5 ms·

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

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.

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.