45699 Galatea

If someone walked into my company's premises and took photo's of our latest project and then published them without our permission and before we'd had chance to use them ourselves I'd be pretty angry. Why is the situation any different just because the project in this case happens to be loco?

 

Sheff,

You may be "pretty angry" but as long as the photos of your new project were taken legally, it's hard to see that you've got a legal case to stop it.

However, hazarding a wild guess, it's likely to look like a butchered Black 5 in brunswick green - after all, don't all ex-LMS 4-6-0s look the same?

:behindsofa:

 

Well for the majority of people here, this is a hobby not a job; i assume there's no massive enthusiast/hobby/trainspotter/photter community, plus railtour market, with a keen watchful eye on what your company is going to do next? (I don't know what you do by the way, so i could be miles out here! lol) Why do people need to be told off for expressing an interest in the loco just because the company in this case happens to be WCRC?

 

Yes tobbes, almost as much as GWR 4-6-0'S...

 

As part of a project building a patriot I have to say no. Lol.

 

It's not about whether there is a law against it... it's not morally right and it's polite to ask! That's where it ends for me, from there on in is not relevant

 

You have answered your own question, a steam loco has a high public/enthusiast interest. Especially in this case as it was such a wreck. To make a comparison, 6023 was in a similar state (driving wheels cut etc), but there was no secrecy over the restoration of that. I would of thought people would of been proud to "show off" their achievements.
By the way I don't know what your business is, but may not have such a public interest.

 

Correct. I don't know what legal protection WCRC have in place, but I imagine they could cite intellectual property rights etc etc. Even if they haven't, 'papping' the loco is still on a par with snapping Kate Middleton's knockers as far as I'm concerned. It's up to WCRC when and where to release photo's of their handwork, and not some for chancer with a fancy phone. But in the age of the internet, respect for other peoples' privacy seems to be a thing of the past. Plus of course, what's the big news, it's green and looks like a Jub, so no surprises either.

 

Good to see your moral compass is well aligned. High public interest? Really? My comparison related to the ownership of the 'project'. In both cases the 'project' is the property of the company, in Galatea's case that's WCRC. It doesn't belong to you or me (or the 'public'), and therefore unless you have their permission you should not be phot'ing it inside their private premises.

 

Put like that Sheff, you have a point.

Regards
Chris:

 

Valid points Sheff, makes me pause for thought.

 

Could be Leander with Galateas number on?

 

I have to confess to a little confusion at some of the posts on here. I came too late to see the photo in question, or to know whether it was taken legally, or "illegally," but I think there has been a loss of perspective here. Whether or not WCRC has punted its corporate teddy out of the pram about the job, this is a machine that is over 70 years old, which has previously been seen by many millions of people, whether they were interested or not and which was one of 190 - odd, more or less identical machines, seen by equal numbers of people.

Whether it is painted green, red, or any other colour, is irrelevant, when complete, it will look like any other Jubilee - class engine, if, for now, shinier than most. To compare it with long lens photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge's chest, or any other parts of her estimable chassis, which she may have cared to expose in an area she had every reason to expect was private, is ridiculous. She, regardless of her public exposure, has a right to privacy. 45699 has no such rights. It is a machine, its intellectual property cannot be violated, it is a matter of long - standing public record. It is not a secret; it cannot be industrial espionage to photograph it, when photographs of it and its sisters have been in the public domain for in excess of 70 years.

I think our poster, who was contacted by "someone form WCRC" re his Facebook photo, should have told him, politely, or otherwise, to Foxtrot Oscar.

Unless, of course, I have missed something which does constitute criminality, which I have not gleaned from all I have read.

Regards,

jtx

 

At least LMS 4-6-0's were either red uns or black uns!

 

Reading between the lines, "our poster" may have some connection with WCRC in some shape or form. Seems he was contacted by phone, why would they have his phone number?

 

Somewhat ironic to compare it to Kate Middleton's chest when we have Leander and Galatea at Carnforth and thus a fine pair of jubilees there also.... Shall i get my coat??

Anyway pity didn't see photo before it was removed as she is a loco I can't wait to see (much as 6023) as she was another 'never restoreable one. But we can wait... Especially as pointed out she will essentially be a green Leader!

 

whats more ironic is the picture in question definitely shows one jubilee being topless.
the picture is still out there on the twitternet this evening, just not on this forum.

 

Good point, buseng, that would give WCRC some leverage and put the poster in a different light, if he had breached some confidentiality agreement.

 

Patience, if it's in the state said (the pic disappeared well before I looked at the thread), then it shoulden't be much longer before it comes out the WCRC gates.

 

It remains someone's property. If, hypothetically, I'd sold exclusivity on photographs to eg Steam Railway Magazine for £5000, which I plan to invest in the maintenance and upkeep of my loco, I'd be a bit pissed if SR pulled out, because some numpty couldn't show a little respect …

Simon