# Important: EU law to limit freedom of photography on the way



## 1982chris911 (Jun 27, 2015)

I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all amateur and professional photographers in Europe:

Please look up the petition on Change.org here:

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography?recruiter=93818876&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default  

and spread the word wherever possible: Your FB, your Home Pages and all your contacts to support the petition. 

*On 9 July 2015, the European Parliament might destroy photography.

The Freedom of taking photos in public places is under attack. Until now, in most countries in Europe you were safe to take and publish photographs that are taken from public ground – This is called Freedom of Panorama. When you were on vacation, you could take a photo from the London Eye and share it with your friends on Facebook*. If someone wanted to pay you for using this photo, that was okay as well. Both is about to change may destroy photography as we know it.

Julia Reda, member of the European Parliament, tried to bring the Freedom of Panorama to all countries of the EU, as few countries like France and Italy don’t have such law yet. In the majority of countries such as the UK, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Croatia, you’re safe to take, publish and sell photos of public buildings when taken from public grounds.

However, the current draft turned the proposal upside down. Instead of bringing the Freedom of Panorama to the few countries that don’t know such law yet, it would take it away from all those who do. With this, Street-, Travel- and Architecture-Photography would be dead as we know it. It is impossible to find out the architect of every public building in order to ask for permission before you can publish and possibly sell the photo.

I therefore call on the members of the European Parliament to

Not limit the Freedom of Panorama in any way
and instead to

Bring the Freedom of Panorama to all member states of the EU
so that the European Citizens can be assured to act within the law when taking and publishing photographs from public buildings anywhere in the European Union. This is necessary to embrace our European Culture and Art!*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

With respect, WTF? When I click past the rhetoric in the 'petition' that you've also pasted above, to the actual text of the EU Parliment official information (.eu website), the only reference to the Freedom of Panorama provision is:



> On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the rightholder.



Granted, I'm not a lawyer...but what that sounds like is strengthening copyright protections, which is the subject of the Parliament web page. The rights to use the reproductions (images and photographs) of public buildings for commercial use must come from the photographer (rightholder). Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. 

Can you provide anything to substantiate the 'petition', which appears to be a sensationalist overreaction to a flagrant misinterpretation of a legal change intended to _benefit_ photographers?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 27, 2015)

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death). 

You can read the whole thing here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015
and here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more

It is a very dangerous situation as this law can basically even be used to make you pay up to 100 EURO for each selfie on Facebook or any other site (if just a protected building is in the backround) if you or anyone else makes profit on these pictures the charges could be much higher.

The problem by the standard of this law is, that once your picture is on a site in the internet and there is advertisement on some place on the screen or the company uses a screenshot it is commercial. Eg. Facebook or Google or even this Forum: from there on not the entity who made the page but the photographer is the one they are after with the copyright infringement... and this would involve everything from modern architecture (all stuff done in the last 70 years) minimum and all public artwork. you can already see this in place with the night images of the Eiffel Tower where no commercial use is allowed bc. the illumination is protected. 

Once this law passes the same would apply for about every mayor building in Europe and you need to contact the right holder to ask if it is allowed to publish a picture of the building (even if it is only part of the background). For a normal skyline picture of a city that would mean several hundreds of emails as you must ask this for every building or artwork which can be seen in the frame...


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jun 27, 2015)

I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor. Ideally, Sporgon should research this and report back. The combination of his professional and photographic interests likely makes him the best person to understand the implications.

This topic was discussed on a recent Tony Northrup video where it was suggested that panorama shots would have to have buildings in the background photo shopped out if permission could not be obtained. 

For years everyone has respected that selling photos of paintings was a violation, yet buildings - whose design is equally protected by copyright - were 'fair game.' One could not build a copy of a building, but taking its photograph from public spaces as part of a background panorama was allowed even for commercial purposes. Property releases were generally not necessary. This proposed action could reverse that position, perhaps even for personal use. Property releases for every building in the background would be required.

