photography

Though water, animal and plant photography are all generally self-explanatory, it is helpful to have a working definition that allows for a more concrete understanding of the philosophies, and how they relate to the other forms of nature photography. Water photography includes both those shots done above and below the surface of the water. When the camera is above the water it is tempting to consider the picture a scenic photograph. However, there is slight debate as to whether this provides an accurate definition; or rather, should it be considered in a more straightforward way such as a seascape. In either case, as with all the forms, the focus remains on nature and how to capture the exact image of nature on film.
Nature photography lends itself to many different subtleties and nuances that can cause confusing and juxtaposing classifications. However, at the root of all pictures of nature lies the photographer’s intention of capturing nature in its actual state and habitat, emphasizing the way nature lives. At Imagekind, you will see all different forms of photography all available for print that can add a unique and natural aspect of your favorite natural image.

Nature photography has always been a very popular genre for fine art photographers. Though it often proves difficult to categorize, as it does include many different forms, such as scenic landscapes, underwater scenes, plants and animals, just to name some of the major groups. All of these fall under the overarching description of nature, but can also be classified in their own independent genres. Though they are all different and unique in their own way, they also include many similarities and share related aspects in not only their content, but form as well. Obviously, the main similarity between these groupings is that they all depict the beauty of nature, but beyond that, the similarities also lie within the philosophies behind such camera work.
Scenic, or landscape photography, usually includes expansive views of natural backgrounds that usually include many of the other elements mentioned above. For example, it is common to see plants, such as trees and flowers, within scenic pictures. Though it is less common to see animals, because it takes away from the actual landscape, it is still possible, and does not automatically disqualify it from the scenic title.

Photography tends to be protected by the law through copyright and moral rights. Photography tends to be restricted by the law through miscellaneous criminal offences. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy law. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Legal restrictions on photography:

Amsterdam,Holland. Photo by Gary Mark Smith.
In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film in the Royal Parks.[2]
Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[3]
It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.[4] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[5][6] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.[7]
Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making child pornography or what looks like child pornography.
It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[8]
It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[9]
Copyright:
Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.[10] Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit.[10] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it,[11] by default.[12] However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.[13]
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.[14] A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them.[15] As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.
Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest.
Immoral works:
Many cases in which this has been the case in respect of sexual immorality can be found. For example, in Stockdale v Onwhyn, the memoirs of a courtesan were denied protection. However, it is notable that these cases tend to be quite old, and were decided in the context of a relatively homogeneous, religious and conservative society. Stockdale v Onwhyn was, for example, decided in 1826. Similarly, in Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co (1915), the plaintiff's sexually explicit novel was adapted into a film. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, but the court refused to award an injunction or an account of profits. The court took the view that the book lacked literary merit.[16] The court found that the work in question was "grossly immoral in its essence, in its treatment, and in its tendency. Stripped of its trappings, which are mere accident, it is nothing more nor less than a sensual adulterous intrigue." As such, the court refused to enforce a copyright in the work.
As such, it is open to a court to find that a photograph is immoral, and, as such not enforce copyright which subsists in it. However, in a modern, heterogeneous and largely secular society which values diversity in creative works, a judge, in full awareness of his limited capacity to assess the public interest, may be reluctant to find that a work is sufficiently immoral as to warrant the denial of copyright protection. Nonetheless, it is possible to think of works which may nonetheless activate the court's discretion in such a manner, such as child pornography or posed images of nonconsensual torture.
The somewhat ironic practical effect of the court refusing to enforce copyright is not to ban the work in question. Instead, it prevents the copyright holder from preventing others from dealing with the work in a manner which is normally restricted to the copyright holder. As such, in Glyn, the court did not stop the film maker from profiting from the film.
Public interest generally:
The restriction of the ability to deal with a work in certain ways to the copyright holder can have the effect of providing a legally sanctioned cloak to information. Hypothetically, a cult could use the law of copyright to prevent distribution of their texts, thus protecting the cult from mockery. The court recognises that there is a right to freedom of expression. This has been interpreted to involve the ability to express oneself, and also the ability to receive information. As such, Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (2000), the Court of Appeal accepted that the public interest could require that copyright not be enforced, where it was in the public interest that the information be distributed. In that case, a security company had sued a newspaper for copyright infringement, when the newspaper published still images of a meeting between Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al-Fayed, shortly before the former's death. On the facts, however, the public interest defence failed. It was found that the public interest did not, in that particular case, necessitate the publication of the photographs themselves. Publication of the information contained within them would have satisfied the demands of the public interest.
Infringement:
Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed though copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph.[17] For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph.[18] A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting, architectural work (building) or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.

