33 ms·

List of copyrighted places

98 points by hippich 16y ago

Anechoic 16y ago
This is an unfair title. Some of the prohibitions discussed (brands, U.S political party logos) are about copyright, but others (St Paul's Cathedral) seem to be about public disruption, and others (The US National Arboretum) apply only to commerical photography. This is a list of places/things where photography (commercial photography in general) is prohibited, but it's not necessarily about copyright.
- Natsu 16y ago
  You're correct about the title being misleading, but I think that most people don't much care about why they can't take a picture of something, only the fact that they can't do it.
  - OstiaAntica 16y ago
    No, what it is says is they can't resell a photo, royalty-free, for commercial gain.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      Some of those are because photography is, in fact, completely forbidden. The first item on the page being a prime example. There are also plenty of examples where commercial use isn't the issue, like with the trademarks, where things like "tarnishment" can come into play.
      - watchandwait 16y ago
        The reason there's no photography permitted in the first item: "In the past St Paul's has, as an experiment, relaxed the photography rule. However, the combination of camera flashes and groups queuing up to pose for photographs under the dome led to the conclusion that allowing photography would greatly detract from the spiritual life of the Cathedral."
- jcl 16y ago
  More specifically, this is a list of things that iStockPhoto could get in trouble for if they tried to sell photos of them. Many of these are fine for photographing for personal use, others are fine if you get permission. Some are only a problem if you try to use them in certain jurisdictions. And it's entirely possible that some of these subjects are completely legal to photograph and use for any purpose, except that there is some loud/litigious party that objects, and iStockPhoto doesn't care to contest their claims.
gue5t 16y ago
(or: how to know when to yell "fuck the police" after uploading images to the global nexus of free communication known as the internet)
daimyoyo 16y ago
"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content." I lol'd.
- Francis_Davey 16y ago
  Where does this odd idea come from? I read the iStock page, but I have no idea what legal basis this might have.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    It's a joke "royalty free" is a double entendre, it means both without paying a royalty charge OR without a member of the royalty present. That said recognisable public figures who trade on their personal image have protection under trademark law for commercial use of their image (note that commercial has a broad definition wider than just "financial gain").
nostromo 16y ago
I was surprised to see the National Arboretum on this list since most works created by the US Government are not protected by copyright (which is a great situation not enjoyed by people in most countries). Turns out they have a special law about collecting fees for using the arboretum: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1.1.2 http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1... -- however I wouldn't call this a copyright restriction per se. I was also surprised to see that they included an example image for most images that require royalties. :-)
rflrob 16y ago
Aren't most works-for-hire for by US Government employees immediately released into the public domain? In that case, then, how and why is it that the National Arboretum is a "copyrighted place"? Also, does anyone know a good primer on copyrighted places in general? My understanding of copyright law is hazy at best, but that seems unreasonable.
- jrockway 16y ago
  As mentioned above, there is a special law just for this particular place.
mecredis 16y ago
A lot of these are simply private places that prohibit photography -- it doesn't make sense to say the place itself is copyrighted since the term copyright refers to the right to make a reproduction a work, not a physical location. Additionally this really seems like a list of places or things that iStockPhoto won't allow as sources for royalty free images, which is even more narrow. In the US it's legal to take photos anywhere in public, even federal buildings, and there have been several cases establishing this right: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-too-take-that-picture/#/1/ http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-t...
- xiaoma 16y ago
  I don't think I saw any private places on the front page, excluding the one which was a large region of land, possibly containing homes. All the others were open to the public and many of them. such as the cathedral, actively seek visitors.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    Private in this context doesn't mean "not open". Private means not owned by the state/public. A cinema is still a "private[ly owned] place" despite its raison d'etre being to attract and welcome the public. Private land usually means that the owner can control some of the activity on that land, such as photography.
troymc 16y ago
"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content." In other words, if you want to release an image of the Queen under a royalty-free license, you must also remove the royalty. So, if you remove the queen and license the resulting image under a royalty-free license, you have an image that's royalty-free in two senses!
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Yeah, I was also under the impression that Versailles has been royalty-free for many years now.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  That must be a British thing; she's not my queen, she's an old lady in a funny hat.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Really! I'm not British; I don't recognize Royalty any more than I recognize magic or spells or holistic medicine. Other than of course as "a funny little belief held by weak-minded persons"
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      Royalty is a real as the law or countries. I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you choose to recognise it or not, it still exists. Whether it should is a different question altogether.
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        Laws enforcing priviledge for some genetic line exist. The 'fact' of royalty is a myth. Magical thinking. The very word is cognitive nonsense.
        pbhjpbhj 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dotBen 16y ago
All photos of the Eifel Tower taken at night are copyright of French government. I have no idea how the French can assert that but it's written in their law. (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw)
- jrockway 16y ago
  How does the French government assert these rights outside of France?
  - tonfa 16y ago
    Most countries signed the WIPO treaty.
- ja27 16y ago
  It's the light show that causes the current copyright claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_cl...
ck2 16y ago
Ah governments. For the people, by the people, sold back to the people.
lhnn 16y ago
I think the site would benefit from a chart of place vs. type of restriction (total, commercial, fees, etc.)
- sitkack 16y ago
  you are addicted to infographics.
nitfol 16y ago
I think this list is greatly erring on the side of caution. Some of the descriptions are incorrect, for example: Aspirin (Bayers) is trademarked in several countries around the world, including Canada and the United States. The word Aspirin cannot appear on any imagery submitted to the RF collection. Bayer famously lost its trademark for Aspirin in the United States after WWI as part of war reparations. It is still trademarked in Canada and many other countries, so possibly should be avoided in photos that are being used globally.
Kilimanjaro 16y ago
Under the universal-fraternity-of-common-sense law, shouldn't I be able to sell any picture I take no matter what or who? Can an artist make a painting of the interior of the church, or the french valley, with just his memory of the sighting? And then sell it? What if the artist was so realistic it was pixel perfect like a picture? And mass produced? And uploaded to the webs? Laws, lawyers and hell. So many jokes it's not funny anymore.

