I am right in thinking that photos of dogs should not be taken without owners permission right?  Do we think that Jemima Harrison asked permission to take pictures of peoples dogs (presumably she took them herself as theres no copyright) and post them on her blog?  I'd be very surprised if anyone would let her do that!

Just came across the blog and even though they are not my dogs it irritated me!

I think you have to get permission but officially registered photographers have a freer rein. I'll check this though.

From Crufts schedule page 135. Rules and Regs. number 35. Photography and Video Rights -
"Specific dogs may be photographed only with the permission of the exhibitor".

Well thats something I didn't know, everyone was taking photos and I thought it was just another "public have paid" things that KC expect us to put up with. I have even been asking permission to copy photos of my dogs taken at Crufts that have been posted on FB etc when they should have been asking permission from me LOL.
Paula xxx

I believe the KC started to tighten up on this towards the end of last year due to several issues that arose.

Maybe when the winners are posed at the end of the class it would be considered that exhibitors had reasonably been seen to give permission for their dogs to be photographed. However sneeking up to photograph a top winning dog for deliberate purposes of denigration should be quite different in my opinion.

Facebook has its own terms and conditions re copyright and photographs posted there which anyone with issues needs to look at closely.

>  Do we think that Jemima Harrison asked permission to take pictures of peoples dogs (presumably she took them herself as theres no copyright) and post them on her blog?

She has press rights, so has a different set of rules that the general public (I'd imagine her blog comes under this catagory). If she has taken the photo herself then SHE owns the copyright (copyright is automatic, and applies to any photo taken by anybody).
Generally you do not need permission to take a photo of a dog in public, but Crufts is a pay-to-enter show, so does not (I think) class as a 'public event'.

> Facebook has its own terms and conditions re copyright and photographs posted there which anyone with issues needs to look at closely

Copyright regards the ownership of an image, the rules regarding copyright is regulated by the Intelectual Property Office (in the governnemt). Facebook will have terms trying to protect peoples copyright (and privacy) but it can't have it's own rules regarding copyright of other peoples works.

She has press rights, so has a different set of rules that the general public (I'd imagine her blog comes under this catagory).

So that would mean anyone who has an internet blog or website can take and distribute photographs without permission?  That doesnt seem right. 

The official photographers are allowed to take them if they want but they wear ID so you know who they are and they have permission from the show to be there (as far as im aware). 

From Facebook T & Cs
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1.For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License")."
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

> So that would mean anyone who has an internet blog or website can take and distribute photographs without permission? 

COPYRIGHT is an automatic right that makes the photograper (does not have to be a 'registerd' photorgapher) the OWNER of the photo they have taken and gives THEM the exclusive rights to use it.

However, anybody can use somebody elses photo for 'fair dealing' (eg, for criticism & news, education purposes, private & research purposes).

I'm not to sure about the 'privacy rights' side of things (which would cover the CONTENT of the photo, not the ownership of the copyright), but am pretty sure you can take a picture of a person in public.

I am not a fan of Jemima but if nobody could take photos/videos of anybody or anything, the news & media would come to a standstill. How would all the celeb mags keep going without thier latest 'shock' pic of X, Y or Z leaving a party with a new fella, or how would we get to see the horrible suffering to dogs (eg), reported by vidoe & photos?..........

But, when it says in the catalogue quite clearly that you cant take photos (as posted previously by someone else), then who owns the photo isnt relevant as it shouldnt be taken anyway???

This isnt anonymous photos of dogs walking down the streets, this is photos taken at a show where photography is not allowed, then the dogs "named and shamed" on a public blog.  Im sure there could be some comeback on her for that.

>From Facebook T & Cs
>"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook

That is not a copyright law - it is a disclaimer freeing Facebbok of any comebacks. A user must first 'agree' that any images is thiers, and also give permission for facebbok to use it, this means that 1) facebok will not be in trouble for people infringing copyright laws & 2) permission has been given so nobody can complain.

Eg. you notice your ex has put an unflattering picture of you on his facebook account - tough! - he's agreed he owns the rigths to the pic and has granted use of those rights to Fcaebook, any problem you have are left strictly between you & your ex - Facebook is safe!

>> This isnt anonymous photos of dogs walking down the streets, this is photos taken at a show where photography is not allowed

Photography is allowed by the press, photography rights of the press will be different than photography rights of the GP at an event like this.
I am sure Jemima would be there under a press pass.

