Legality of this?

Rosedust84

I'm not sure if hes still there but a few months ago there was a man in a city centre SC selling his artwork. He had on the wall 'anyone caught taking photos of his work will be fined €50'. Can he actually do this? Say if I took out my phone and took a photo, could he call security etc?

Red Crow

Don't think they could fine you but they have a right to the photos. The SC wouldn't allow you to take photos inside and can confiscate the camera or at least this is common practice in my experience.

I was told I had to delete photos I took inside a SC before of my girlfriend!

Paulw

Eli Manning wrote: »

Don't think they could fine you but they have a right to the photos. The SC wouldn't allow you to take photos inside and can confiscate the camera or at least this is common practice in my experience.

I was told I had to delete photos I took inside a SC before of my girlfriend!

Only a court order can force you to delete photos. Anything else is simply a request, and you can refuse.

A Garda can only confiscate your camera if it holds evidence of a crime.

Taking a photo of his art could be considered a breach of copyright and he would have a case against you, should he take it to court. He cannot simply fine you €50.

JackieBurke

There is no legal basis for this.

The man has no power to fine anyone. Only the courts or the gardai have that power.

ResearchWill

Paulw wrote: »

Only a court order can force you to delete photos. Anything else is simply a request, and you can refuse.

A Garda can only confiscate your camera if it holds evidence of a crime.

Taking a photo of his art could be considered a breach of copyright and he would have a case against you, should he take it to court. He cannot simply fine you €50.

Breach of copyright for taking a photo in a public place of art work he has put on public display, can you point to a case or legislation that covers this.

NoQuarter

ResearchWill wrote: »

Breach of copyright for taking a photo in a public place of art work he has put on public display, can you point to a case or legislation that covers this.

I think there is actually. I recall ryanair suing someone because their brochure had a ryanair plane on it and on the tail of the plane was the ryanair logo. I think it was against IALPA or Bravofly or something like that.

Of course, im not sure about merely taking the photo, but using the photo could be a problem. As wih most copyright claims, it comes down to the specific facts.

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

I think there is actually. I recall ryanair suing someone because their brochure had a ryanair plane on it and on the tail of the plane was the ryanair logo. I think it was against IALPA or Bravofly or something like that.

Of course, im not sure about merely taking the photo, but using the photo could be a problem. As wih most copyright claims, it comes down to the specific facts.

There is a world of difference in commercially using a person IP and a private person taking a photo, if you had an example of Ryanair taking €50 from everyone who took a photo of their planes then maybe a point, but even Ryanair have not done that.

We are talking here of a tourist taking a photo, not a magazine publishing said photos.

NoQuarter

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is a world of difference in commercially using a person IP and a private person taking a photo, if you had an example of Ryanair taking €50 from everyone who took a photo of their planes then maybe a point, but even Ryanair have not done that.

We are talking here of a tourist taking a photo, not a magazine publishing said photos.

Oh I completely accept that. And obviously my post wasnt about the fine which is nonsense, it was only about the fact that taking a picture of a copyrighted image and using it again might cause a problem with copyright.

littlemac1980

I would suggest that there would be no need to find a comparable case in this instance.

Copyright subsists in any original artistic work, and is predominantly exclusively enjoyed by the works creator.

It is a statutory right, which gives the owner exclusive right to copy or reproduce the work, and also the exclusive right to grant licence to other in respect of those rights that are protected under the legislation.

I think on the facts as set out, it is clear there could be no doubt but the creator of the work is not licensing any members of the public to make copies of the work. Although arguably he appears to be offering to charge a €50 licence fee.

I completely agree that the idea of a fine is utter non-sense, and I'd think he'd have a hard time recovering the €50 bucks from some random punter taking photos by mistake or without intending to infringe his copyright.

littlemac1980

The relevant legislation would primarily be :

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

37.—(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in Chapter 6 and to any provisions relating to licensing in this Part, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to undertake or authorise others to undertake all or any of the following acts, namely:

(a) to copy the work;

(b) to make available to the public the work;

(c) to make an adaptation of the work or to undertake either of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in relation to an adaptation,

and those acts shall be known and in this Act referred to as “acts restricted by copyright”.

