Taking photos in places where it's forbidden

Irish Stones

In some places, for some reasons, taking photo is not allowed. It could be a museum, a private residence open to public, a castle, a cathedral or any other kind of monument.
But what happens if one manages to take some shots inside one of those places and then publish those shots on the web?
Will the stealth photographer be forced to remove the photos from the web / prosecuted / banned for life / fined or imprisoned / executed?
I have looked on the web, but I haven't found much about it. There's more info about taking photos of buildings, bridges, airports or people in public places.
Thanks!

clintondaly

There would be various reason but it depends on the location.
In a museum there is the possibility of say a picture being faded by the constant flashing of cameras
In a cathedral or similiar place it would be for religious reasons.
you are also talking possible copyright infrigemnets too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Irish Stones wrote: »

In some places, for some reasons, taking photo is not allowed. It could be a museum, a private residence open to public, a castle, a cathedral or any other kind of monument.
But what happens if one manages to take some shots inside one of those places and then publish those shots on the web?
Will the stealth photographer be forced to remove the photos from the web / prosecuted / banned for life / fined or imprisoned / executed?
I have looked on the web, but I haven't found much about it. There's more info about taking photos of buildings, bridges, airports or people in public places.
Thanks!

Taking pictures is one thing.

Publishing them without required permission is another - and that could get you into trouble just as easily as if they were taken in a public place.

magicbastarder

under what law?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

magicbastarder wrote: »

under what law?

I said "could". My point being, if the person is going to get into trouble, it's the publishing aspect that would be under consideration. If he's not breaking the law, then it doesn;t really matter.

Ben D Bus

I have the interior of the Hugh Lane Gallery up on my Flickr (just the wonderful doorways, none of the art). Haven't had the Feds kicking my door in yet.

And I'm sure I've seen a pic or 2 of Grand Canal Square up on the web somewhere. That's all private property too.

Judge

NB: I am not a lawyer but this based on what I have been told by others.

Section 93(1) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 would cover most of the circumstances discussed here, I think:

93.—(1) This section applies to the copyright in—

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by—

(a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it,

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.

(3) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.

Hence, there should be no problem - at least in Ireland - with publishing such works on sites such as Flickr. The same is not necessarily true in other countries. France is especially draconian in this regard if I recall correctly.

Selling such works may be a different matter however, at least if the copyright is still in effect for the building or artwork in question. I have never been able to get a definitive answer on this aspect.

Certainly stock sites such as Getty require contributors to submit a property release form with any architectural shots, although this may be legal arse covering.

Irish Stones

Well, in my case we were clearly told that no pictures were allowed inside there and the guides made sure that all cameras were in the pockets.
I don't if it was a copyright issue, it may be, so that only them can sell images of the interiors, but they didn't talk about copyright, more about a form of respect for the place.
So it's not the publishing to be worried about, but it's the fact that a photo was taken where it wasn't allowed, and the publishing is the proof that somebody ignored that order.
Thanks

the_monkey

Irish Stones wrote: »

Well, in my case we were clearly told that no pictures were allowed inside there and the guides made sure that all cameras were in the pockets.
I don't if it was a copyright issue, it may be, so that only them can sell images of the interiors, but they didn't talk about copyright, more about a form of respect for the place.
So it's not the publishing to be worried about, but it's the fact that a photo was taken where it wasn't allowed, and the publishing is the proof that somebody ignored that order.
Thanks

Out of interest where was this place ?

Irish Stones

the_monkey wrote: »

Out of interest where was this place ?

I feel quite embarassed writing this... I'll give you a hint, it's a very famous passage tomb in county Meath, next to the River Boyne

DaireQuinlan

Irish Stones wrote: »

I feel quite embarassed writing this... I'll give you a hint, it's a very famous passage tomb in county Meath, next to the River Boyne

Dowth ??!?

Irish Stones

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Dowth ??!?

No
It starts with "new" and ends with "..ange"
The sunlight enters through its passage on Winter Solstice and illuminates the inner chamber

AngryHippie

You're not allowed to take photographs in Newgrange ?

Go to Loughcrew instead.

Strolled in there with my 550D two weeks ago on, they even handed me a torch to help light it up while they gave me a guided tour. No issues at all, and more significant rock art IMO.

Not sure what the deal is with Newgrange, it may be to allow everyone else to enjoy it, but it strikes me as ridiculous not to allow photo friendly visits.

Irish Stones

AngryHippie wrote: »

You're not allowed to take photographs in Newgrange ?

Go to Loughcrew instead.

Strolled in there with my 550D two weeks ago on, they even handed me a torch to help light it up while they gave me a guided tour. No issues at all, and more significant rock art IMO.

Not sure what the deal is with Newgrange, it may be to allow everyone else to enjoy it, but it strikes me as ridiculous not to allow photo friendly visits.

No, at Newgrange they asked everybody to store their cameras away before entering the tomb. It was my second time there, and I knew of the photo ban since my first visit about 12 years ago.
The guide told us that the photo ban was out of respect for the place and for the people who had been buried there. Don't know if it's a real reason.
So I wonder what could happen to me if any photo taken without permission would be made public on the web.

A few days later, about one month ago, I was at Loughcrew and I was able to get into the main tomb twice in the same morning and had no problem with the photos.

Jimjay

clintondaly wrote: »

There would be various reason but it depends on the location.
In a museum there is the possibility of say a picture being faded by the constant flashing of cameras
In a cathedral or similiar place it would be for religious reasons.
you are also talking possible copyright infrigemnets too.

I dont think taking pictures is banned in cathedrals for religious reasons. Some allow it and some don't. Last time i was in lincoln cathedral they said i could take pictures if i put a donation in their collection box. Another cathedral said if i wanted pictures i had to buy their official ones. Other tourist places around Europe have no problems with people taking pictures in religious sites.