No more Street Photography?

chuckles

chuckles

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,470
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
Apparently the EU wants to put a stop to this under the guise of restrictions within "Freedom of Panorama". This is news to me and forgive me if it's been posted elsewhere (I searched, but nothing turned up)

Vote on the 9th July to end Freedom of Panorama.... read all about it!
 
Here's a more thorough report
 
It's nonsense as it refers to copyrighted objects such as buildings. Not many buildings enjoy copyright protection, but even for those that do, a photograph of it does not infringe its copyright.


Steve.
 
mikew said:
Wow its good to see they can ignore the totally unimportant matters and cut straight through to the things that really count in this modern age of conflict and human suffering,stupid gits
Click to expand...

Very well put Mike. 1st I have heard about it. Have they nothing better to do?
 
Steve Smith said:
It's nonsense as it refers to copyrighted objects such as buildings. Not many buildings enjoy copyright protection, but even for those that do, a photograph of it does not infringe its copyright.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of what this change in the law will do though, currently it does not infringe copyright, but this change seems to mean it will in the future
 
rpsmith79 said:
Isn't that the point of what this change in the law will do though, currently it does not infringe copyright, but this change seems to mean it will in the future
Click to expand...

I couldn't really work it out from the article. If so, it's fairly unworkable.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's nonsense as it refers to copyrighted objects such as buildings. Not many buildings enjoy copyright protection, but even for those that do, a photograph of it does not infringe its copyright.


Steve.
Click to expand...


As I asked. isnt it for commercial photographers who will then go on to exploit that copyright?

i think the OP has missled us with the title.. this isn't about us lot on here doing street photography.. its about commercial photogrpahers who will need to ask permission before taking pics of certain buildingo ..not all..

generally its a load of tosh and wont effect 99% of us:)
 
KIPAX said:
Just had a quick read.. isnt this only for commercial photographers?
Click to expand...

May well be... but will the "Tripod Police" know how to distinguish the difference?

I had exactly this problem in Paris this spring when I was photographing a building near an Arch (can't remember it's title but it wasn't the Arch! In fact, I think it was foil to a distraction, pick-pocketing but that's a different story. The thing is I looked a bit deeper into it and things like the Eiffel Tower Illminations are Copyrighted and you'd be damned to publish without the right to do so.

The Atomium in Brussels is a Copyrighted object... to include it in your photograph is a big no-no!
 
KIPAX said:
As I asked. isnt it for commercial photographers who will then go on to exploit that copyright?

i think the OP has missled us with the title.. this isn't about us lot on here doing street photography.. its about commercial photogrpahers who will need to ask permission before taking pics of certain buildingo ..not all..

generally its a load of tosh and wont effect 99% of us:)
Click to expand...

I wasn't out to mislead - but if you're to commercially photograph a model, say, in front of a Copyrighted building how would you stand? And, to be fair, it isn't explicit in any article Iv'e read. It's a complete minefield of misinformation!
 
KIPAX said:
As I asked. isnt it for commercial photographers who will then go on to exploit that copyright?
Click to expand...

It seems to be but in itself, it won't be enough as to be enforced properly as far as buildings are concerned, the part of copyright law/Berne Convention which sets out what is and isn't a copy will also need to be changed if it is to be considered in terms of copyright infringement. If not, then what is it?

But as you say, for 99% of us - no change.


Steve.
 
chuckles said:
I looked a bit deeper into it and things like the Eiffel Tower Illminations are Copyrighted and you'd be damned to publish without the right to do so.
Click to expand...

The Eiffel Tower owners claim this but I don't think they have challenged it in court. I think it's just bully boy tactics.

My view is that the lighting on a building is part of the building, therefore the Berne Convention ruling applies.

Do a search to see how many Eiffel Tower images you can find on line and how many show the illuminations.

http://fineartamerica.com/products/paris-romantic-night-lights-alex-khomoutov-canvas-print.html
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Eiffel-Tower-Paris-France-Posters_i9477551_.htm


Steve.
 
Blah blah back off Brussels from the express, frankly I'm shocked....
 