(2) The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake, any of the acts restricted by copyright.

(3) References to the undertaking of an act restricted by the copyright in a work shall relate to the work as a whole or to any substantial part of the work and to whether the act is undertaken directly or indirectly.

ResearchWill

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The relevant legislation would primarily be :

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

37.—(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in Chapter 6 and to any provisions relating to licensing in this Part, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to undertake or authorise others to undertake all or any of the following acts, namely:

(a) to copy the work;

(b) to make available to the public the work;

(c) to make an adaptation of the work or to undertake either of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in relation to an adaptation,

and those acts shall be known and in this Act referred to as “acts restricted by copyright”.

(2) The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake, any of the acts restricted by copyright.

(3) References to the undertaking of an act restricted by the copyright in a work shall relate to the work as a whole or to any substantial part of the work and to whether the act is undertaken directly or indirectly.

And in Chapter 6

52.—(1) The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.

(2) The copyright in a work is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which was not, by virtue of subsection (1), an infringement of the copyright.

(3) A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.

(4) The copyright in a work which has been lawfully made available to the public is not infringed by the use of quotations or extracts from the work, where such use does not prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright in that work and such use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

littlemac1980

ResearchWill wrote: »

And in Chapter 6

52.—(1) The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.

(2) The copyright in a work is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which was not, by virtue of subsection (1), an infringement of the copyright.

(3) A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.

(4) The copyright in a work which has been lawfully made available to the public is not infringed by the use of quotations or extracts from the work, where such use does not prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright in that work and such use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

Yes exactly - a photo of the artwork itself would be a breach of the copyright.

Some slight inclusion in the background of a photo taken by a random punter - would arguably be incidental.

Incidental inclusion would very much depend on the facts, and of relevance obviously would be the intent of person taking the photo and the intended or likely use it would be put to.

ResearchWill

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Yes exactly - a photo of the artwork itself would be a breach of the copyright.

Some slight inclusion in the background of a photo taken by a random punter - would arguably be incidental.

Incidental inclusion would very much depend on the facts, and of relevance obviously would be the intent of person taking the photo and the intended or likely use it would be put to.

I would pay €100 to be in court if anyone tried to take the above case I know of a number if judges who would die laughing if anyone tried to say a tourist taking a pic of a artist and his work on a public footpath was a breach of copyright. Just one case on all fours and I will accept I am wrong.

"Taking photos for purely private use

In most countries, you are allowed to take photos without authorization, if you use them purely for private purposes. For example, taking a photo of a painting to post on your home refrigerator will generally not constitute copyright infringement."

From http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

Just to be clear I am not talking about commercial use as same would of course cause problems. Iam only talking about private photographs.

the world wonders

Rosedust84 wrote: »

Say if I took out my phone and took a photo, could he call security etc?

It's a privately owned shopping centre so yes he could call security and ask you to leave the premises, and if you refused to leave you would be guilty of trespassing. He cannot fine you €50 though, except in the very unlikely circumstances that he sued you in court for copyright infringement, and that the judge agreed with him.

Eli Manning wrote:

The SC wouldn't allow you to take photos inside and can confiscate the camera or at least this is common practice in my experience.

I was told I had to delete photos I took inside a SC before of my girlfriend!

Now this is illegal -- the most they can do is ask you to leave.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

McCrack

JackieBurke wrote: »

There is no legal basis for this.

The man has no power to fine anyone. Only the courts or the gardai have that power.

Contrary to popular belief gardai do not have powers to give out fines, only the courts can. Gardai can issue FPN (e.g. speeding) which can be ignored and then brought to a court to determine.

Fines are criminal convictions and cannot be ignored.