New book on historic narrow boats

[DHutch]

I have spoken with hundreds of 'historic' boat owners during the past 40 years or so, both previous and current and they have all supplied me with information without charge. It would therefore be wrong for me to sell this information whether it be for profit, perceived profit or no profit.

I have to admit, while there may be areas where sensitivity is required, I dont understand why you feel this is the case.

 

 

I won't argue with that, good luck.

 

That is a different kettle of fish. You can not take a picture of private property, or a person, and use that for financial gain, without consent. A single picture of my boat, taken (or published) as an image of my private property, for you to make financial gain, without my consent is in breach of copyright laws.

Well at least you happy on one point!

 

I'm not a legal expert, on photos or otherwise, nor have really looked into the issue. However I think you will find that you are wrong, and there is no issue in taking a photo of an article or artefact in public space, and the publishing it for profit or otherwise

 

 

Daniel

[alan_fincher]

<And before you rip my head off, profit making or not, this book uses images of other peoples private property for financial gain. Are all the published boats's owners aware, and have they given their consent for their property to be used in this way? >

I can't see that the owner of a historic boat has any rights in the matter of who takes photographs of it in a public place, nor whether those taking the photographs publish them. (Or indeed the owner of a non historic boat!).

 

If someone publishes someone else's photos without permission then that is completely unacceptable, but not if they publish photos of someone else's boat, as long as the photographer agreed.

 

I do think any attempts to advertise the resulting book should be in For Sale / Wanted, so that the required moderator approval has been given.

[Laurence Hogg]

I agree with Alan and Daniel, shots taken in the public domain are yours to do with what you wish, I dont see staff photographers from the magazines getting permission to publish what they have photographed so why should anyone else?

Completely different if you publish another persons pictures without permission as thats a copyright issue.

 

Agreed now there are places and situations where you must be careful, ie doing "then and now" shots from a bridge looking into a housing estate where the cut once ran, I always carry full evidence to back myself up in those cases just in case you get challenged..

[greywolf]

As far as i am aware, you can take anyones photo and publish it but people like profession models in a photo shoot have to sign a release form for the photos to be published as the make there living that way. Most structures can be photographed and published without permission but i believe there are a few iconic buildings now that require a copyright release to be published.That at least is my understanding last time i looked into it, moral scruples aside.

[BlueStringPudding]

Can you? Where I work participants sign a release form prior to an event in case they happen to appear in a photo. Those who don't want to be photographed wear a sticker and must be edited out of photos before they're published in any format. I don't know if that's to be compliant with any law, or whether it's just considerate practise

Edited July 7, 2013 by BlueStringPudding

[madcat]

A long time ago when Halsall was still blue and yellow we encountered a photographer on the towpath. I wasn't in the market to be in a picture and Boris asked him not to take pictures of the boat, politely I may add.

Said snappiest carried on and published one image as a greeting card. Ignorant pig, I never found out who he was but I was angry .

I'm not hugely keen on being photographed by strangers but am otherwise generally friendly. It's normal to be included in group photos and that doesn't bother me

It is as well to remember that there are places where photographing women is not a good idea and is not appreciated.

[luctor et emergo]

So, have all the owners of the boats of which photos have been printed in this book, given their permission to do so? If not, how do you know that they are happy for their boat to be included?

 

Unless the law has recently changed, the photo is the copyrighted property of the photographer. But the photographed subject, be that a person or property, remains property of the subject(owner), unless they sign a release form.

 

Being in a public space has nothing to do with this.

Edited July 8, 2013 by luctor et emergo

[Derek R.]