98 points by hippich 16y ago

This is an unfair title. Some of the prohibitions discussed (brands, U.S political party logos) are about copyright, but others (St Paul's Cathedral) seem to be about public disruption, and others (The US National Arboretum) apply only to commerical photography. This is a list of places/things where photography (commercial photography in general) is prohibited, but it's not necessarily about copyright.

Natsu 16y ago
You're correct about the title being misleading, but I think that most people don't much care about why they can't take a picture of something, only the fact that they can't do it.
- OstiaAntica 16y ago
  No, what it is says is they can't resell a photo, royalty-free, for commercial gain.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Some of those are because photography is, in fact, completely forbidden. The first item on the page being a prime example. There are also plenty of examples where commercial use isn't the issue, like with the trademarks, where things like "tarnishment" can come into play.
    - watchandwait 16y ago
      The reason there's no photography permitted in the first item: "In the past St Paul's has, as an experiment, relaxed the photography rule. However, the combination of camera flashes and groups queuing up to pose for photographs under the dome led to the conclusion that allowing photography would greatly detract from the spiritual life of the Cathedral."
jcl 16y ago
More specifically, this is a list of things that iStockPhoto could get in trouble for if they tried to sell photos of them. Many of these are fine for photographing for personal use, others are fine if you get permission. Some are only a problem if you try to use them in certain jurisdictions. And it's entirely possible that some of these subjects are completely legal to photograph and use for any purpose, except that there is some loud/litigious party that objects, and iStockPhoto doesn't care to contest their claims.

gue5t 16y ago

(or: how to know when to yell "fuck the police" after uploading images to the global nexus of free communication known as the internet)

daimyoyo 16y ago

"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content." I lol'd.

