Copyright Infringement? EU proposes new legislation


malcombe

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 06:45
Has any other members seen this on the web? Orinally from Daily Telegraph. I have never heard of so much rubbish-have those in Europe responsible for have coffee and lunches to discuss and pass such stupid laws, nothing better to do to occupy their times?

"A new EU proposal could see millions of Britons face legal action for uploading photos of famous UK landmarks onto personal websites or even Facebook pages.
Monuments such as the Angel of the North and the London Eye, or public works of art such as Trafalgar Square’s Fourth Plinth or Liverpool’s Superlambananas, may need to be blacked out in holiday snaps to avoid breaching the copyright of individual architects or artists.
Members of the public would only be able to upload the uncensored photograph with prior consent from the author.
These are restrictions that already exist in some member states of the EU, including France, Belgium and Italy, but in an attempt to harmonise copyright law, Brussels could extend this to the UK as early as next month.


The UK, along with countries such as Spain and Germany, currently enjoys “freedom of panorama”, a provision in copyright law that allows people to publish photographs of modern buildings or public art installations and use any way they like without infringing copyright.
However, where this clause does not exist, restrictions extend even to educational, not-for-profit websites such as Wikipedia. The website’s page for the Atomium building in Belgium, for example, is illustrated by a silhouetted shot of the building, due to copyright restrictions.
In France, it is illegal to publish a photograph of the Eiffel Tower by night since the tower’s illuminations added in 2003 retain copyright, even though the copyright for the structure itself, built in 1889, has long since expired. Daytime photographs are acceptable, but prior permission must be obtained from operating company Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE), which owns the rights, for lit-up images.
The threat to the UK’s freedom of panorama is an unfortunate by-product of an attempt to reform EU copyright laws by German MEP Julia Reda. In a statement to parliament, her report calls for the EU to “ensure that the use of photographs, video footage, or other images of works which are permanently located in public places are permitted”.

If this gets passed ..... In an album, And this is Auntie Winifred in front of the Eiffel Tower (Sorry Europe won't permit me to show you the tower)

Any comments (but not from EU bureacrats!!)

Malcombe

johnriley

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 08:20
Back in WWII, amateur photographers couldn't freely go around photographing landmarks and bridges and so on, for obvious security reasons. Still life, portraits and macro were popular subjects.

In practice, it's hard to see how such a move would be policed and copyright owners can't sue everyone.
Best regards, John

Algernon

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 08:44
I wonder if Australia would have anything like the huge international status/attraction it has if all photos of the Sydney opera house had never been published. In fact I am sure that publicity was the reason for building it in the first place.

A lot of architecture should have been kept hidden from our eyes. It hurts looking at it.

A lot of the new buildings in Liverpool have completely ruined the view from across the river....

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BM2XGM/panoramic-view-of-liverpool-waterfront-from-birk...

---


--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 25/06/2015 - 08:47

Darkmunk

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 10:05

LennyBloke

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 10:18
Perhaps the law could be extended to prohibit looking at monuments, buildings, possessions, etc. without the permission of the copyright owner ?

Old phrases such as "is you looking at my Wife?" could accompany "is you looking at my Ancient Pile"
LennyBloke

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 10:21
I can't see it being passed..too many commercial enterprises like Google would suffer financially...imagine all the streetview images they would have to edit or delete. In addition this type of legislation would only make it more likely that the UK voted to leave the EU, hoisting them by their own petard.

JAK

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 11:46
Sure it wasn't an April 1st report? Certainly sounds like one!
John K

alfpics

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 12:16
If they don't want people to take photos of these places, they shouldn't leave them 'lying around' on public view...
Andy

Darkmunk

Link Posted 25/06/2015 - 12:53
alfpics wrote:
If they don't want people to take photos of these places, they shouldn't leave them 'lying around' on public view...


Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

RobL

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 08:14
Are you sure this wasn't an April 1st prank? If not then it is totally unworkable and who is going to bring an action for breach? Realistically are copyright owners going to spend time scanning all media - what of videos? At what stage does a subject become relevant - a hazy image on the far horizon, or a city panorama with numerous structures for instance. As an architect I would be delighted if copyright payments started dropping though the letterbox but it ain't ever going to happen. Best to ignore and carry on as before.

RussV

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 11:07
RobL wrote:
Are you sure this wasn't an April 1st prank?

Sadly not, it has been widely reported.
www.russv.me.uk

Defragged

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 12:30
Copyright laws won't affect me as I don't photograph public buildings, monuments or other blokes wags or daughters.
I only use my camera to catch the light reflected from them!!!
C.O.L.B.A.S victim
(Compulsive Obsessive Lens Buying Addiction Syndrome)

What you need are lenses, more lenses, bigger lenses, better lenses, faster lenses, and when you have these, your pictures will be perfect!

doingthebobs

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 18:57
Defragged wrote:
Copyright laws won't affect me as I don't photograph public buildings, monuments or other blokes wags or daughters.
I only use my camera to catch the light reflected from them!!!

Funnily enough, mine does the same thing and they don't own the light!

I guess in the case if the Eiffel tower at night they do but we should all complain about the light pollution caused by the operators!
Bob
Last Edited by doingthebobs on 26/06/2015 - 19:02

Smeggypants

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 19:22
LennyBloke wrote:
Perhaps the law could be extended to prohibit looking at monuments, buildings, possessions, etc. without the permission of the copyright owner ?

That's what this farcical proposal is effectively doing. London could be sued for allowing the London Eye to be seen by people in London
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

SteveLedger

Link Posted 26/06/2015 - 22:24
How long before they ban cameras at Airshows?
Stop train spotters using cameras?
No more photos of commercial aircraft at airports (for your safety) and no cameras on-board flights.
Prevent Astrophotography because it goes through CASA (CAA in UK) airspace or you might capture specs of satellites without permission.
Could we go as far as banning cameras in National Parks? No photos of protected species without a license?

Really, we need to throw out these law makers and politicians who have little grasp on reality.
Last Edited by SteveLedger on 26/06/2015 - 22:38
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.