Steve Smith said:
My view is that the lighting on a building is part of the building, therefore the Berne Convention ruling applies.
Click to expand...

But how is that affected by Illuminations from the Tower?

Steve Smith said:
Do a search to see how many Eiffel Tower images you can find on line and how many show the illuminations.
Click to expand...

I know and I have my own!
 
There are rotating spotlight(s) on the top and there are sparkly lights all over it. I got the impression you were referring to lighting by way of Floodlights around the base (not necessarily, physically attached to it)

DSC_0201 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

DSC_0194 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

Now I'm in trouble I've gone and published!
 
They claim they have the copyright of the artistry in the lighting and that you need a licence to reproduce it for commercial use. I think that is b*ll*cks as a photograph is not a copy of lighting.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
They claim they have the copyright of the artistry in the lighting and that you need a licence to reproduce it for commercial use. I think that is b*ll*cks as a photograph is not a copy of lighting.


Steve.
Click to expand...

LoL - I thought you were commenting on my (snappy) photo! :sulk:
 
I don't think the Eiffel Tower's claims to copyright are at all reasonable.

At some point in time there were no illuminations on the tower and you could photograph Paris at night with your camera pointing towards it. To then add lighting and say "you can't photograph that now" is completely unreasonable. as it denies people the right to do something which they have been doing for many years up to that point.

In my opinion it is unreasonable for someone to display something in public view then claim that you need a licence in order to reproduce it.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Yet another total over reaction, this certainly isn't the end of street photography which is a shame as I'm bored of the endless black and whites of people eating chips on a town centre bench nonsense.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Yet another total over reaction, this certainly isn't the end of street photography which is a shame as I'm bored of the endless black and whites of people eating chips on a town centre bench nonsense.
Click to expand...

I totally don't get street photography, or indeed have no interest in photographs of people I don't know whether it is portrait, glamour, etc. but I will certainly defend people's right to do it.


Steve.
 
The Telegraph has jumped on this too - Read here

Pretty rubbish and will take away from tourism in a big way. Who want's to visit a country where they can't take photos of they're trip away because they don't want to be hit with a lawsuit for copyright? I think I'd quit photography if this is the case.
 
Are people actually reading the article? It's not a ban on photographing things, it's a proposed ban on commercial use of such photographs. That doesn't affect tourists taken photographs at all.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Are people actually reading the article? It's not a ban on photographing things, it's a proposed ban on commercial use of such photographs. That doesn't affect tourists taken photographs at all.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I read it but maybe I've misunderstood. My bad if so. In saying that anyway why would we want to fall under big brothers watchful eye even if it is for commercial use? And what's the line when it comes to the definition of commercial use because I'm sure it will be twisted and turned when it comes to lawsuits.

PS - In my defense it does say in the article I posted about it possibly affecting images being posted to personal websites including Facebook which is a place I put my photos. Surely someone on holiday taking a photo and posting a photo to Facebook would be a cause for upset thus affecting tourism hence my original statement. By affecting tourism I just mean people getting annoyed and pestered all the time when they want to take a photo.
 
Last edited:
YoshiK1 said:
PS - In my defense it does say in the article I posted about it possibly affecting images being posted to personal websites
Click to expand...

You're right, it does. I was referring to the original article.

In my opinion, it's unworkable. The Berne Convention states that a phgotograph does not infringe any copyright which exists in a building or work of art diplayed in public so a change would be required here too.


Steve.
 
YoshiK1 said:
I read it but maybe I've misunderstood. My bad if so. In saying that anyway why would we want to fall under big brothers watchful eye even if it is for commercial use? And what's the line when it comes to the definition of commercial use because I'm sure it will be twisted and turned when it comes to lawsuits.

PS - In my defense it does say in the article I posted about it possibly affecting images being posted to personal websites including Facebook which is a place I put my photos. Surely someone on holiday taking a photo and posting a photo to Facebook would be a cause for upset thus affecting tourism hence my original statement. By affecting tourism I just mean people getting annoyed and pestered all the time when they want to take a photo.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing personal about Facebook.
A personal website (non commercial) will be OK, social media, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top