4 ms·

Apparently it's a misguided attempt to protect creators by preventing others from profiting from their work. Most of the professional bodies being "protected" a

by swombat 11y ago

Apparently 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 ago
I'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?
- kayfox 11y ago
  Except the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    Weren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?
    - germanier 11y ago
      Many copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.
      - rbanffy 11y ago
        The 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 ago
        In 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 ago
        I could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?
        germanier 11y ago
        As 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 ago
  It 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 ago
so 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 ago
  You'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      The 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.

by swombat 11y ago

synthmeat 11y ago

I'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?

kayfox 11y ago
Except the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  Weren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?
  - germanier 11y ago
    Many copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      The 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 ago
        In 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 ago
        I could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?
        germanier 11y ago
        As 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 ago
It 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 ago

so 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 ago
You'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 ago
The 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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.