AddThis SmartLayers

Paper wins landmark web photos copyright battle

A landmark copyright battle has been won by a South East newspaper which lifted photos from a website for a police appeal story.

Following a routine briefing with officers last August, the Reading Post used seven pictures from the ‘Urban Explorers’ website which features images of people inside abandoned and derelict buildings.

Reading Police were keen to trace the trespassers as they believed they might have committed criminal damage to enter the town’s buildings and be linked to a spate of graffiti.

Officers did not give the Post the pictures directly, instead explaining where they could be found online, but after the Post carried the appeal one of the photographers took the title to the small claims court.

He claimed his copyright had been breach and demanded £495 payment for use of the shots.

However the Post defended its use of the pics on the grounds of public interest as they had been used as part of a police appeal – believed to be the first time a newspaper has won such a case.

Sitting at Swindon County Court, Deputy District Judge Kirconel threw out the photographer’s claim this week, saying: “Whatever view may be taken by individuals on the rules which govern our society…you can’t flaunt them.

“The civil and criminal law exists to correct that. It does seem to me that by posting these pictures on a website the copyright owner is promoting and encouraging his activity.

“These pictures seem to be worn as a badge of pride. And clearly the pictures themselves could make others think it was a jolly good idea to enter abandoned buildings.

“There also could well be an accident and the public may suffer. It’s a serious social problem.”

Deputy editor Hilary Scott said: “The police sent a statement with us to court, saying why they were interested in speaking to these people.

“As far as we know, it’s the first time it has ever involved a newspaper and that a paper has used the public interest defence in a copyright claim.

“We’re grateful that Judge Kirconel took the stance he did. It’s essential that newspapers are not hindered in helping the police and protecting the communities we serve.”

The Post, working with the Newspaper Society’s political, editorial and regulatory affairs department, used case law from 2001.

That judgement said a court would be entitled to refuse to enforce copyright of work if the work is immoral, scandalous or contrary to family life, incites or encourages others to act in such a way, or injurious to public life, public health and safety and administration of justice.

Comments

Chris Birchall (29/01/2010 08:32:11)
Surely the right to publish (in these circumstances) and the photographer’s remuneration are two distinct and separate issues.
Does this mean a newspaper could freely publish a photographer’s fine-art nude, for instance, on the grounds it was contrary to family life.
I think the photographer in this case should appeal this judgment – with the full weight of the industry behind him. Otherwise, who knows where it will lead.

Northern Snapper (29/01/2010 09:26:50)
“It does seem to me that by posting these pictures on a website the copyright owner is promoting and encouraging his activity.”
And surely the same can be said for the newspaper that reproduced them?
Can of worms me thinks.

John Murphy (29/01/2010 09:48:23)
Bravo to the Post, copyright is so often used to bully the media and restrain public interest journalism. The law of copyright only protects work which is considered worthy of that protection, it would clearly be an abuse of power to protect those engaged in unlawful activity from being detected by the police. All you angry snappers out there should read page 454 of McNae’s.

Claire (29/01/2010 10:22:53)
Chris,
You don’t seem to understand the distinction between a photograph which is not associated with a crime and one that is.
This person was, as the judge says, flaunting his criminal behaviour. Alas, he came unstuck. Just deserts, I’d say!
Good on the Post for doing this.

Dave (29/01/2010 10:26:39)
This is a ridiculous ruling. The Urban Explorers have a code of conduct governing what they do. They are people (often doctors and other professionals) interested in architecture, social history, and photography. They will not have been behind the graffiti. I am very glad that they are documenting important buildings in our towns and cities and I am quite sure we will value their work when these buildings are nothing more than a memory. For a judge to ride roughshod over copyright laws just because he doesn’t like the sound of the activity is a disgrace and should be appealed.

Jimmy (29/01/2010 10:57:56)
The urban explorers are law breakers, pure and simple. The ‘photographers’ concerned in these ventures are nothing more, in my view, than glirified yobs and vandals who get a buzz out of breaking into properties for their own gratification. It is right their dangerous actions are highlighted and condemned through the press to ensure impressionable youngsters who may view their exploits online are aware of the danger in no uncertain terms. Well done Reading Post.

