Photogrpahy At Northern Soul Events

[Guest bill storey]

As a keen Northern Soul follower and also a well regarded photographer ( mostly landscapes ) I often find myself taking phptpgrpahs of northern soul events. I recently went to Bury Town Hall and a great night was enjoyed by most. I was taking snaps throughout the night and also informed the guys on the door and some dj's that I would be doing so and that they would be more then welcome to use my pictures as promo shots if they so wished. A couple of people complained as I was taking photographs, one gentleman asked me to wipe his photograph which I did no problem I always respect the wishes of individuals. Another lady asked me to remove her photograph and any shots of the dance floor in which she may have appeared, also she stated to me that I was breaking the law by taking photographs of people. I always make it clear to the door staff that I will be taking photographs and so long as they have no problem I will snap waay. I take no suggestive shots or shots of peopole in compromising positions. I have always beleived it is ok to do this in a place where it would be comonly acceptable and regarded as the norm. Please let me know if I am against current legislation and I will pack in, however this will concur that all other non specific photographs from events posted on here and the internet in general without signed model release forms will also need to be removed and deleted. Any thoughts much appreciated.

[TOAD]

its getting OTT. Ban cameras

[Wiganer1]

im ok as long as u contact my agent,,,lol

[Chalky]

Don't quote me but if someone is an insignifican part of a bigger picture, i.e. dancer on the dancefloor then you don't need their permission.

If the person being photographed is the main subject then you might need permission but they can always object and you can remove it.

Should be plenty of reading on google if you google permission needed when taking photos of people.

I rarely bother with people when I take the camera out, just the acts.

[Guest dundeedavie]

Don't quote me but if someone is an insignifican part of a bigger picture, i.e. dancer on the dancefloor then you don't need their permission.

If the person being photographed is the main subject then you might need permission but they can always object and you can remove it.

Should be plenty of reading on google if you google permission needed when taking photos of people.

I rarely bother with people when I take the camera out, just the acts.

As a photographer you're pretty much spot on, and you don't need a model release either.

[Guest bill storey]

Thanks Davie it's a grey grey area lol 18% grey if I'm not mistaken... Just looked at your link nice work pal. Bill Storey " TinDog " https://www.redbubble.com/people/tindog

[Guest Soultown andy]

Never had a problem with people takin photos,there are a few very precious types out and about these days.

[Guest in town Mikey]

Doesnt Dave the Photographer, um, take photo's?

Not ever seen anyone have a problem with him.

Am I missing something?

[Casper]

just keep taking the pictures Bill ! .. most people love to see whats been going on at events ... but just respect people who dont like it , as you already do

pete n' susan ktf

[Alison H]

Keep doing what you're doing.

I love looking at other people's photo's, especially from places that I never went to, Wigan, Mecca, Leeds Central etc it gives me a visual insight into a time & place.

I snap from time to time , usually friends and people I know, but if I don't know one of the people that I'm snapping, I always check whether it's okay to put it on Soul source or another site, and not once has anyone said no. A lady did private message me once and asked me to remove a photo, as she said she looked like an Humpa Lumpa (her words) I thought she looked gorgeous, but I respected her wishes, & removed it.

Even though I love photo's (& being in them with my friends, not comfortable posing on my own) I did run away from a large lens at the weekend, and hid behind a speaker The photographer tends to take them at unusual angles, the photo's are very artistic, but I just didn't fancy being snapped upside down I didn't complain, because I enjoy looking at his photo's (as long as they don't have me in them) He has as much right to snap with his big lens, as I have with my little digital camera

Ali x

Edited June 19, 2012 by Alison H

[good angel]

Keep doing what you're doing.

I love looking at other people's photo's, especially from places that I never went to, Wigan, Mecca, Leeds Central etc it gives me a visual insight into a time & place.

I snap from time to time , usually friends and people I know, but if I don't know one of the people that I'm snapping, I always check whether it's okay to put it on Soul source or another site, and not once has anyone said no. A lady did private message me once and asked me to remove a photo, as she said she looked like an Humpa Lumpa (her words) I thought she looked gorgeous, but I respected her wishes, & removed it.

Even though I love photo's (& being in them with my friends, not comfortable posing on my own) I did run away from a large lens at the weekend, and hid behind a speaker The photographer tends to take them at unusual angles, the photo's are very artistic, but I just didn't fancy being snapped upside down I didn't complain, because I enjoy looking at his photo's (as long as they don't have me in them ) He has as much right to snap with his big lens, as I have with my little digital camera

Ali x

I remember our picture together,then I had a cowboy hat on.

