12 ms·
UK at risk of losing Freedom of Panorama
- synthmeat 11y agoEnd of day is nearing and my imagination is not at its daily peak, but I'd really like to know - why? EDIT: Appears to 502 right now. Cached version for your convenience: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tuGB38J:https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/06/uk-at-risk-of-losing-freedom-of-panorama/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tu...
- swombat 11y agoApparently it's a misguided attempt to protect creators by preventing others from profiting from their work. Most of the professional bodies being "protected" are actually opposed to this, as I understand from an article I read on the topic a few days ago, by the guy who wrote a report that has been quoted in the debates around this law.
- synthmeat 11y agoI'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?
- kayfox 11y agoExcept the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.
- rbanffy 11y agoWeren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?
- germanier 11y agoMany copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.
- rbanffy 11y agoThe question is whether the copyright holder expected to retain copyright of photographs of the said buildings. To me, it's a very unreasonable expectation since the photographs are not only of artistic value, but of practical use when you need to identify a landmark. What if I write a description of the building? Would it be considered a copyright violation?
- germanier 11y agoIn France they certainly do. And no, descriptions are not reproductions so they are not covered under this proposal. "Practical use" would also extend to other kinds of copyrighted material, just think of art catalogues, music databases, and newspaper archives.
- rbanffy 11y agoI could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?
- germanier 11y agoAs far as I know, no court has ever decided something like that but most likely yes. But don't ask me where to draw the line. Also note that this is no different to other copyrighted works: If you were to describe the shapes of all letter in a copyrighted text that would be a violation just as it would be if you gave a pixel-by-pixel description of a copyrighted photograph. Continental European law is mostly decided on a "spirit of the law" basis not on a "letter-by-letter basis". So if someone finds a loophole that obviously is one it is automatically covered.
- higherpurpose 11y agoIt probably has something to do with tourism. The thinking must be that if you see the Eiffel Tower's picture online (I believe this new law threatens the whole EU) you won't want to go see it in person anymore. And using the typical "copyright math", they must also think one picture view = one lost tourist, so their studies probably already show that picture taking is "costing the EU trillions of euros". Kind of like this absurdity here: http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-thrones http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-th...
- duiker101 11y agoso exactly who is pushing this and how would actually be profiting from this? I don't see any reason why anyone would gain anything...
- bentcorner 11y agoYou're absolutely correct. The optimal end result would be that nobody sees the creator's works online. Which could be useful in a "I hope nobody sees my terrible work" sort of way.
- pgeorgi 11y agoThe entire report is about harmonizing EU copyright, to make one set of rules instead of 28. Countries that already have this restriction (such as France) are interested in keeping their customs and traditions, and lobbied to make this part of the report where before, it would have called the EU Commission to write EU law to forbid it EU-wide. "Think of the artists" was a great pitch given that the report is penned by a Pirate Party MEP (and so it's easy to believe that the entire report is pro-consumer/anti-artist), and so that change slipped in. [edit: As a funny side note, Google Street View is available in France, where such a law is in effect, but very limited in Germany, where there is no such law. It's not strictly enforced right now in France, except for night-time Eiffel tower photographs, but they want to keep it. ]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoI object to calling this "harmonizing". This term is used quite a bit in reference to copyright laws, and it's always bullshit. When two countries have differing laws and they want to "harmonize", wouldn't you expect that at least once in awhile "harmonization" would mean that the country with the stricter laws would adopt the more lenient laws of the other? This never happens.
- germanier 11y agoThe proposal contains several such instances. For example it shortens the copyright of war heroes by 30 years in France, simplifies reuse of government works and provides libraries more rights to digitize and e-lend books.
- mjn 11y agoThe MEP of the Pirate Party Germany has this explanation. Obviously from a particular direction: https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-freedom-of-panorama/ https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-fre...
- spacefight 11y agoWhat's next with these corporate shizzles? Do I need to pay a cent each time they detect me just looking at their buildings?
- ap3 11y agonot the onion - had not heard of freedom of panorama. I just assumed it was part of the commons social contract - you can put something in public view and others are free to see it. I can understand copyright protections preventing someone from copying a building's design or aesthetics, but can't imagine how it would extend to holiday pictures were the building just happens to be in the background
- LukeB_UK 11y agoGoogle cache/mirror as the site seems to be down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tuGB38J:https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/06/uk-at-risk-of-losing-freedom-of-panorama/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tu...
- thomasfoster96 11y agoWhy isn't Greece now suing everyone who's ever taken a photo of the Acropolis for damages? That's the only vaguely useful application of this silly law i can think of.
