4 ms·
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 refe
by mecredis 15y 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 15y agoI 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 15y agoPrivate 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.