Atb,Kev

[Alison H]

I remember our picture together,then I had a cowboy hat on.

Atb,Kev

:lol: I forgot about that one Woody

[Mark S]

I,m the fat middle aged bloke if you see me dont take my picture

[Guest dundeedavie]

Thanks Davie it's a grey grey area lol 18% grey if I'm not mistaken... Just looked at your link nice work pal. Bill Storey " TinDog " https://www.redbubble.com/people/tindog

just had a look at yours too, very nice

[Guest smudgesmith]

Is it original film or digital? That is the question..........only allow OFO (Original film only) LOL

[Guest bill storey]

Thanks for the replies people I think it's business as usual. KTF

[ste gal 7]

can u delete the one of me doing a backdrop or if the social get hold of it tell them i was pushed backwards and fell, i dont want to be signed off

Edited June 20, 2012 by stegal7

[Guest mellytee]

if you can take a nice one of me looking 25 and wrinkle free feel free..............Best of luck!!!!! X Hate close up mug shots but love to see groups of friends or dance floor....

[Len]

I'm not sure of the law, copyright etc. but I think a good photographer should always respect his subjects.

Recently I (Along with a few others) got 'e' mailed a picture of myself dancing to the last record at Burnley with a witty comment and I 'replied all' something on the lines of "Blo"dy cameras should be banned!" It was kinda 'tongue in cheek' but 'even I' don't look my best at 6.00am after 'dancing hard' for 8 hours solid!

I say 'tongue in cheek' as believe it or not, I wasn't that bothered by the photo, more amused by looking at some stupid tw*t (me) at that age dancing all blo*dy night 200 miles away from home. But....In the defence of the chap that took the photo (who was included in the mass 'e' mail) He immediately sent me a lovely 'e' mail concerned that I had taken hum bridge over the said photo and explained that he edits a lot of his photos and takes extreme care not to print or show anything that he thinks the 'subject' may not approve of (unflattering photos etc.)

I was really touched by his concern for my feelings and thought what a great example and would hope other photographers also have his ethos.

Is this something that professional photographers learn or is this just a reflection of this particular chaps caring personality?

All the best,

Len.

Edited June 21, 2012 by LEN

[Little-stevie]

I thought the title said "pornography at northern soul events "...

I was about to post about them dvds doing the rounds that feature our canine freinds

Sorry.. very off topic...

[Soulandy]

I was at Bury and saw you take some photo's. No worries on my part. Have you put them up anywhere? Can't seem to fine them on your site.

[Guest ScooterNik]

The law is that you can take photographs of anyone, anywhere. There is nothing in the law to stop this, although people seem to think it's infringing their rights.

Sorry, but it isn't.

I photograph scooter rallies occasionally for Scootering magazine, so am essentially in the same position. Unless I'm trying to catch casual shots or dancefloor action, a simple gesture of holding the camera up and pointing at the person explains what I want, and if they say "no" then I respect that and move on. That said, if I saw one of them passed out later, then they've become fair game again!

Snap away, delete if asked, but don't let anyone try and bully you into not taking photographs.

This may help you btw:

The original video has been taken down, but as stated in the article, the only public place where you can not take photos is where there is a potential theat of terrorism.

Hope this helps.

[Guest]

Oh yes, and lots of potential terrorists at soul nights!

[Jbs]

dont like em ,ban em invasion of privacy because they never ask first.

[Illya]

There is always reasons why people don't like there images taken, They could be off work with sickness, and a chance there employers could see the image. They are claiming from the Department for Works And Pension and dancing away could put there claim at risk, or there pupils could be the wrong size no what I mean

[Guest bill storey]

I may be taking snaps tonight at The Stoke allnighter please let me know if you don't want me to!

[Amsterdam Russ]

Copyright Law is a very complex area with countless grey areas.

As a loose guideline, you can take pictures in public places and use these for private and commercial use. There are exceptions. For example, you cannot take photos in Trafalgar Square and use them commercially - not without a permit. It is the same with the London Gherkin, which is one of the only buildings in the UK with copyrights relating to photography.

This is similar to the absurd situation that prevents professional photographers from using images of the Eiffel Tower in Paris commercially - if they are taken at night, but not if they are taken during daylight hours.

Back to the point, whilst in the UK you are free to take and make use of photos taken whilst in public places, the inside a building is not a public place.

Therefore photographers looking to take professional photos (ie images for commercial use), ought to have permission from the management who have the right to refuse.