- fennecfoxen 11y agoNo, no, the Acropolis is too old. What they need to do is install some dramatic lighting, and claim that the new combination is copyrighted. See also: Eiffel tower
- venomsnake 11y agoJust painting a tiny 1mm blue speck should be enough.
- mcv 11y agoSo all the old monuments will now get fancy lighting and other extra decoration on them in order to reclaim copyright on the monument?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- aikah 11y ago> It becomes even stranger in some cases. For example, you can share a photo of the Eiffel Tower because of its age – but only if it is taken during the day. If the photo is at night, the lighting is considered a separate installation and falls foul of Freedom of Panorama. Wtf? what is the justification for this?
- macjohnmcc 11y agoI read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more recently.
- mjn 11y agoYes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, and that on the Eiffel Tower is newer than the tower. Somewhat similar situation to a mural being painted on an old building, or a new statue being installed on its facade. Without freedom of panorama, in that case you could photograph the building, but only if you're careful to crop out the mural/statue from the photo.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoWhich leaves a loophole then, tourist locations can prevent photography from including it by adding a copyrightable work to a building. Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers (and copied and recopied many times over by Google). Based on such a draconian interpretation of copyright law I imagine a large company could successfully sue Google with this (eg if new owners were asset stripping anyway and so didn't need to use Google for advertising/location services).
- icebraining 11y agoAlso can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers On that note: http://streetghosts.net/ http://streetghosts.net/
- vermontdevil 11y agoThe horse blinders industry must be behind this. Insane!
- blfr 11y agoIt's not just the UK, it's the entire EU, right?
- ghaff 11y agoNote that this isn't necessarily something especially new. Stock sites already require property releases based on various (ill-defined) criteria. See e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/legal-requirements-art-architecture-performances http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/... However, unlike model releases for people required for commercial (as in non-editorial) use like marketing and advertising, it's a very fuzzy area.
- cbr 11y agoModel releases are also a fuzzy area. "The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
- ghaff 11y agoFair enough although that link isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's finest efforts. This link is more complete: https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.VZVlHThViko https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#... It's generally pretty well established that a properly executed model release provides a pretty wide latitude of commercial usage--although one can always come up with corner cases, e.g. use of a photo in a context that implies the subject is a drug addict or something similar. By contrast, there's very little legal precedent around the scope of property rights in commercial photography.
- cbr 11y agoThe analogous question is what rights you have to use a photo for which you don't have a model release, and that's where I think things are pretty fuzzy.
- babney 11y agoA couple of counterpoints: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b... https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/eu_freedom_panorama-46045 https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/eu_freedom_panorama-46... So, serious question: is this actually a problem, or just scaremongering?
- mjn 11y agoIf I'm reading the 2nd article correctly, the current situation is that the European Parliament will vote on July 9 whether to recommend removing the freedom-of-panorama exception, but whether that recommendation would be acted on is up to the European Commission. That's better than it being actually passed into binding rules on July 9, but I think some level of concern is warranted. It would definitely be better if the EU Parliament didn't make that recommendation. But it's true that some articles are implying EU copyright law will actually be changed on July 9, which is not the case.
- icebraining 11y agoI like how The Register uses an unnamed "campaigner" to call the MEP "a cheerleader for the freetards". Classy.
- jahnu 11y agoThe Register is the Daily Mail of IT news.
- JonnieCache 11y agoSad isn't it? el Reg used to be more the Sun of IT news, so at least there was a cheeky sense of fun. Now it's just wild-eyed and scary. Also it amuses me how obsessed they are with "Storage," a concept we on this site never talk about. Different worlds...
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoIt's a very serious problem for Wikimedia, because it would force them to remove virtually all photos of public buildings and works of art in Europe.
- bsenftner 11y agoRealizing the article is about the UK, it smells fishy... Us Copyright law has the "personal use" exemption, which is entirely separate from commercial and non-commercial use. Taking a photo of ANYTHING and using it for ANY PERSONAL PURPOSE, such as sharing it among family and friends is perfectly legal, as long as no commercial or non-commercial entity profits from the situation. Posting said photo to an online service where it is exhibited publicly has not, as far as I know, been tested in US courts yet. I'm sure the lobbying powers of Facebook and Google will prevent that case of ever taking place. That article smells of ignorant sensationalist journalism to me.
- pgeorgi 11y agoAs soon as ads are shown on the page, it's typically considered commercial, at least in Germany (but probably throughout the EU). Also, Facebook, Google et al usually have ToS that allow commercial re-use. So sharing your personal photos is possible - so posting images with any kind of copyrighted scenery to such services (likely includes Twitter and Instagram, too) becomes a legal minefield for the user, because they may be liable if the platform operator ever chooses to use such an image.