Exploring Professional Photographer (29/01/2010 10:58:52)
“You don’t seem to understand the distinction between a photograph which is not associated with a crime and one that is”
First, trespass is a civil tort, not a criminal offence. Secondly, this has huge ramifications for copyright holders in general. Weasel editors – and there are many – could use any such weasel words to avoid paying for use of images OR copy – because they ‘believe’ it is in the public interest.
The judge is, in my opinion, a complete tool & there ought to be an appeal where I’m positive this nonsensical judgement will be shown to be unlawful.

J.S. (29/01/2010 12:19:48)
Jimmy – I think you really need to do some research before you make yourself look ignorant again. Trespass is not a criminal offence, it is a civil matter. And the notion that urban explorers are vandals, just shows how ill-informed you really are! Urban explorers are out there every week, operating under the code of “take only photographs, leave only footprints” We DON’T break into buildings, we DON’T vandalise and we DON’T graffiti. Any so-called explorers that DO are not true explorers. We document these buildings, research their history and in some cases help to protect the property too. I remember a case where a group of explorers found a building to be smouldering after local yobs had set a fire, they called the authorities and the building was saved.
Instead of worrying about kids seeing our websites and wanting to participate in this “dangerous” hobby maybe you should be more worried about the drug-addled music and film stars who are their idols and the thugs that they want to emulate from their computer games – God forbid that they get out in the fresh air and learn some history, eh?
(By the way, we don’t take undue risks either, we know what we are doing and most of us are trained climbers, we don’t encourage ANYONE to break the law or take risks that could cause injury. We are not idiots. I myself am a 36 year old female who has been interested in local history since I was a kid.)

Ivan Hackingtackle (29/01/2010 12:22:14)
Fantastic news. I am currently writing a book on the damage that Urban Exploration does to to the moral fabric of society. It looks like I will be able to steal photographs from anyone I like, with impunity. Presumably, the same will apply to illegally downloading music from bands who, say, are known to use drugs. Plenty of choice there then. Right, I’m off to download Pink Floyd’s entire back catalogue for free.. Happy days! :)

Anon (29/01/2010 15:09:36)
This is for the comments posted by “Jimmy”
I suggest you do a little research before you take it upon yourself to make derogatory comments aimed at Urban Explorers. Ignorance is bliss?

www.om-shantiphotography.co.uk (01/02/201
0 14:10:54)
I have mixed emotions over this issue. As a documentary photographer who has spent the last few years photographing the derelict industrial past of the north east of england i understand the importance of recording these places of historical and social interest. However i spend hours upon hours writing and telephoning companies, councils and authorities trying to gain legal access to enter the buildings. I would never break into a property and believe anyone who does shouldn’t be able to profit from their illegal activities.

Nigel Johnson (02/02/2010 18:30:08)
If the law had been broken in the making of the pictures then the photographer cannot claim (or expect to have upheld) a breach of copyright. Committing criminal damage and/or trespass in order to take photos is illegal.
In terms of the fine art nude, to me that seems like that’s a different thing. It’s not the image that’s issue, it’s the act being portrayed. Everyone entered into the agreement to make a legal piece of art (of potentially questionable moral turpitude – I love that word). If, on the other hand, you put a camera in a duffel bag and walked into changing room snapping away then I don’t think you’d want to claim a breech of copyright, but the act of taking the photo was actually illegal.
There was a case like this recently. A bag was found in a changing cubicle and the photographer had accidentally photographed himself setting the device up. The photographer could argue that the police publishing the photos constitutes a break of the law, and therefore the evidence is inadmissible… It’s a nightmare grey area though.
I guess what I think Im saying is that if the police can prove the original criminal damage was caused by the photographer and his party, then grant the copyright claim cuz the guy will need it for his legal defence.

Andy Drysdale (03/02/2010 11:53:54)
I think this is another case of the Police treading roughshod over photographers and editors seeing a story with free pictures. Bad ruling. Bad implications. Anyone remember the polics demanding all the photos taken at the Poll Tax Riots? Very sorry piece of history. And are photographers not to be paid for pictures if the subject might be unlawful. That’s really going to help reporting isn’t it.