Permission from landowner for filming/photos in cave

Alex

Alex

Well-known member
Not quite sure if this is the right place, but do you actually require landowner permission to take photos and film underground in a cave on their land. I would have never thought to ask for permission because I did not think I needed it. I mean why would anyone be bothered? However, I have been asked (indirectly) by the land owner to remove all my media for this specific cave. Now I think this sets a dangerous prescident, if I agree, but on the other-hand there is a risk of a loss of access to this particular cave.

Where do I stand legally here? I don't think I should have to take them down, a cave is a natural feature it is not like the inside of a house and as I had permission to be there and has no copyrighted material except what belongs to me, so I can't see why I should have to take my images down from a legal standpoint. Google did not ask my permission to take a picture of the front of my house for example.

P.s. before anyone asks I can't say where (it will make things worse) and please don't guess.
 
NewStuff

NewStuff

New member
If you had permission to be there, and it was not stated beforehand that you should not take pictures/footage, then they have no leg to stand on.

However, it's your call, as it will probably sour landowner relations. Not an easy quandry.
 
P

Peter Burgess

New member
You are asking about legalities. I think this is more about what your conscience says. If you want to keep on the good side of the owner, then it's pretty obvious what you should do. And if it affects the relationship between the owner and other cavers, then it should be even more obvious. Legally, you can pretty much do what you want with your own photos, but if you entered into any form of contract, written or otherwise, you would be on stickier ground. Remove them, is my advice. An alternative idea would be to anonymise them.
 
Alex

Alex

Well-known member
(You are right, I have to remove them as it won't just be me losing access if it comes to that (though its only this one cave)) What worries me is the wider impact of taking them down, is that does this set a president where we always have to get permission to take pictures/video from the landowner(s) before going underground? If so who owns the copyright, if other landowners see they can use these bully tactics...
 
P

Peter Burgess

New member
I don't think it's a precedent. It's an unwritten condition of access in a few sites in Surrey, and it is respected. None of the owners are bullies and they have genuine sensible reasons for asking for low key or no publicity. Relations are only improved by mutual respect.
 
The Old Ruminator

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
Very difficult though in 50 years taking a huge number of cave photos that is about the only reason I have not been asked to take them down. I do a lot of landscape stuff and add it all to " Geograph ". I took a photo of bales in a field once from a footpath. The farmer went potty saying it encouraged arsonists to burn his stuff. He wanted Geograph to take it down but they refused. In the end he backed off. The copyright will belong to the photographer for 70 years after his death. It might be illegal to film or photograph copyright performances etc but I cant believe a cave would fit into that category. As others have said it depends how much you want to rub the landowner up the wrong way but I would ask politely the reason for his request.
 
Brains

Brains

Well-known member
I beleieve there is an issue with filming in Peak Cavern, but not stills.
Think the pragmatic approach would be to take down the pics and repost  them with out location info, the links to the old pics will be lost and the new ones wont show up in a normal search for the site. Image search may reveal them but I wouldnt worry about that. As for the legality, I would say the pics are yours unless agreed otherwise beforehand.
There are lots of pics of places people shouldnt be on the web (urbex...) but without a location they are just clickbait
 
JasonC

JasonC

Well-known member
It could only be a precedent if the landowner was trying to exercise some legal right in a court.
Assuming access is under his control, he's simply exercising his right to impose whatever conditions he chooses on anyone he grants access to.  He could equally stipulate that you can only go down on alternate Tuesdays - it wouldn't affect any other caves.
As others have said, the best thing seems to be to ask him politely what his beef with photos is.  Maybe he's worried loads of people will beat a path to his cave when they see how fab it is?
 
NewStuff

NewStuff

New member
Alex said:
Reason is I did not ask for permission. That's it.
Click to expand...

I would explain why you didn't. Given that you don't need permission to shoot in caves (Showcaves etc excepted), then of course you wouldn't think you needed to seek it, it's so unusual (Unique) that you simply haven't encountered it before. Maybe seek retrospective  permission, if you think it warrants the shots being published.
 
pwhole

pwhole

Well-known member
From what I can glean, it's not a refusal of permission to take photographs, but to publish those photos on the internet, which is a different thing altogether. If your access agreement with him relies on this condition, then it's just tough really. I've still got plenty of photos of sites that aren't publicly available on the internet, or on the internet all in some cases, as we didn't even have permission to be there in some, so just not worth the risk.

Remember there are many other ways to publish photos, and it may that the landowner is less sensitive about say, a magazine, journal or book as there's an implied 'responsibility' that goes with publishing, and in our world, the audience is smaller and more controllable in terms of output. It won't have the 'mass appeal' potential of the internet, but then that's not really the important point here - documenting sites accurately, but also attractively, is the key. The landowner may actually change their mind when they see stuff in print, and may thus be 'bribed' (in a nice way) for future work.
 
Badlad

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
You say you have been asked "indirectly" by the landowner to remove all your media for this particular cave.  This appears to be quite an unusual request if not unprecedented in the area.

My advice would be to arrange to meet the landowner in person and listen directly to his request.  Discuss this openly with him and find out the reasons behind his request.  If they seem reasonable then do as he asks, or make up your own mind based on first hand knowledge at least.

You had permission to be in the cave in the first place.  You acted reasonably in taking the photos/videos and placed them on social media or whatever, as anyone else would.  You're not commercial or fallen foul of any rules.  Speak direct and make sure you are getting the full story and decide accordingly.

If it is in the Dales you could try the access officer of the CNCC for advice. PM me if you like.
 
cap n chris

cap n chris

Well-known member
Pretty sure landowners can impose any conditions they like on these activities on their land. Cheddar Gorge (Longleat side) is prohibited from being photographed and used without prior permission, for example. I don't think it's enforced though, as there are many examples of people using images of the Gorge on their websites. 
 
NewStuff

NewStuff

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
Pretty sure landowners can impose any conditions they like on these activities on their land. Cheddar Gorge (Longleat side) is prohibited from being photographed and used without prior permission, for example. I don't think it's enforced though, as there are many examples of people using images of the Gorge on their websites.
Click to expand...

As a condition of access? Yeah, within reason, but not retrospectively.
 
cap n chris

cap n chris

Well-known member
If a landowner wasn't expecting photos to be taken, granted access in good faith and then subsequently found photos were taken and made public, they would still have the right to ask for the photographs to be withdrawn and a reasonable expectation that their wishes would be respected, surely?
 
Bob Mehew

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
The web link by Peterk gives a good summary.  Note apart from the land owner in respect of private property, you also need permission of all 'models' in the photo, else you have the same problem.  Not really relevant to a cave but you can photograph private property from a public place.  So Cheddar Gorge from the road is OK. 

I would go along with Badlad's suggestion if you can, of going and speaking with the owner to understand his reasoning (and possibly persuading him to change it).

I don't think I would like to argue 'because it was not mentioned up front, then they can't make a retroactive denial'; but it is an interesting point worthy of a good 2 or 3 pint argument.    :beer:
 
NewStuff

NewStuff

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
If a landowner wasn't expecting photos to be taken, granted access in good faith and then subsequently found photos were taken and made public, they would still have the right to ask for the photographs to be withdrawn and a reasonable expectation that their wishes would be respected, surely?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that not expecting pictures to be taken is a very unique situation if it's not stated beforehand, so no, the landowner does *not* have a reasonable expectation, and certainly does not have any rights to enforce the taking down of shots/footage.

However, it may well pay to be more amenable in this case, irrespective of the lack of a firm footing on the landowner's part, and have a face to face discussion, but that's for Alex to decide.
 
bograt

bograt

Active member
As others have pointed out, I think the term 'indirectly' is significant to this query, I suggest a direct approach to the landowner to find out his (or her) particular problem and then work out a mutually agreeable solution.

Although I would also suggest checking out the validity of your 'indirect' source before contacting the landowner, he(or she) may be totally unaware !.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top