- stephengillie 11y agoSo does that mean that you're not allowed to use the images in places where other people would make money? Most copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the property and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then pays royalties. In my scenario there is a 3rd: Aki owns the property and copyright still, and Ben still takes the photo and posts it. But then Caro monetizes the page that the photo is on. Does Ben owe royalties to Aki? Does Caro? Do both? Neither?
- icebraining 11y agoMost copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the property and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then pays royalties. Usually it's the reproducer who has to pay, so Caro would have to pay both Ben and Aki, for the photo and property licenses respectively.
- hyperion2010 11y agoThis kind of law isn't even at the level of those laws that reduce people's belief in the importance of laws. It is the kind of law that people aren't even aware of because it is so far outside the realm of something anyone could possibly legislate or enforce that it never enters into their mind that someone could have tried to actually write a law about it.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> it is so far outside the realm of something anyone could possibly legislate or enforce No, it's a real, existing thing in some European countries that actually does get enforced, and it's scary.
- DanBC 11y agoThe film and tv industry should get on board. I can't imagine they want to pay extra licensing fees when filming in public. Is there going to be a body like PRS (which collects a fee from people playing music in public, and distributes some of that money to performers) but for buildings? How would they work out the fee to charge? Per metre of height? Percentage of screen taken by building?
- icebraining 11y agoI don't think you'll ever get the film and TV industry to campaign for a reduction of copyright authority, even if it benefits them in that particular instance.
- pgeorgi 11y agoJust propose a retro-active extension of copyright so that all the Disney movies based on fairy tales (which aren't actually _that_ old, at least the versions they based their movies on) require licensing of the original story. That probably produces quite an outcry (given how hard it likely is to identify all constituents of the estate).
- the_mitsuhiko 11y agoSo since this is widely misreported currently, here is how I understand the situation: * Freedom of panorama is the freedom to take a picture of a building or environment that might be copyrighted. The EU currently allows countries to restrict this right because of historical context. * There are a handful of countries that restrict that usage (France, Belgium etc.) * They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage. * There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted.
- icebraining 11y agoIf the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago> If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage? Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted. A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)
- icebraining 11y agoA country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those Ah, I didn't get that from your earlier post.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those A country would no longer be permitted to allow commercial use, period. EU law does not allow member states to add additional copyright exemptions.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoDoes this mean that I suddenly can't post any picture made outdoors because I'll get sued by some City Architects Association which happen to "protect" the "rights" of a random architect which designed that block of flats I have in the background?
- JoshTriplett 11y agoOnly if you live in specific countries in Europe.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThat seems like a crazy level of protection in those countries if it really can apply to any random building in a city.
- pgeorgi 11y agoThe amended section of the report asks to extend that provision to cover the entire EU. Even the parties that voted for the change (because protecting artists can't be a bad thing, right?) aren't sure any more after artists (incl. architects who are the most obvious beneficiaries of such legislation) complained. And it only covers buildings that aren't out of copyright (ie. if it's personal copyright, the original artist not yet dead for 70 years, for corporate copyright 95 years IIRC).
- nitrogen 11y agoI thought the Met also vigorously defended the copyright on its building (in the US) as well? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_House_(Lincoln_Center) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_House_(Li...
- richardwigley 11y agoThere is a petition against it on Change.org .. currently 192,000 signatures.... Now 193.... https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography-savefop-europarl-en https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedo...
- icebraining 11y agoSeems weird to use that site instead of the EU Petitions platform: http://www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/ http://www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/
- richardwigley 11y agoAgreed, it would make more sense to use the EU apparatus. The change org was promoted through German pirate party (according to link I followed from here https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-freedom-of-panorama/ https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-fre... )
- aluhut 11y agoTIL The UK has still freedoms to lose.
- saevarom 11y agoHere is another view of the situation: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-tourist-photos-of-the-london-eye/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-to...
- icebraining 11y agoThat post is talking about people taking personal photos and sharing them privately; it doesn't address Wikimedia's concern that sharing those photos on their sites might be construed as "commercial activity".
- carsonreinke 11y agoSo if I own some land, can I copyright the landscape so no one can sell a picture of it?
- germanier 11y agoNot if you don't put any creative work in.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 11y agoEventually, remembering something - a movie, a song - will be considered copyright infringement.
- abandonliberty 11y agoRisk may be overstated: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b...
- tzs 11y agoIt would have been nice if they had linked to some explanation that gives some more details on what "Freedom of Panorama" is. I had never heard of it before today. Here's the Wikipedia article on it, to save others a few seconds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
- byteofprash 11y agohaha. I find these laws quite amusing. In India, there "could" be a lot of ridiculous laws, but people generally violate all these laws. I think with such a huge population, a law that is quite unpopular is never followed.
- jakeogh 11y agoCountries have the right to be forgotten too!