Photos and video in MOD property.

I was just perusing a thread where the poster stated the images contained with in the thread were his and were not to be copied and used elsewhere.

This got me to thinking about an event that occurred a few years back. Top Gear the Tv programme were filming a stunt with a Veyron on our unit which was to be aired in the next series. Obviously this was exciting for the whole unit and every man and his dog were out taking photos and videos and pasting them all over social media and YouTube. The BBC were not amused and complained to the MOD that their programme was being undermined by the posting of private images and video on the Internet.

The MOD responded by broadcasting to the unit that all images and videography taken on MOD property, was and remained the property of the MOD regardless of who took them and action would be taken against those that infringe upon them. So for those that claim copyright on images taken on MOD property, just be aware that it may not be the case. Don't get me wrong, the chances of the MOD claiming rights is 99.9% not going to happen but if there was a copyright infringement by an individual, and the alleged owner took action, there's a good chance it will be thrown out as technically you are not the copyright owner.

(No action was ever taken by the BBC or the MOD but the threat was there. There are other stories too but I shan't go into those).

Radio 4 is very informative and a few years ago there was a programme about copywrite. The knowledgeable person said that copywrite remained with the camera operator who activated the shutter and this would last for 70 (?) years. I have taken many photographs on MoD property and I am not concerned whatsoever about publishing on line or in print

In a similar vein, even The Tank Museum states the following on their website:

"Photography: Photographs taken inside the Museum are for personal use only. Photographs taken inside the Museum may not be used for commercial purposes without prior arrangement and may be subject to a licensing fee. Please contact the Archive and Library for more details".

So just be careful in using photographs even if you were behind the shutter!

This is a complete minefield, if you excuse the pun. Much depends on whether or not the site where the photography takes place is public or not, and also whether there are any contractual arrangements with the photographer. That makes it impossible to make any sweeping generalisations, each case is different. Note also that in order to publish or use the photographs you need usage rights, which aren't the same thing as Copyright.

Andy

If someone or something is not a child and is in a public place, or a place were the public is permitted, any picture is copyright of photographer, and you don't need permission to take a picture. Don't put it there if you don't want it photographed. Somewhere you are 'invited' to visit, ie a museum can set their on rules. MOD property is the fifedom of the Secratary of State, who may declare any area 'Restricted' and forbid photgraphy. This was a pain in the ass for me as a photo of my old 101 ambulance has become a stock picture. If I could have claimed royalties it would have paid for her! :mad:

Mind you, at Sandhurst a few years back they had some real drool value kit. I did ask if I could take pictures and got told 'Fill your boots', well three cards anyway.

I work on MoD property and there is a very strict photography/ video policy, there are notices in the guardroom windows stating that filming and photos are not permitted without permission from the USO (unit security officer) and there have been a couple of recent incidents where action was taken when permission was not obtained.

One was when a group from a local school were on a tour of the workshops, someone took some photos of the vehicles in the workshops on their phone and posted them on Facebook, the second on was when Babcock were making a corporate video and were caught filming the interior of a new armoured vehicle which was parked right outside the USO and COs office! Needless to say that video doesn't exist anymore.

Difficult to interperate many years ago i was involved at an army base where the roads were open to the public when not firing and saw some one photographing buildings, we stopped them got details and reported to the guardroom, we were never advised of a follow up. This in the days before digital and social media

Radio 4 is very informative and a few years ago there was a programme about copywrite. The knowledgeable person said that copywrite remained with the camera operator who activated the shutter and this would last for 70 (?) years. I have taken many photographs on MoD property and I am not concerned whatsoever about publishing on line or in print

Sorry to be a pendant, but it's "copyright", the right to copy!

jh

I was just perusing a thread where the poster stated the images contained with in the thread were his and were not to be copied and used elsewhere.

 

This got me to thinking about an event that occurred a few years back. Top Gear the Tv programme were filming a stunt with a Veyron on our unit which was to be aired in the next series. Obviously this was exciting for the whole unit and every man and his dog were out taking photos and videos and pasting them all over social media and YouTube. The BBC were not amused and complained to the MOD that their programme was being undermined by the posting of private images and video on the Internet.

 

The MOD responded by broadcasting to the unit that all images and videography taken on MOD property, was and remained the property of the MOD regardless of who took them and action would be taken against those that infringe upon them. So for those that claim copyright on images taken on MOD property, just be aware that it may not be the case. Don't get me wrong, the chances of the MOD claiming rights is 99.9% not going to happen but if there was a copyright infringement by an individual, and the alleged owner took action, there's a good chance it will be thrown out as technically you are not the copyright owner.

 

(No action was ever taken by the BBC or the MOD but the threat was there. There are other stories too but I shan't go into those).

It's odd because the internet (or parts of it) features plenty of photos of the crews filming "Doctor Who" or "Top Gear" if they are filming in a public place, so it seems a tad churlish to complain about photos taken on private property or in the MoD's case 'Crown Property'.

jh

MOD rules:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ministry-of-defence-film-locations

It is private property - so intellectual property rights are not the same as a photographer taking a picture in a public place.

Sorry to be a pendant, but it's "copyright", the right to copy!

 

jh

Thereby demonstrating that every correction must contain it's own error. :-D

Chris.

(Just hanging around - and yes, that was a deliberate apostrophe.)

--

It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it

is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It

isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.

-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

a photo of my old 101 ambulance has become a stock picture. If I could have claimed royalties it would have paid for her! :mad:

Tony, if it's any consolation, given the revenue stock photos make you'd probably struggle to have a beer on it let alone pay for the 101!

That's torn it! The Command Car and Volvo transporter will have to go on hold then! :pfrt: