Jump to content
slider09

Any legal eagles on here?

Recommended Posts

Not being grumpy, just protecting your property, that's why I have my house opaqued on Google street view. 
Data Protection legislation applies to ALL businesses and public bodies and includes rules relating to any DATA (including digital photos)  held by them. It is a breach of legislation to either collect or store data (photo of your property) without your express consent. You should contact the business in writing, telling them they have obtained and stored data without your permission and you want to make a complaint. It is the Information Commissioner that has responsibility for 'policing' this  and will have all the info you need -  https://ico.org.uk/

Same rule applies to those people who spend far too much time posting supposed bad driving on YouTube without blanking out the number plate. It actually quotes the law about making information public in the instructions that come with dash cams so same principle for this I would say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide-1320949

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography_fulltext.html

 

Thats a good start with basic principles and laws. I'm a professional photographer shooting commercial images for brands and companies so I know a little about this stuff. I've also had my fair share of run-ins with angry people, police and over zealous security guards.

 

Quote

Taking photos of buildings

Architectural works are protected by copyright to some degree, but in most countries you may photograph a building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. You may also publish and distribute the photo without permission.vii

 

This exception generally applies only to buildings, a category which generally includes houses, office buildings, churches and garden pavilions. The exception does usually not apply to monuments (protectable as “sculptural works”). Also, artistic elements associated with buildings such as sculptural ornaments may receive independent copyright protection; a permission may be needed to photograph them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Stealthmode said:

I note that the quoted article is five years old, several changes in legislation since then. 

 

The article I posted is an old one and whilst there have been some changes to legislation, there have been none related to an individual taking a photo of private property from public land. That is allowed. The grey area is wether the OP's neighbour has signed off permission for his house to be featured on the flyer. Ideally the estate agent would have got signatures of both homeowners before printing. 

 

As for the WIPO guidelines, I'm pretty sure those are up to date. 

 

Instead of criticising and putting down people's suggestion, how about you show your research and help the OP instead of just disagreeing with everything posted? Surely using your experience would be a better use of your time than what you are currently doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with what the majority of people say on here. I probably wouldn't worry too much until such a time as something potentially happens to your car (and hopefully it won't), you've also got a better case once you've brought it to their attention. Perhaps find out who the cards were distributed too. Chances are it's just around your local area in which case the majority of people will have seen your car umpteen times anyway. You're more likely to be followed home by someone up to no good. Lucky you don't have a Ferrari or GTR! 

Ps. I probably wouldn't be pleased myself but as said earlier there's not a lot you can do at the mo - although I spose you could speak to the legal team of your insurers as they may be able to offer some (free) advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, camelsac2002 said:


Same rule applies to those people who spend far too much time posting supposed bad driving on YouTube without blanking out the number plate. It actually quotes the law about making information public in the instructions that come with dash cams so same principle for this I would say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

"actually quotes the law about making information public"

 

what is this law you speak of ...... act and section ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
"actually quotes the law about making information public"
 
what is this law you speak of ...... act and section ?

VRM is classed as personal information with regard to privately owned vehicles and comes under the data protection act. Vehicles owned by commercial entities are not classed as personal information and are therefore not classed as personal information.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, camelsac2002 said:


VRM is classed as personal information with regard to privately owned vehicles and comes under the data protection act. Vehicles owned by commercial entities are not classed as personal information and are therefore not classed as personal information.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Quoted from DP Act 

 

personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—

(a)

from those data, or

(b)

from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

 

So I can't see how a VRM without the necessary access to DVLA records could identify an individual.

 

In fact when anonymising data reference numbers often a combination of numbers and letters are used to stay within DP guidelines  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Quoted from DP Act 
 

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—

(a)

from those data, or

(B)

from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

 

So I can't see how a VRM without the necessary access to DVLA records could identify an individual.

 

In fact when anonymising data reference numbers often a combination of numbers and letters are used to stay within DP guidelines  

 

A request under the freedom of information act regarding vehicle details can be refused under section 40 (2) as said details are regarded as personal information under the DPA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, camelsac2002 said:


A request under the freedom of information act regarding vehicle details can be refused under section 40 (2) as said details are regarded as personal information under the DPA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

of course they are and would be refused,  which confirms the second part , the data controller is not likely to be in possession of the other information to convert a vrm into personal data .... QED

 

VRM is not personal data  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course they are and would be refused,  which confirms the second part , the data controller is not likely to be in possession of the other information to convert a vrm into personal data .... QED
 
VRM is not personal data  

Yes it is. A request in 2009 for all the registration numbers of Golfs and R32s stolen and recovered in 2006 was refused as the police deemed (successfully) that the VRMs are classed as personal data.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/04/2017 at 00:36, camelsac2002 said:


Yes it is. A request in 2009 for all the registration numbers of Golfs and R32s stolen and recovered in 2006 was refused as the police deemed (successfully) that the VRMs are classed as personal data.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

had time to do some research , you are right .

 

DVLA do refuse on the basis that VRM's are personal data which has been upheld by the IC , because you can make an application for keeper details in some limited circumstances.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
had time to do some research , you are right .
 
DVLA do refuse on the basis that VRM's are personal data which has been upheld by the IC , because you can make an application for keeper details in some limited circumstances.  
 
 
 
 

Yes - but whilst I'm correct in that sense, I think it applies in a joint sense - ie a VRM can be classed as personal details in conjunction with perhaps whilst the vehicle is parked on someone's drive or perhaps in video footage where the driver is in view - it can identify where someone lives or identify someone connected with the car but I think you have a point also about it not being personal details in the context perhaps of the vehicle filmed just driving anonymously down a street where nothing can be deduced from it being there or the driver is not visible - ie it's just a random car in a street. It's a bit grey imo!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...