Freedom of Panorama, Bill

An item has just come up on Fotolibra concerning proposed legislation in the European Parliament to restrict the right of Freedom of Panorama - the details can be found in the following link http://blog.fotolibra.com/2015/06/30/a-little-help-here/ or by Googling 'Freedom of Panorama'

Perhaps members could consider lobbying their MEPs over this proposed legislation, please

Hi MHOL190246

This has been posted previously (ref: 27.06.2015 @ 11.31)

It doesn't hurt to repost as this keeps this to the forefront.

Best regards
Malcombe

I have now had responses from all of the MEPs in the East of England who have advised that they will be opposing the French amendment which is designed to copyright landmarks. Furthermore the Royal Photographic Society has launched an e-petition accessible via their facebook page

I have e-mailed one of the SE England MEPs whom I know well and I hope she will vote against.

I'm for civil disobedience in any case.

A link to the EU proposal, and a link to the petition against it, was also posted to the Open Photography Forum on 25th June, by one of the German members (Michael Nagel). Only a few comments followed, as most of the OPF members are in North America.

Martin

The fact this was evenproposed in the first place is indicative we live in an absurd world

Response (via email) from the RPS :-

Dear UK and European Member:

Over the past few days you may have read or been emailed about the threat to ‘freedom or panorama’ which is included in a draft report being promoted by a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).

In the UK (and in some other countries) we enjoy the right to photograph buildings and sculptures ‘if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public’ for our own enjoyment and even for commercial use. The MEP’s proposal is to adopt the model that operates in France and a number of other European countries which gives other creators e.g. architects and sculptors, protection against having their work being reproduced without payment. In those countries permission is required to photograph or exploit images containing those works. The more sensationalist press reports have suggested that the public’s holiday snaps might be threatened - the reality is that it would mostly affect groups such as travel book, postcard and poster publishers, in particular. Either way, it is a significant concern to The Society.

The MEP’s proposal is only for commercial use and it is a very long way from becoming law but The Society believes that the proposal should be dismissed before it gains any traction. If harmonisation is required then it should be along the UK model and not the other for which there has been no great demand for other than by a small number of vested interests. In the UK there is no demand to change the current position even from groups such as architects who might benefit.

The Society would encourage members to sign a change.org petition here to register your objection to the proposal. Almost 300,000 people across Europe have already signed. You may also wish to contact your own MEP to register your views.

The Society has been working with a number of other organisations over the past couple of weeks on this issue and the next key date is 9 July when there will be a vote in the European Parliament on the report.

There will be a blog posting about this issue on The Society’s website shortly. If you have any comments – for or against – please email me at:

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

I keep seeing these references to architects and sculptors in regard to copyright issues with regard to photographs, and would like to make something clear. At the moment there would only be a copyright breach if you were to copy a building or sculpture by physically constructing a replica or something demonstrably taken from that source; taking photos has never been an issue and there are no conceivable circumstances where copyright law would apply. Why? because intellectual property resides in the object created, not necessarily a picture of it unless the object itself happens to be a painting or photo. Painter's websites make clear that if you copy a painting from a photo then that is a copyright breach if the painting is to be exhibited or entered into a competition, so if you find someone has used one of your photos in a painting then you can take the appropriate action - usually a polite letter suffices.

That's not exactly true. If you where to take a photograph of the gerkhin as an example and the start selling mugs with that image on you would have infringed the architects copyright in that building.

What the new proposals are considering is extending permission required to photograph buildings. If this proposal did go through and became law would owners of buildings really try to stop amateurs and tourists from taking these kind of photos? The answer most likely would be no, just because a law is introduced would not mean it is implicated, look how few people are fined for using a mobile whilst driving....

[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"]That's not exactly true. If you where to take a photograph of the gerkhin as an example and the start selling mugs with that image on you would have infringed the architects copyright in that building.

Copyright of the image would be vested in the photographer not the architect. If this comes about then we will be hounded by companies scouring the internet to hunt down infringements and offering legal representation like the ambulance-chasers after every minor collision, so of course the question is where is the pressure for this coming from? Any bets on copyright lawyers looking greedily at how successful PPI claim reps have been?

Nonsense.

That is patently absurd. People sell tourist t-Shirts, mugs, trinkets, etc of notable buildings all the time. Why shouldn't someone be able to commercially publish a photograph or image/graphic of a public scene? The copyright lies with person who took the photograph, not who designed the objects in the scene.

You'd breach copyright by constructing a building with the same design as the Gerkhin, but not by selling an image of it.

What next? You can't commercially publish a street photograph without car manufacturers or clothing manufacturers claiming royalties on images of their cars or of clothes worn by members of the public in the photograph? Or mobile phone manufacturers won't let anyone commercially publish a photograph without payment becuase someone in the photograph is using one of their mobile phones.

You take a photo in any high street and there'll be hundreds of instances of items ( buildings, vehicles, products, etc ) that were designed and manufactured by someone who ownsthe copy right to those items.

Passing a law that allows the copyright owner of that item to claim a payment on the commercially published image of that item is the sign of humans having a mental illness

I've never heard of anything so unhinged



Who cares. passing such a law in the first place is indicative of a failed society

What he said (well) ^

Looks like we can relax and un-knot our knickers for a while;

link