pavement. Also they don't need to call the police, their security chaps can ask you to leave, but once you are off their property, back on the pavement they are powerless.

Maybe, but your reference to the shopping centre is irrelevant really. That is within the confines of a building which is a totally different scenario. You would expect even public buildings to have similar restrictions depending on their use. Out in the open air, banning the taking of photographs is virtually un-enforcable if there is free access by the public. I can't stop someone taking photos of my property from the highway & nor can I stop them if they do it from the footpath that crosses my property either. The link I posted earlier & the question within it, explains the position quite well I think.

[oldironsides]

Maybe, but your reference to the shopping centre is irrelevant really. That is within the confines of a building which is a totally different scenario. You would expect even public buildings to have similar restrictions depending on their use. Out in the open air, banning the taking of photographs is virtually un-enforcable if there is free access by the public. I can't stop someone taking photos of my property from the highway & nor can I stop them if they do it from the footpath that crosses my property either. The link I posted earlier & the question within it, explains the position quite well I think.

 

Taking photos is very different from publishing them in a commercial context. CRT will be able to stop the commercial use of images, or impose a (huge) retrospective charge for use of images taken on their property without the relevant licence. Sure, you can take images of CRT properties from someone else's property. I do recall that the police had issues with the taking of photos of possible terrorist target buildings, but I am not sure who wants to blow up a lock or a tunnel, except in a photo-enlarging sort of way!

[ditchcrawler]

Maybe, but your reference to the shopping centre is irrelevant really. That is within the confines of a building which is a totally different scenario. You would expect even public buildings to have similar restrictions depending on their use. Out in the open air, banning the taking of photographs is virtually un-enforcable if there is free access by the public. I can't stop someone taking photos of my property from the highway & nor can I stop them if they do it from the footpath that crosses my property either. The link I posted earlier & the question within it, explains the position quite well I think.

I am thinking of the likes of Banbury where the shopping centre goes right to the canal edge but is still the property of the complex.

[Jerra]

You can take a photo of almost anything from a public highway the restrictions come into force (enforceable or not) when you are on land/property which isn't public and the canal system is owned (as far as I know) by CRT which is a charity so they can have any restrictions they want (enforceable or not).

[Laurie Booth]

Whenever I have got involved with filming and have asked permission the answer is always "No".

So now I never ask and by the time someone tries to stop me it is too late.

There was one exception where I got caught at Edinburgh Castle and was given a military escourt out of the place.