Reply to: Bleeding copyright jobsworths....

[Churchill]

Especially as the little blonde one doesn't look anything like mum and dad...


IGMC

Funny eye?

Aye!

[expat]

Actually some things are copyrighted so you can't photograph them. The ceiling of the Sistine Chappel in the Vatican for instance is copyright of some Japanese TV company that paid for its restoration. Doges Palace in Venice has something similar.

I don't see how a theme park would have a similar restriction though so the Boots person was talking complete bollards in all probability.
Mind you it's possible that Boots have had a kicking from the likes of Disney in the past so they have a policy in place for this sort of eventuality.

It is not the copyright that prevents you from photographing the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, it is the Vatican policy as owners of the building. One of the reasons for this may well be the copyright held by a benefactor; and indeed if the copyright is held by a Japanese Co then you couldn't publish a photo without their permission, but you are not prevented by copyright law from taking a photo of it.

I note an example, the illumination of the Eiffel Tower is copyright. However, this does not mean that you can't take a holiday snap of it (you can), it only means that you can not publish a photograph that is of it, or in which it plays an important part, without permission.


Boots may well have a policy in place for this. That would make it their policy not to make prints of such photos. It would not make it the law.

[BrianSnail]

report the idiot at Boots to the police for theft of your property.

Or invoice them for reproducing your copyrighted material. Boomed!

[ThomasSoerensen]

report the idiot at Boots to the police for theft of your property.

[TykeMerc]

Actually some things are copyrighted so you can't photograph them. The ceiling of the Sistine Chappel in the Vatican for instance is copyright of some Japanese TV company that paid for its restoration. Doges Palace in Venice has something similar.

I don't see how a theme park would have a similar restriction though so the Boots person was talking complete bollards in all probability.
Mind you it's possible that Boots have had a kicking from the likes of Disney in the past so they have a policy in place for this sort of eventuality.

[NotAllThere]

Were these photos similar to those ones that get taken automatically on rhe ride at some point?

[Moscow Mule]

Especially as the little blonde one doesn't look anything like mum and dad...


IGMC

Funny eye?

[Ruprect]

Had some photos from the hols of the kids that were taken in a theme park in Portugal.

as least they didn't call the police for the crime of taking photos of children

Especially as the little blonde one doesn't look anything like mum and dad...


IGMC

[BrianSnail]

Inform Boots of your legal rights under copyright law

Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

• If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.

• If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

HTH

[Advocate]

What's not

The copyright bovine tulip; sorry I realise my "it's not true" statement was fairly ambiguous, I am in no way claiming that your statement didn't happen.

[Sausage Surprise]

It's also not true...

What's not

[Spacecadet]

as least they didn't call the police for the crime of taking photos of children

[Advocate]

Went to the local chemist to get some baby oil
'try Boots' said the spotty oik


'Fk offf, I want to slide in, not trample my way in' says I






igmc

New keyboard please!

[EternalOptimist]

Went to the local chemist to get some baby oil
'try Boots' said the spotty oik


'Fk offf, I want to slide in, not trample my way in' says I






igmc

[expat]

Had some photos from the hols of the kids that were taken in a theme park in Portugal. Mam and Dad asked for copies (was going to scan and print them myself but the colour cartridge on the printer needs replacing) so off I went to Boots.

Scanned them and selected the one hour service - went back to collect them and got the ******* Spanish Inquisition. Told me that as they were taken in a theme park then they were copyrighted to the theme park and it would be illegal to give them to me

Why would that be? Copyright generally rests with the creator of a work, or the sponsor/employer/buyer who has commissioned it. Arguably you might need permission to take photos on private property (though the idea can hardly come as a surprise to owners of a theme park), but after they have been taken, there is no doubt that copyright belongs to you. Permission and copyright are different things.

Typical jobsworth, quick to invent an imaginary piece of law that supposedly backs up his baseless interfering.