Likewise, members of the public in private places have a clear right to refuse to have their photo taken - unless there is explicit agreement in the terms and conditions associated with entry to that private place. For example, when you go to a football match, the terms and conditions surrounding your purchase of a ticket explicitly state that you give your permission a) to be photographed and b) for those photographs to be used as they see fit, including commercially.

At the end of that day, and relative to the issues being discussed here, if you want to take more than snapshots at a venue you should:

a) get permission from the management, and

b) at the very least, and as a matter of common courtesy, you should ask permission of the people you are taking photos of. It's the decent thing to do.

[Rich Buckley]

Spot on Russell. It's the same when we're filming for TV. If we're filming in a club we'll usually put a board up at the entrance making clear we're filming and asking joe public to inform us if they object. If they do object we'll not include any footage of them. You don't need to ask everybody individually or get them to personally sign a release although we always would if we interviewed them etc.

That being said, Bill sounds like he has the correct approach and I'm with Alison, keep snapping!

Rich

[Ian Dewhirst]

This is an area that seems to be becoming quite contentious though. I have to license every CD cover by the book, which means not only the photographer or agency signing off but also the subject of the photo, so I can only have 'model released' pics on my albums.

There have been several occasions over the last few years when albums have had to be pulled even though they've had an an agency sign off because an individual in the picture has objected to the use of their image.

I recently wanted to use a still from the film "Metropolis" which involved a sign-off from the agency, sign-offs from the entity which controlled the film still and various factions of Fritz Lang's family, who all wanted payments. It would have cost over £5000 to use that photo and probably taken months to get all the agreements in place. So too expensive and too time-consuming by far for a black and white still from a 1927 film, as good as it is.

I had exactly the same thing with the original photo for "Inspired!" which would have been a Jesse Owens pic from the 1936 Olympics. This would have meant paying the agency, the Olympics, Locog and the Jesse Owens trust. Same thing again - too time consuming and too expensive for a CD which will sell a few thousand copies.

Just recently a colleague of mine had to destroy his artwork for an entire production run on an agency-cleared photo because one of the individuals in the photo threatened to sue for the unauthorized use of his image.

If we're not careful, then the photo business may well go the same way as the music business. Too many grey areas and the law needs clarification in my opinion. It's a shame because many iconic pics are getting mired with tedious clearance procedures and normal pics need model releases which means that many albums in the future will end up using easy-to-clear model released pics which are bland and have no character.

Even individual artwork which I commissioned and paid for is not necessarily exempt from some nutter trying it on. I had one guy attempt to sue me because he took my artwork, photoshopped it really badly, put it on a forum and then tried to sue me because he claimed 'his' artwork was being used to promote my album! I look forward to that going to court.

Ian D

Edited July 21, 2012 by Ian Dewhirst

[Chalky]

Aren't we losing the plot here a bit?

We aren't talking about re-using someone else's work, we are talking somebody taking photos at a Soul Night/Nighter.

Personally I can't see the problem. If someone objects, delete there photo and carry on elsewhere.

Some like to see them.

I take photos occasionally, usually acts though. I've had so many lifted and no credit given or permission sought. I've even had some say they were taken by them

All the fun of a night out is slowly being drained by people continually harping on that you can't do this that or other or play this that or other.

[Guest GARV]

I don`t mind as long as the person ask`s if its OK but i will say no. Not looked at the gallery on here for some time as i don`t want to look at people in fancy dress.

Photo`s from the 60`s / 70`s / 80`s & the 90`s i will happily look at but lets be honest most of us are not young anymore & it looks like someones retirement do these days................ and before anyone starts having a pop , i`m talking about the photo`s not any particular person or people in them

[ unless your in fancy dress ].

There`s an energy about the older photos & a vibrancy that i feel is no longer there, i don`t understand why a photographer would find the subject interesting from an creative or artistic side, or even an historical one.

[spike1]

Copyright Law is a very complex area with countless grey areas.

As a loose guideline, you can take pictures in public places and use these for private and commercial use. There are exceptions. For example, you cannot take photos in Trafalgar Square and use them commercially - not without a permit. It is the same with the London Gherkin, which is one of the only buildings in the UK with copyrights relating to photography.

This is similar to the absurd situation that prevents professional photographers from using images of the Eiffel Tower in Paris commercially - if they are taken at night, but not if they are taken during daylight hours.

Back to the point, whilst in the UK you are free to take and make use of photos taken whilst in public places, the inside a building is not a public place.

Therefore photographers looking to take professional photos (ie images for commercial use), ought to have permission from the management who have the right to refuse.