Francis_Davey 16y ago
Where does this odd idea come from? I read the iStock page, but I have no idea what legal basis this might have.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  It's a joke "royalty free" is a double entendre, it means both without paying a royalty charge OR without a member of the royalty present. That said recognisable public figures who trade on their personal image have protection under trademark law for commercial use of their image (note that commercial has a broad definition wider than just "financial gain").

nostromo 16y ago

I was surprised to see the National Arboretum on this list since most works created by the US Government are not protected by copyright (which is a great situation not enjoyed by people in most countries). Turns out they have a special law about collecting fees for using the arboretum: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1.1.2 http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1... -- however I wouldn't call this a copyright restriction per se. I was also surprised to see that they included an example image for most images that require royalties. :-)

rflrob 16y ago

Aren't most works-for-hire for by US Government employees immediately released into the public domain? In that case, then, how and why is it that the National Arboretum is a "copyrighted place"? Also, does anyone know a good primer on copyrighted places in general? My understanding of copyright law is hazy at best, but that seems unreasonable.

jrockway 16y ago
As mentioned above, there is a special law just for this particular place.

mecredis 16y ago

A lot of these are simply private places that prohibit photography -- it doesn't make sense to say the place itself is copyrighted since the term copyright refers to the right to make a reproduction a work, not a physical location. Additionally this really seems like a list of places or things that iStockPhoto won't allow as sources for royalty free images, which is even more narrow. In the US it's legal to take photos anywhere in public, even federal buildings, and there have been several cases establishing this right: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-too-take-that-picture/#/1/ http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-t...

xiaoma 16y ago
I don't think I saw any private places on the front page, excluding the one which was a large region of land, possibly containing homes. All the others were open to the public and many of them. such as the cathedral, actively seek visitors.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  Private in this context doesn't mean "not open". Private means not owned by the state/public. A cinema is still a "private[ly owned] place" despite its raison d'etre being to attract and welcome the public. Private land usually means that the owner can control some of the activity on that land, such as photography.

troymc 16y ago

"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content." In other words, if you want to release an image of the Queen under a royalty-free license, you must also remove the royalty. So, if you remove the queen and license the resulting image under a royalty-free license, you have an image that's royalty-free in two senses!

Vivtek 16y ago
Yeah, I was also under the impression that Versailles has been royalty-free for many years now.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
That must be a British thing; she's not my queen, she's an old lady in a funny hat.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Really! I'm not British; I don't recognize Royalty any more than I recognize magic or spells or holistic medicine. Other than of course as "a funny little belief held by weak-minded persons"
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    Royalty is a real as the law or countries. I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you choose to recognise it or not, it still exists. Whether it should is a different question altogether.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      Laws enforcing priviledge for some genetic line exist. The 'fact' of royalty is a myth. Magical thinking. The very word is cognitive nonsense.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dotBen 16y ago

All photos of the Eifel Tower taken at night are copyright of French government. I have no idea how the French can assert that but it's written in their law. (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw)

jrockway 16y ago
How does the French government assert these rights outside of France?
- tonfa 16y ago
  Most countries signed the WIPO treaty.
ja27 16y ago
It's the light show that causes the current copyright claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_cl...

ck2 16y ago

Ah governments. For the people, by the people, sold back to the people.

lhnn 16y ago

I think the site would benefit from a chart of place vs. type of restriction (total, commercial, fees, etc.)

sitkack 16y ago
you are addicted to infographics.

nitfol 16y ago

I think this list is greatly erring on the side of caution. Some of the descriptions are incorrect, for example: Aspirin (Bayers) is trademarked in several countries around the world, including Canada and the United States. The word Aspirin cannot appear on any imagery submitted to the RF collection. Bayer famously lost its trademark for Aspirin in the United States after WWI as part of war reparations. It is still trademarked in Canada and many other countries, so possibly should be avoided in photos that are being used globally.

Kilimanjaro 16y ago

Under the universal-fraternity-of-common-sense law, shouldn't I be able to sell any picture I take no matter what or who? Can an artist make a painting of the interior of the church, or the french valley, with just his memory of the sighting? And then sell it? What if the artist was so realistic it was pixel perfect like a picture? And mass produced? And uploaded to the webs? Laws, lawyers and hell. So many jokes it's not funny anymore.