My Great Great Grandfather-in-Law would not have his photograph taken, as he considered it would prevent him from entering the after-life. But photography back then, and in Rural France was not an affordable past-time for the majority. People have their images taken every day. Whether it is by coincidence by being in the frame of some tourist shot or a scene recorded for posterity - does it matter? But having someone say "can I take a picture of you" is a bit different - you can agree or not. How many images exist of people steering boats, whether at events or just boats moving along somewhere. Tim Lewis's images are taken of many boats and people at events and are put on public display, I see no 'crime' of copyright infringement in that. In fact it's nice to see old faces and the latest condition of their relative craft. All this palava about having images stored and distributed does change somewhat when such images can be transmitted to the World and it's wife - and therein lay a fear for some of abuse. But isn't this a World we have created for ourselves? Do the Guards on sentry duty in full red and bearskin get asked if they can have their photo taken by the hundreds who do so? It gets silly when this 'copyright' business is taken that far. How many images exist of people doing things from a lifetime ago that appear in published journals - from magazines to club newsletters. Some are reproduced with permission of the family - some are not - though their inclusion may be there for historic documentation. But where does that leave the passer by when taking photo's of new developments? There has been quite a bit of contention (and worse) over security guards intervening in such instances. 'Security' - that's a joke! Travel the length of the Holloway Road and you will appear on over 300 cameras, but ask for them to be admitted as evidence in an action and you won't get far. This subject does have some merit in preventing unwanted distribution of personal images whether under copyright or not, but we have to remember that all of us have our images taken unwillingly a thousand times a day from CCTV and satellite. Just as we like to be seen and recognised - see and record, it is a multifaceted issue that is only slightly understood and even less under our control.

 

Smile - you're on camera. Like it or not.

[luctor et emergo]

Typical.. lets kill of a proffesionall's living, because we think the world should be a free for all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The internet, will be the end of us all...

[winja]

I hope I get a copy of " THE BOOK " before it gets banned....... if you dont like having your picture taken why stand on the back end of a nicely painted narrow boat out in the middle of the cut ?....... and unless the photographer is a private detective or you are not wearing any clothes, he probably hasn't even noticed you exist..... rememember this.. none of us are as important to other people as we think we are.

Next time I'm walking along the towpath in a beautiful location with a fabulous old working boat heading towards me, I hope Iv'e got my book of contracts with me in case the owner is another weirdo

[luctor et emergo]

You are so ignorant' it's almost funny...

[winja]

Well at least I'm not bitter or twisted... and I spent the last 30 years of my working life as a Professional Photographer, including Weddings and Portraiture so don't tell me about copyrighted material and people trying to steal and copy images and killing off your business, I am thick though, I thought boat people were nice people, how times change.

[Tuscan]

Most still are.. Don't judge an owner by his boat or vice versa

[Hastings]

Well at least I'm not bitter or twisted... and I spent the last 30 years of my working life as a Professional Photographer, including Weddings and Portraiture so don't tell me about copyrighted material and people trying to steal and copy images and killing off your business, I am thick though, I thought boat people were nice people, how times change.

As co-author of the book, may I reply to this contributor and others re use of photographs. As i have said above, the use of photographs taken in a place to which the public have access is not restricted in any way. They can be used for any lawful purpose, and that includes putting them in books and magazines. Surely we must all agree that a free press (within the legal limits) is the bedrock of democracy. Sure, one has to be sensitive of the needs of certain people - children, vulnerable adults, women in certain circumstances etc., so one may choose not to take a particular photo.

 

Wherever the book's photographer could, he discussed with the boat owner why he was taking photographs, and if there seemed to be a problem, he didn't take a photo. But if you are walking along the towpath, and there's a historic boat moored up, no-one can seriously expect the photographer to walk on just because there's no-one around to ask.

 

If you don't want people to photograph your boat, please move it off CRT or EA waters - perhaps build a private canal deep in your own land! I'm not intending to be facetious, but simply want to emphasise that taking the photos for our book was a perfectly legal thing to do, and the resultant book has, we hear, given much pleasure to many people.

[winja]

I wasn't Knocking you, your book or the photographs used, I am on your side, and I hope this doen't affect your intentions of a volume 2, and i still intend getting version 1 when they become available again

[alan_fincher]

So, have all the owners of the boats of which photos have been printed in this book, given their permission to do so? If not, how do you know that they are happy for their boat to be included?

 

Unless the law has recently changed, the photo is the copyrighted property of the photographer. But the photographed subject, be that a person or property, remains property of the subject(owner), unless they sign a release form.

 

Being in a public space has nothing to do with this.

So can you provide a source that supports this claim?

 

And how (for example) has Google Street View managed to circumvent this problem?

