Licensing of Trains

[rodent279]

34 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have certainly seen it stated in print that if the building being photographed has an architect he/she owns the copyright to the design and you are breaching it by taking a photograph without permission. I was very doubtful at the time though quite authoritative sources seemed to support the idea. However, that was some years ago and perhaps common sense has prevailed (a most unusual happening!).

No, I am not going to ask the architects of every building I model for permission.

Jonathan

I guess the problem is how do you enforce such a rule? If a building is in a public place, how do you stop public from photographing it?

[PaulRhB]

45 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have certainly seen it stated in print that if the building being photographed has an architect he/she owns the copyright to the design and you are breaching it by taking a photograph without permission. I was very doubtful at the time though quite authoritative sources seemed to support the idea. However, that was some years ago and perhaps common sense has prevailed (a most unusual happening!).

No, I am not going to ask the architects of every building I model for permission.

Jonathan

Very few buildings don’t have a formal architect. You don’t need permission to photograph it in all cases, I think it depends whether the photographer is stood on their land or not. 

If you needed permission all the time you’d never be able to have buildings as backgrounds in news, tv or film  

 

[PaulRhB]

 

Certainly with the railway you need permission to photograph or film commercially on the property, but not from ‘outside the fence’.

Edited March 13, 2021 by PaulRhB

[eldomtom2]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have certainly seen it stated in print that if the building being photographed has an architect he/she owns the copyright to the design and you are breaching it by taking a photograph without permission. I was very doubtful at the time though quite authoritative sources seemed to support the idea. However, that was some years ago and perhaps common sense has prevailed (a most unusual happening!).

No, I am not going to ask the architects of every building I model for permission.

Jonathan

This falls under the heading of "freedom of panorama" and varies wildly by country.

[inversnecky]

13 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

This falls under the heading of "freedom of panorama" and varies wildly by country.

 

Yes, not the case here, but in Paris, reproduction of a night shot of the lit Eiffel tower apparently requires permission.

[MarkSG]

On 13/03/2021 at 08:18, corneliuslundie said:

I have certainly seen it stated in print that if the building being photographed has an architect he/she owns the copyright to the design and you are breaching it by taking a photograph without permission. I was very doubtful at the time though quite authoritative sources seemed to support the idea. However, that was some years ago and perhaps common sense has prevailed (a most unusual happening!).

 

As others have said, that's certainly not true in the UK, but it can be an issue in some countries.

 

However, it is a little more complex than that, because the relevant right here is not copyright but design right. Design right is the intellectual property inherent in the shape of a 3D object, whereas copyright is the intellectual property inherent in a work of literature, music, software or art. So there's no copyright as such in a building, but there is design right in it if it is distinctive enough (although there will, of course, be copyright in the blueprints used to construct it).

 

In the UK, a 2D representation (eg, a photograph or painting) of a 3D object (eg, a building or sculpture) is not an infringement of the design right (although it can be in some countries). But a 3D representation of a 3D object is a potential infringement of the design right. And that, of course, is precisely what a model is!

 

In theory, therefore, you should ask for permission if you want to make a model of something that is subject to design right. In practice, as an individual modeller, that isn't an issue as your model will have no independent economic value and it's the value that's the actionable aspect of any IP infringement. But it does matter if you want to make a commercial model of a 3D object.

 

So, for example, anyone can take photos of The Angel of the North, even commercially, and there's no infringement in that. And you could scratchbuild a model of it and, although it would be a theoretical infringement, it wouldn't be an issue as your model would not have any commercial significance. But if Hornby or Bachmann wanted to do a Skaledale or Scenecraft version of it, they would need to negotiate with Anthony Gormley and, potentially, pay a licensing fee. 

[GlenPudzeoch]

Was there not some issue recently with nuclear hazard decals not being obtainable for those modelling nuclear flask wagons? 

[rodent279]

On 13/03/2021 at 09:18, PaulRhB said:

 

Certainly with the railway you need permission to photograph or film commercially on the property, but not from ‘outside the fence’.

So that raises a question. I'm aware of this requirement, and I know it's nothing new, BR had similar requirements. You're generally permitted to take photos on railway property, such as platforms, as long as it's for personal use. If it's for commercial use, you need to obtain permission, and I guess you may need to pay a fee.

But where do I stand with a photo I took, on railway property, say in 1985, that I now want to publish in a book or magazine, for which I will get paid for? I didn't obtain permission at the time for taking photos of trains for commercial purposes, and even if I had, I would be unlikely still to have proof of that.

Could/can BR's successors pursue legal action? Because if they had a case, then the floodgates would be open, and open very wide, as I suspect the bulk of photos published in magazines and books from back in the day, would have been obtained in the same way.

Edited March 16, 2021 by rodent279

[Wheatley]

With magazines and books full of BR era photos on sale in every newsagent and bookshop in the land for the past umpteen years, if any of the organisations now responsible for the dispersed remnants of BR's corporate responsibilities had any interest in pursuing this, or any right to do so, they'd have done it by now.  

[PaulRhB]

54 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

So that raises a question. I'm aware of this requirement, and I know it's nothing new, BR had similar requirements. You're generally permitted to take photos on railway property, such as platforms, as long as it's for personal use. If it's for commercial use, you need to obtain permission, and I guess you may need to pay a fee.

But where do I stand with a photo I took, on railway property, say in 1985, that I now want to publish in a book or magazine, for which I will get paid for? I didn't obtain permission at the time for taking photos of trains for commercial purposes, and even if I had, I would be unlikely still to have proof of that.

Could/can BR's successors pursue legal action? Because if they had a case, then the floodgates would be open, and open very wide, as I suspect the bulk of photos published in magazines and books from back in the day, would have been obtained in the same way.

They aren’t bothered by the odd photo like that as it’s taken while pursuing a hobby or travelling, It’s different to filming or doing a photographic study specifically for commercial gain. It’s certainly not going to affect older photos as it’s more concerned with risk assessments for filming if you do it now to ensure you are safe and don’t interfere with the railway operation. There are lots of hobby DVD’s etc taken on stations and photo albums and they’ve never taken an interest in those. When you get to tv news, magazines and other commercial media like Video125 that they do require permission for. 
The guide to staff is if approached by media or intended for commercial use to refer them to the media department. The BTP photography advice covers hobby use.