Again from Crufts schedule -
"Press accredited photographers are provided with permission to take photographs ONLY for use in newspapers, magazines and internet sites - this is for news purposes only."

It would seem full details have to be obtained from the Crufts Press Office.

Filming and Photography

Commercial cinematography and television equipment may only be used at Crufts if a permit has been issued by the Organisers. There are also certain restrictions on the use of cameras for still photography and private video films. Full details of these and filming permits may be obtained from the Press Office, Crufts, 1-5 Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1J 8AB.

> "Press accredited photographers are provided with permission to take photographs ONLY for use in newspapers, magazines and internet sites - this is for news purposes only."

If Jemimas blog is not classed as 'for news purposes' then any dispute would be between the Kennel Club and Jemima regarding use of the pictures, not between Jemima and the owner of any dogs in the picture.

> I have even been asking permission to copy photos of my dogs taken at Crufts that have been posted on FB etc when they should have been asking permission from me LOL.
>

I did exactly the same! Someone from Hungary had taken photo's of Teasel and I asked if I could repost them to my facebook - they were great pictures! :-)

Sam, help???????

>>Sam, help???????>>

Just what I was thinking WC :-)

Sam is a (real) professional photographer so she would know exactly what the situation is. :)

> Sam is a (real) professional photographer so she would know exactly what the situation is.

The situation regarding what?
A proffesional photographer is somebody who take photographs for a profession, this does not give the photographer any more right to take photos than anybody else and thier photos are governed by the same copyright laws.
Regarding crufts the capacity in which a person attending will dicate what rights they have in taking photos. For example a proffesion photographer, attending crufts as a member of the public is governed by the same rules of Crufts that the rest of the GP is. However a person (proffesional photographer or not, attening crufts with a press pass (or other pass that gives extra rights) will have those extra rights regarding the taking of photos.

However, I have only worked for a few years as a funtion photographer so perhaps my interpretaion of rights to photograph is not extensive enough. My work with imagery (portait artist, CAD & disign work) however does mean a know a bit about the copyright side of things.

I have long thought that the KC/Show Society statement in the rules is wishing in the wind and that they maintain it in hope that it 'frightens' people from taking pictures and displaying them, but in reality they have no come back what so ever and that no cases have ever been brought by the KC (or show society etc) to remove photo's etc

> Again from Crufts schedule -
> "Press accredited photographers are provided with permission to take photographs ONLY for use in newspapers, magazines and internet sites - this is for news purposes only."

Press have to be approved by the KC before obtaining an offical press pass...........would the KC approve JH??

I took pictures purely for my own "want" however I got a permission slip from the KC first.

a quick read thru of this thread and I feel people are confusing different issues. lets start at the bottom.....copyright belongs in most cases to the photographer.....(there are sub issues regarding emplyment and commissioning but prob not relevant here!)
technically anywhere that the public are allowed access to is deemed in law a public place (even if they have paid to get in!) so I suspect if it came to a court case then Crufts show would be considered a public place......and therefore photography would be allowed freely. Against those facts you have to consider whther a contract has been made by purchasing a ticket/entering the show, that you agree to the clauses mentioned earlier about photographing dogs with owners permission etc.......or is it an implied contract? again an ambiguous area in this situation!
When you register as a press photographer  for covering cruftsyou get checked out.......and we are given details of what we can or cannot use the images for. JH may well get away with her blog being editorial (i havent seen it so i dont know) but if anyone wants to moan about it then simply contact james Skinner at the KC and he will advise you if he is going to look into it or just ignore it im sure :)

It clearly states in the schedules though that no-one can take photo's or video's of dogs in the ring without the permission of the owners.  As we are not allowed to surely other people should not be allowed to either.

> no-one can take photo's or video's of dogs in the ring

what about on the benches or in DD as I thought that was where some of the photos of the TMs were taken?

> She has press rights, so has a different set of rules that the general public

Jemima attended as a member of the public this year, so would have no more rights than any other member of the public attending the show. As she also often employs other people to photograph and or film 'under cover' then they should all be asking for permission.

The guidelines the KC give to private photographers say that they should ask permission but the trouble is that that's all they are - guidelines. They are completely unenforceable by law, either KC. Maybe an owner would be in a different.