Likewise, members of the public in private places have a clear right to refuse to have their photo taken - unless there is explicit agreement in the terms and conditions associated with entry to that private place. For example, when you go to a football match, the terms and conditions surrounding your purchase of a ticket explicitly state that you give your permission a) to be photographed and b) for those photographs to be used as they see fit, including commercially.

At the end of that day, and relative to the issues being discussed here, if you want to take more than snapshots at a venue you should:

a) get permission from the management, and

b) at the very least, and as a matter of common courtesy, you should ask permission of the people you are taking photos of. It's the decent thing to do.

If I remember correctly we were asked if we wanted the tv cameras to film at Wigan casino

Think the vote was a resounding no

Did not go when they filmed myself

But I heard that those who did had to sign a consent form anyone remember this ?

[Ian Dewhirst]

All the fun of a night out is slowly being drained by people continually harping on that you can't do this that or other or play this that or other.

I agree but it's no fun to be sued or lose your job over it either.

That's why I'm saying the law needs some clarification.

Ian D

[Iancsloft]

Anyone can photograph myself orJane at the venues we attend we both look forward to see,in the photos

In fact Bill I think you took a couple of shots of Jane dancing at Bury and she would love a copy of it which she would pay you .The photos people have taken at venues over the past 40 years are part of the social history of the Northern Soul Scene

and are in my opinion a very important part of the history of the UK for future generations

Regards Ian Cunliffe

Edited July 21, 2012 by IANCSLOFT

[Chalky]

I agree but it's no fun to be sued or lose your job over it either.

That's why I'm saying the law needs some clarification.

Ian D

But we are talking about two different things really, the taking of photos and the use of them commercially??

As soon as a photo is taken copyright is attached and if used for commercial gains then permission needs to be sought.

[Mal C]

But we are talking about two different things really, the taking of photos and the use of them commercially??

As soon as a photo is taken copyright is attached and if used for commercial gains then permission needs to be sought.

Absolutely, If you take a photograph, thats your copyright, and thats yours unless you agree representation through an agent or 3rd party. This differs with moving footage; an example I give a lot of my clients being, a cameraman shooting a film for a major studio, well he doesn't own the copyright, the Company as producer / Director is assigned copyright, and the contract the cameraman has with the studio will also have a clause stating the cameraman retains no copyright in the work.

In regard to the very entertaining clip, the chap was within his rights, if you take a picture on public land, your within your rights to do so, if that image is used editorially the publisher may pixilate or obscure any identifying numbers or names or people, as not to invite legal action, obviously with the press the initial reason for the image might well receive legal action, but the treatment of the image is paramount if you want to say something which is deemed 'In the Public Interest'.

In regard to people, again you retain copyright in all cases unless on private land or in some cases working for or in the pay of an employer. I had an experience at a soul night recently where a chap just got in front of myself and my wife took 4/5 frames and when I asked that he not do anything with them he told me it's my copyright, I can do what I want. I just let it go, I wasn't happy but he was within his rights, that said if an instance gets to court, images taken under duress will influence any ruling.

My rule is be sensitive to people wishes, if they don't look like they want to be photographed, don't photograph them. If they are incidental within a frame, there are lots of options open to you if you're using editorially within this web site for instance, Blurring, cropping out, Pixalating etc..If used commercially you need approval, or Model Release as its called within the media, and that involves a fee paid onto the model. After that there maybe all type of approvals you may need to seek and that falls under the constrains of a commercial licence.

Mal.C.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mal.C.

[Guest nubes]

I personally dont get it....photos have always been took at soul dos...and if anyone had an issue...back then they wouldve had cause too ..cause most was underage anyway!!!!!!!...not being flippant...but i really dont understand ....i have been at dos where some folk have approached a promoter and berated the fact that someone has been taking photos...and am left wondering...why is it such an issue?..unless that person has the camera shove right into someone's face...then yep can see a problem..but if it is part of a crowd shot....then i really dont understand the issue....unless they are wanted by Interpol?? ...Delxxxxx

[Pete Eccles]

Some people don't always want to be seen somewhere where they shouldn't be maybe, Dave Leedham takes lots of photos, he tends to take them with the subjects actually smiling at the camera, usually in twos or above, which can be presumed they are ok with it,

Not quite the same as someone randomly snapping unsuspecting subjects and posting them on the net, Facebook and the like have caused no end of arguments with folk pictured in places they shouldn't be or worse still with people they shouldn't be with, (not me btw lol)

[Mal C]

I personally dont get it....photos have always been took at soul dos...and if anyone had an issue...back then they wouldve had cause too ..cause most was underage anyway!!!!!!!...not being flippant...but i really dont understand ....i have been at dos where some folk have approached a promoter and berated the fact that someone has been taking photos...and am left wondering...why is it such an issue?..unless that person has the camera shove right into someone's face...then yep can see a problem..but if it is part of a crowd shot....then i really dont understand the issue....unless they are wanted by Interpol?? ...Delxxxxx

I know its got silly really, and thats due mainly to social media I think, the use and the abuse of.

