UK Police Issue Copyright Takedown Over Speed Camera Photos

from the incentive-to-create? dept

Wed, Jul 22nd 2009 11:50am — Mike Masnick

Another day, another example of copyright being misused. This one, sent in by JJ, involves police in the UK demanding that certain speed camera photos be taken offline as copyright violations. They're apparently pissed that a guy who used the photos to prove that the cameras are faulty has posted his story (with the photos) online:

"The content of these photographs are the property of Sussex Police and publication of them is a breach of copyright. They should be removed from the website forthwith. If they are not removed further action may be contemplated."

The real issue is that the guy who posted the photos is one of a growing number of folks who have discovered that, if you know a little bit of math, you can often show that the speed cameras were flat-out wrong.

Copyright is a gov't granted exclusive right solely for the purpose of creating incentives for works that otherwise wouldn't be created. I can't see how that applies to police speed camera photos at all -- which seem to have a different incentive to "create," whether it's to make the roads safer (the official explanation) or to raise money from speeding tickets (the real reason). Neither one of those requires copyright at all. And, of course, posting the images hardly seems like it should be a violation of copyright. The whole thing is obviously being used to stifle free speech because the police department doesn't like it, not because there's any sort of reasonable copyright claim.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, police, speed cameras, uk

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:11pm

The whole thing is obviously being used to stifle free speech because the police department doesn't like it, not because there's any sort of reasonable copyright claim.

But copyright never infringes free speech, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lavi d (profile), 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:16pm

They're apparently pissed that a guy who used the photos to prove that the cameras are faulty has posted his story (with the photos) online:

This guy needs to move to Tiburon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:37pm

I live in a small town in Tennessee that has just installed traffic light cameras at 2 of the 3 traffic lights in the town. The city council explanation of the cameras is to make the intersections safer. Which I consider to be total bs. Said council nor the company (Trafficpax) which installed the cameras have provided any data to back up their claim of prevention of accidents. I find it interesting that the for-profit company installed the cameras free of charge and will take 60 percent of each ticket issued. I don't think there has even been an accident at either intersection in 2 years. I just wanted to inquire what strategy, if any, might I take, short of destroying the camera itself, to get rid of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Shine a powerful laser pointer at the lens (you know, one of those sold @thinkgeek.com). That usually burns the imaging chip without causing any physical damage to the camera.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Put a model of the Korean War memorial on the back of your car!
  
  Then inform Gaylord if you get a ticket.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 22 Jul 2009 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  I just wanted to inquire what strategy, if any, might I take, short of destroying the camera itself, to get rid of them.
  
  find out how much the 40% of the camera tickets net for the city annually and offer to pay the city more than that amount for a year with no cameras.
  
  speed cameras are about revenue, plain and simple. you want the cameras gone, you have to provide more revenue to the town than the cameras do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  Slam on the brakes at those intersections. Get the folks behind you to rear-end you. An increase in accidents at those intersections will show that the cameras are more a probelm than a solution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re:
  Find out relevant laws dealing with yellow period, and time the yellow period to make sure that the camera is legal, as there is an incentive to lower the yellow period of such cameras.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:39pm

As long as the cameras have nothing to hide they shouldn't worry about the photographs being shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vastrightwing, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:45pm

Don't remove the photos
simply cover the actual light so they can't claim you're violating a "copyright". They can't possibly pretend to copyright the landscape!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSO, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:53pm

Isn't it very smart of UK police to attract public attention to the faults of their technology through this? Streisand effect, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 12:58pm

Since the cameras are for profit, shouldn't some modeling dividends be given to the drivers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crashoverride, 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:08pm

Hmmm maybe the argument that evidence cannot be copyrighted. Or how about he bought the photos as part of his fine. Or show us the Copyright that you (haven't) been granted)The phrase the truth will always come out comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  I don't know how it is in the UK but in the US there is a good argument for fair use since they are commenting on the pictures. The cops are also a government organization so they can't hold a copyright. But, again, that's the US not the UK (and we see how well that works in the US anyways).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:29pm

Strike a blow for freedom
paintball gun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someone, 17 Oct 2009 @ 4:30am
  
  Re: Strike a blow for freedom
  by NullOp
  paintball gun
  
  +1 for a paintball gun. Throw in a ski mask for bonus points and extra protection.
  
  All honesty, this is just flat out silly and frankly a waste of the UK tax payers money to even issue copyright warnings, let alone an actual suit.
  
  So when do millions of these photos get stolen out of the backseat of some boneheads car? It is the UK after all - wont take long I am sure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:30pm

I was going to say that as evidence for use in a trial, don't they come under the heading of public records? But again, it's the UK, not the US, so who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:32pm

So what would happen
if the photos were published on a US website? Even if the Sussex Police claimed copyright could it be defended by US fair use, or 1st amendment grounds. Hell even by the Declaration of Independence and/or the Treaty of Paris? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 23 Jul 2009 @ 3:52am
  
  Re: So what would happen
  If you made your car a work of art, then copyright wouldn't cover that particular part of the photo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
teknosapien, 22 Jul 2009 @ 1:38pm

If the funding
Came from the local taxes levied against the people that live there are they not in essence the owners of said pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure Evil, 22 Jul 2009 @ 4:56pm

Clean that camera!
Speed cameras get dirty due to exposure to weather and the environment.

So it is your duty as a good citizen/subject to attach some steel wool to the end of a long stick, and clean the camera's windows. To do a better job, wet the steel wool with ammonia to clean plexiglass, and dental flouride treatment gel to clean glass windows.

>:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GHynson, 22 Jul 2009 @ 5:12pm

Pay Back
I say,..hook up with the mayors daughter, and have the red light take a picture of you two F&*@ing in the back seat of a convertable as your friend runs the red light. Then post it on the web as copyright photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JB, 22 Jul 2009 @ 5:35pm

I just wanted to inquire what strategy, if any, might I take, short of destroying the camera itself, to get rid of them.

The city council members are elected, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Dirt, 23 Jul 2009 @ 4:01am

My comment
Oh you have got to be kidding,this story is so silly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..., 23 Jul 2009 @ 5:28am

Welcome to the machine
They do not care about your guilt or not ...
just pay the fine like a good robot.

Shuffle along your merry way,
do not look and have a good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2009 @ 5:06pm

What about lost sales? Eh? Each person that watches these pictures doesn't buy the police bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evision, 25 Feb 2010 @ 8:28pm

http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531338.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]