The Radcliffe Camera, built 1737-1749, holds books from the Bodleian Library
Because the right infringed is the exclusive right to copy, there must be copying, as opposed to independent recreation of a substantial part. For example, a tourist may take a photograph which is for all intents and purposes identical to the picture on the right. However, if the tourist's photograph happens to be of the same scene, but not a copy of the Wikipedia photograph, the tourist would not be infringing copyright. (The building, an architectural work, is from the 1700s, and as such, copyright does not subsist in it). Since the photograph is an artistic work, irrespective of artistic merit, copyright will protect the subject of the photograph rather than merely the medium. As such, it is possible to infringe the copyright in a photograph through non-literal copying. In Bauman v Fussell, for example, the Court of Appeal held by majority that a painting which copied the arrangement of two cocks from a photograph infringed the copyright which subsisted in the photograph.
However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case,[19][20] a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself - it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work.
The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds.[21] Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken.[22] It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann describes photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion.[23] Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.[21] Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For example, it is possible that Vogue Magazine would be infringing copyright if they, inspired by a picture taken by a drunk boyfriend of his girlfriend posing provocatively on a motorcycle, attempted to recreate the photograph. Similarly, it is possible that a famous wildlife photographer, inspired by a cheap snapshot of cheetah at the zoo, on Flikr, would be infringing copyright if he went exploring the Okovango Delta in search of a cheetah in a similar pose. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgement.[21] That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. For example, in Walter v Lane, reporters who transcribed a speech were held to be authors of the transcription, and owners of a copyright which subsisted in it. Essentially, by this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the law the presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.
It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright.[24] It is likely that a photograph (including a scan - digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgement went into its creation.[25] As such, the photograph above of the Radcliffe Camera would be subject to copyright. Similarly, based on the latter conclusion, it is likely, for example, that if Wikipedia hosted a scan of, for example, the Magna Carta, on a UK server, and the scan required skill, labour and judgement, in handling the document and processing the digital file, Wikipedia would, if it did not have a licence, be infringing the scanner's copyright.
Photography and privacy:
A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[26][27][28][29][30]
Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[31] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[32]
A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner[33], irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph[33] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public,[34] the work exhibited in public[35] or the work communicated to the public.[36] However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.[37]

There are many ongoing questions about different aspects of photography. In her writing "On Photography" (1977), Susan Sontag discusses concerns about the objectivity of photography. This is a highly debated subject within the photographic community.[16] Sontag argues, "To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting one’s self into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge, and therefore like power."[17] Photographers decide what to take a photo of, what elements to exclude and what angle to frame the photo, and these factors may reflect a particular socio-historical context. Along these lines it can be argued that photography is a subjective form of representation.
Modern photography has raised a number of concerns on its impact on society. In Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954), the camera is presented as a promoter of voyeuristic inhibitions. 'Although the camera is an observation station, the act of photographing is more than passive observing'.[17] Michal Powell's Peeping Tom (1960) portrays the camera as both sexual and sadistically violent technology that literally kills in this picture and at the same time captures images of the pain and anguish evident on the faces of the female victims.[citation needed]
"The camera doesn't rape or even possess, though it may presume, intrude, trespass, distort, exploit, and, at the farthest reach of metaphor, assassinate - all activities that, unlike the sexual push and shove, can be conducted from a distance, and with some detachment."[17]
Photography is one of the new media forms that changes perception and changes the structure of society.[18] Further unease has been caused around cameras in regards to desensitization. Fears that disturbing or explicit images are widely accessible to children and society at large have been raised. Particularly, photos of war and pornography are causing a stir. Sontag is concerned that "to photograph is to turn people into objects that can be symbolically possessed." Desensitization discussion goes hand in hand with debates about censored images. Sontag writes of her concern that the ability to censor pictures means the photographer has the ability to construct reality.[17]
One of the practices through which photography constitutes society is tourism. Tourism and photography combine to create a "tourist gaze"[19] in which local inhabitants are positioned and defined by the camera lens. However, it has also been argued that there exists a "reverse gaze"[20] through which indigenous photographees can position the tourist photographer as a shallow consumer of images.

Besides the camera, other methods of forming images with light are available. For instance, a photocopy or xerography machine forms permanent images but uses the transfer of static electrical charges rather than photographic film, hence the term electrophotography. Photograms are images produced by the shadows of objects cast on the photographic paper, without the use of a camera. Objects can also be placed directly on the glass of an image scanner to produce digital pictures.