Mal

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mal.C.

[Rich Buckley]

I agree but it's no fun to be sued or lose your job over it either.

That's why I'm saying the law needs some clarification.

Ian D

The law's clear Ian: under uk law the photographer owns the copyright in the photograps unless commissioned and paid by a third party who would usually insist on a full assignment of copyright. The problems you're citing are in relation to using artwork/photos taken by a third party. When you include archive clips in TV programmes you are always obliged to sign a contract warranting you will be responsible for and pay for "any and all clearances". This usually means anybody appearing in the clip. The problems are exascerbated as often an artist or actor will have a contractual right in his/her contract to approve (and be paid) any use of clips/images. Ditto there are similar provisions in the union agreements i.e the Equity and Writers Guild agreements in terms of television. It sounds like you've been unlucky if the photos were agency cleared. Must be bloody annoying.

Here we're not talking about actors/artists though so it's just as described above. People have always taken photos on the scene and I have no issue with it, although as said previously if people do object then they are within their rights to ask for them to be deleted. No big deal surely.

The Olympics has been a nightmare in terms of the Locog legislation so I share your pain in that regard...

Rich

[Guest dundeedavie]

I remember taking a picture at prestwich and that picture directly resulted in the break up of a marriage, maybe that's why they don't want there photos taken

[Kev Harker]

i really dont understand the issue....unless they are wanted by Interpol?? ...Delxxxxx

or the DHSS,........................"Man photographed doing backdrop"

claiming invalidity benefit.

[sir cumference]

Just no circle skirts/vests/beer towels/baggies.

We`ve all had enough of them-haven`t we?

[Ian Dewhirst]

Here we're not talking about actors/artists though so it's just as described above. People have always taken photos on the scene and I have no issue with it, although as said previously if people do object then they are within their rights to ask for them to be deleted. No big deal surely.

Rich

Yeah, but surely that's only if they realise they've been photographed?

What are your rights if you're in a photo that gets widely distributed and you didn't even know about it? Let's say that for personal reasons or security reasons or privacy reasons you'd rather that people didn't have a record of where you've been? If an unexpected photo of you gets distributed on the internet, then isn't that an invasion of your personal privacy? I know many people disable 'tracking' apps on mobiles for similar reasons.

Or, if I came across a brilliant photo and bought it from the agency or photographer for commercial use would I still need sign-offs from the people in the picture? Which would mean tracing each and every prominent person in the photo which would be a pain in the ass.

I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here but I really don't know what the law is and most lawyers I know don't either.........

Ian D

[Ian Dewhirst]

I personally dont get it....photos have always been took at soul dos...and if anyone had an issue...back then they wouldve had cause too ..cause most was underage anyway!!!!!!!...not being flippant...but i really dont understand ....i have been at dos where some folk have approached a promoter and berated the fact that someone has been taking photos...and am left wondering...why is it such an issue?..unless that person has the camera shove right into someone's face...then yep can see a problem..but if it is part of a crowd shot....then i really dont understand the issue....unless they are wanted by Interpol?? ...Delxxxxx

Paranoia Del. It's not paranoia if they're REALLY after ya!

Ian D

[TOAD]

its the shoving in the face thats the problem ! And a couple of photos but not all bloody night. So i will have a sign made >photo near me i will bust your camera. Simple eh

[Peter99]

Thanks Davie it's a grey grey area lol 18% grey if I'm not mistaken... Just looked at your link nice work pal. Bill Storey " TinDog " https://www.redbubble.com/people/tindog

Hey Bill

Checked out your link - some very nice pictures.

Peter

[Peter99]

I remember taking a picture at prestwich and that picture directly resulted in the break up of a marriage, maybe that's why they don't want there photos taken

Bloody Hell!

[Chalky]

or the DHSS,........................"Man photographed doing backdrop"

claiming invalidity benefit.

then they deserve to be photographed and have it widely distributed

[Chalky]

I remember taking a picture at prestwich and that picture directly resulted in the break up of a marriage, maybe that's why they don't want there photos taken

I'd be surprised if it was a secret, the photo was maybe the proof needed? They should behave anyway