 

I have certainly not signed any release form to say images of my house can appera on their site?

[koukouvagia]

Our son used to steer one of the trip boats at Little Venice. One day we saw a huge advertising hoarding for housing at Brentford with a picture of him on the back of "Holland".

We felt a bit miffed that no one had asked his permission, but accepted that there was nothing we could do about it.

I imagine the newly restored "Holland", now looking splendid, will be much photographed.

Edited July 8, 2013 by koukouvagia

[winja]

Has Luctor thought that if he ever wants to sell his boat he could put " As seen on page *** of Volume ** of the book ************* and the price he wants.... Job Done

PS the advertising hoarding may not have been ilegal but it was a bit naughty

[PeterScott]

Here is Wikipedia and here is another professional photographer discussing the issues of copyright and privacy.

 

On the subject of so-called model-release forms, the issue as described in the links is this: I take a photo of any person (my subject), then I sell the image to a company, and the company then use the image to advertise their product. The publication of the picture might create the impression that my subject endorses the company's product, and to ensure that the subject is happy for that to happen, the model-release form releases me for any obligatiojn to obtain the subject's further consent for that publication. The existence of model-release forms for that purpose doesn't create a copyright-ownership by everyone of their own image (or indeed their boat's image) when they are in a public place.

[DHutch]

Can you? Where I work participants sign a release form prior to an event in case they happen to appear in a photo....

As far as I have every known or witnessed this has only been the case where the photographs are going to be, or might in the future be, used for advertising. For instance, they are taking photos of you at an event, but may then wish to used the photos to advertise future events. Use for advertising is one of the few areas where you do need to get permission of those recognisable within the shot.

 

I have also seen it where there have been minors present, but as far as I'm aware even this is not a legal requirement, but one that organisations appear to take upon them selves.

 

*edit, reading the article provided by peterscott appears to support my previous understanding as posted above.

 

 

Daniel

[Chertsey]

Never mind.

I glad your generousity goes as far as letting other people make money with your property. It's like going to work, but not getting paid for it.

But what does one expect. We are slowly replacing paid jobs with volunteers. Oh how worthy. But how do people pay their bills, when they don't get paid?

Hmmmm?

It's hardly work, leaving your boat where people can see it.

 

In years to come I can see this being a significant snapshot of the state of historic boats in the first decade of thentwenty first century. But my boat's not in it either so I'll wait for tje next edition before I buy.

[Derek R.]

Replacing paid jobs with volunteers. I wonder how many high ranking politicians and Ministers would offer their services voluntarily (might get rid of some fraudsters). Would the many canal working groups ever have achieved their successes in opening up old navigations without volunteers, or wildlife rescue centres and WRVS exist at all. Not everything or everyone has the means to pay - such work is done out of genuine concern for the subject.

 

Canal and Riverboat magazine carried a cover picture of me steering my boat into Shrewley tunnel in January 1989. I recall seeing a photographer up on the towpath and gave him a nod, after which he must have taken his shot. Doesn't bother me at all, and I certainly would not expect to be 'paid' for having been in that public place no more than I would expect to be paid for walking to the shops. The copyright position is adequately explained in Peter Scott's links.

 

Google Streetview has been the subject of much annoyance to many. There are situations and images where peoples property has been 'invaded' by their cameras - through open doors and room contents through windows. Some properties have been 'fuzzed out' by request of the owners, and Google have complied to those requests. Streetview has been great for finding places and for seeing in advance a road layout and lane layout in advance of actually going to that place, but being able to see what is parked or placed on private property is indeed contentious.

 

If you take your boat into a public place such as a rally of some sort, you expect to have it photographed - looked at, and people want some evidence of a craft to keep or show their friends. It's perfectly natural, and to be expected. But if such an image were to be used specifically for advertising some product or service, then permission of the subject is required. It's all adequately explained in Peter's link.

[Chertsey]

I gather that Nick Clegg did actually say this week that he would be happy to do the job for nothing - but then he can afford to.

[carlt]

I gather that Nick Clegg did actually say this week that he would be happy to do the job for nothing.

I believe he was just assessing his true worth in response to a professional valuation that suggested he should be paying us.