No more Street Photography?

viv1969 said:
There's absolutely nothing personal about Facebook.
A personal website (non commercial) will be OK, social media, not so much.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually sure what you mean here? Both sentences seem contradictory on my understanding of your comment?

In the article I posted it referenced Facebook. I'm only going on what has been said by that article. Not that I tend to believe papers, I'm just speaking based on what's been said so far.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's not going to happen though is it? If this ever became law, people would still be posting their photographs on Facebook just as they do now.
Click to expand...
Yes, and eventually someone will get caught out.
I can't image copyright owners will be trawling Facebook looking for infractions, but it is not hard to imagine a scenario where they might sit up.

For example: you are on holiday and take a nice photo/video of the Eiffel Tower at night. Aaah, lovely. I'm sticking that one up on Facebook.
Someone at Facebook drops a clanger and uses your photo in a TV advert broadcast during Coronation Street with 8m viewers.
Owners of copyright write a letter to Facebook demanding to know who posted the photo and subsequently sues, holding both you and Facebook jointly and severally liable.
 
The publisher takes on the responsibility, not the photographer.

Personally, I can't see The Berne Convention changing the rules on what constitutes a copy. Currently copyright protects just that - copies. A photograph is not a copy of a building and it's not really a copy of a piece of artwork put on public display (including lights on metal French towers!).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
YoshiK1 said:
I'm not actually sure what you mean here? Both sentences seem contradictory on my understanding of your comment?

In the article I posted it referenced Facebook. I'm only going on what has been said by that article. Not that I tend to believe papers, I'm just speaking based on what's been said so far.
Click to expand...
id imagine posting to face book counts as "commercial use" as facebook displays income generating ads alongside your holiday snaps wheras a personal website is not in any way commercial (unless it has been "monetised" with ads)
 
Steve Smith said:
That's not going to happen though is it? If this ever became law, people would still be posting their photographs on Facebook just as they do now.


Steve.
Click to expand...


But if you wanted to get work published or exhibited, you;d need a license before anyone would touch it.

I don't get this.. amateurs wet their knickers in anger when Nick Grimshaw shares a press image on Instagram, yet no one cares about this?

WTF is wrong with some of you? This is a nightmare.
 
Not sure why the title is No More Street Photography, this affects all photography after all & not just "street"

This is the thin end of the wedge and should be fought against

If we don't then what will be next?
 
chuckles said:
but if you're to commercially photograph a model, say, in front of a Copyrighted building how would you stand? !
Click to expand...

If the model is topless nobody will be looking at the building so it won"t count
 
Cobra said:
Did anyone else read that as "freedom of paranoia" ?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Don't worry, your probably just being paranoid !



Steve Smith said:
I totally don't get street photography.
Click to expand...

I am not really interested in Street photography myself as such, but I like the idea of getting street photos, for memories. As I like looking at old street photos, just to see how we used to live really.
 
?is everybody signingithe petitition?
 
Signed. 237 more required to reach 50,000.
 
What's the significance of 50,000 signees?
 
I do believe this is somewhat belated. Already red buses in London are copy write protected or at the taking and publishing pictures of said buses. I have also when working professionally
been threatened with prosecution when working outside on a number of occasions. Even happened in the centre of Swansea believe it or not. A jobs-worth called the police when I was
taking pictures of a model in front of the castle. Thank goodness I've now retired.
 
Even if this were to effect not just commercial photographers and effects posting to Facebook and flickr, those sites would not love it as many people would probably leave and stop using their sites as would be no point to it. Not just photographers but people not into photography who use smart phones and take pictures etc. If this goes through it will hit tourisum in the EU big time, and god knows how they would police it. Also they would need to have every building effected advertising saying no photography.
 
martinfuge said:
Even if this were to effect not just commercial photographers and effects posting to Facebook and flickr, those sites would not love it as many people would probably leave and stop using their sites as would be no point to it. Not just photographers but people not into photography who use smart phones and take pictures etc. If this goes through it will hit tourisum in the EU big time, and god knows how they would police it. Also they would need to have every building effected advertising saying no photography.
Click to expand...
They would need to hang massive "no photos" signs from each building and would need security guards patrolling all streets within viewing distance of the property to realistically enforce the ban. Even then they would have to get over the problem of security guards having no power to police on public land.
 
They wouldn't need anything of the sort, since the proposal wouldn't prohibit taking the photo, only its use commercially.

More likely is that social media will be trawled looking for photos of protected landmarks.
 
Llamaman said:
They wouldn't need anything of the sort, since the proposal wouldn't prohibit taking the photo, only its use commercially.

More likely is that social media will be trawled looking for photos of protected landmarks.
Click to expand...

That is it in a nutshell.
 
Signed. Yet further attempt at erosion of liberty. Government now trying to emasculate the Freedom of Information Act, screw the poorest members of society whilst MP's take a 10% pay rise. They have even given the powers to schools to confiscate perceived unhealthy food in lunchboxes. Sorry for the rather diverse rant, but I could go on for hours! I'm a fully fledged grumpy old man living in a country I no longer recognise.
 
Yellowbelly said:
Signed. Yet further attempt at erosion of liberty. Government now trying to emasculate the Freedom of Information Act, screw the poorest members of society whilst MP's take a 10% pay rise. They have even given the powers to schools to confiscate perceived unhealthy food in lunchboxes. Sorry for the rather diverse rant, but I could go on for hours! I'm a fully fledged grumpy old man living in a country I no longer recognise.
Click to expand...
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the UK government in Westminster, don't you?
 
Llamaman said:
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the UK government in Westminster, don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. It is however successive governments who have kow towed to the dictats of unelected EU pen-pushers and notwithstanding the the clear and crass stupidity of much of the EU driven legislation, of which this is more. Our Parliament will no doubt embrace restrictions on photography too.

Now I have no desire or time to exchange political banter, so as far as I am concerned the subject is now closed.
 
6b85347c9d6c473ec32899fe8fc3704b.jpg
 
Ah the return of the Ukip supporters. Wondered what happened to them after the election, it had gone so quiet for a while.
 
Byker28i said:
Ah the return of the Ukip supporters. Wondered what happened to them after the election, it had gone so quiet for a while.
Click to expand...
I think they were a bit busy sorting out some internal party issues...
 
Just as a matter of interest.. if this law is passed will it actually effect anyone in this thread? i mean is there anyone taking commercial pictures of certain building to sell... seems to me just a lot of pjhotogrpahers getting there undies in a twist because they like a good moan.... dont think most have even looked at the proposal.. just jumped on the bandwaggon..

I havent signed it.. cant think of any reason why i would be bothered to... ....que replies with IF BUT and MAYBE in them :)
 
KIPAX said:
Just as a matter of interest.. if this law is passed will it actually effect anyone in this thread? i mean is there anyone taking commercial pictures of certain building to sell... seems to me just a lot of pjhotogrpahers getting there undies in a twist because they like a good moan.... dont think most have even looked at the proposal.. just jumped on the bandwaggon..

I havent signed it.. cant think of any reason why i would be bothered to... ....que replies with IF BUT and MAYBE in them :)
Click to expand...
Do you ever upload pictures to social media? If you do, then this proposed law would effect you. This is why people are making a big noise about it - the proposal fails to take account of the way photography is enjoyed by hobbyists and amateurs and assumes a clear line between professional/commercial and amateur that no longer exists.
 
KIPAX said:
Just as a matter of interest.. if this law is passed will it actually effect anyone in this thread? i mean is there anyone taking commercial pictures of certain building to sell... seems to me just a lot of pjhotogrpahers getting there undies in a twist because they like a good moan.... dont think most have even looked at the proposal.. just jumped on the bandwaggon..

I havent signed it.. cant think of any reason why i would be bothered to... ....que replies with IF BUT and MAYBE in them :)
Click to expand...

It would affect me.

Most of the pictures I've ever sold are of buildings. Usually to architectural magazines and people publishing books.

Some of them it's very difficult to find out who designed them as they may date from the 1920s or 30s, but the architect may well have lived up to the 1980s or 90s. I do the research anyhow, but it's not unusual to draw a blank. The records may simply not be there - perhaps destroyed in the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top