Most interesting is the lack of clear definition of commercial v. personal use. Some would consider social media - which runs ads - as converting what would usually be identified as personal use into commercial use and therefore making the photographer liable. Selfies with background buildings could be problematic then!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).



Thanks for clarifying my own misinterpretation!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor.



I do share some of that concern, still. I don't generally consider Wikipedia an authoritative source (and I'll point out that at least one of their blacked out building examples was designed by an architect that died hundreds of years ago, and their map with the statement about all the green areas turning yellow or red includes countries not part of the EU and not subject to this potential law). Citing a Tony Northrup video doesn't help the case one bit.


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).
> ...



My reading of that passage is that the item that cannot be used without permission of the rightholder is the reproduction (e.g. photograph or painting), but the wording is not specific enough on this point to avoid ambiguity.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 27, 2015)

kaswindell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



*Original Text: 
On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the right holder.*

see here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150615IPR66497/html/EU-copyright-reform-must-balance-rightholders’-and-users’-interests-say-MEPs

Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor.
> ...



Which building do you mean? the one in Warsaw ? that was rebuild after the second world war. So it is covered by the idea of the law. 

Regarding the Map it says Europe and not EU (However the EU countries would change) of course Switzerland and other non EU countries (Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia) would stay the same, no matter if red or green


----------



## LDS (Jun 27, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).



It could be even worse. The right holder in some states can be simply the actual owner, in the case of a public building, the public entity owning it. And it applies to historical building as well, you may not be able to take photos for commercial use without permission - even if the architect died centuries ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.



Are you certain of that? 

To be clear, the 'original text' to which you refer is not the text of the parliamentary motion, but from a press release about that motion. 

The actual original text in the parlimentary motion reads as follows:



> 46. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;



Now, I'm not sure that my original interpretation was incorrect – the above could be summarized as: commercial use of photographs/footage/images requires prior authorization from the author [of the photo/footage/image]. In other words, I can't download and use your web-posted image of an EU public landmark in my travel agency ad without your permission, then claim the fact that it's a public structure means you have no valid copyright. But as I stated, I'm not a lawyer. Are you a lawyer specializing in copyright law? 




1982chris911 said:


> ...this law can basically even be used to make you pay up to 100 EURO for each selfie on Facebook or any other site (if just a protected building is in the backround)...



Again, where is this 'pay up to 100€ for a selfie' coming from? 



1982chris911 said:


> Which building do you mean? the one in Warsaw ? that was rebuild after the second world war. So it is covered by the idea of the law.



The Warsaw castle was built and destroyed a few times, and expanded and modified several times, too. Lots of architects involved there. Who do I email for permission to use an image of the castle? Who gets the 100€ for my selfie? 

I know governments make silly laws, but what you seem to be describing is a specific intent is to create problems for an industry that accounts for ~9% of the EU's GDP. There's silly, and then there's losing-the-next-MEP-election silly.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.
> ...



Unfortunately it is not like what you read into it: 
Bc my English is not that good I better give you some links to media news which will explain the thing much better than I do:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2015/06/25/why-the-eu-wants-to-stop-you-posting-your-vacation-photos-online/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/new-eu-proposal-could-make-sharing-photographs-of-copyrighted-landmarks-illegal-10341931.html

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/06/24/lawyers-call-plans-to-tighten-copyrights-rules-for-photographs-of-public-buidlings-absurd/


And the 100 Euro is kind of standard fine for breach of copyright in non serious cases. Now you only have to remember that every breach is fined on its own. So usually that sum is multiplied by 100s if not 1000s times ... It is common practice here with Music and Films which are being illegally published.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

Thanks, that does provide clarity. And yikes, what a mess!


----------



## zim (Jun 27, 2015)

It's clearly the architects fault for placing the building in such a position as to intrude into my art. I would simply ask politely for him/her to move it.


----------



## zim (Jun 27, 2015)

What about the relationship between the (comissioned) architectural company and the owners of the building. The inference is that the designers retain influence over something they don't own ?

Would a private architect/owner really bother about this and of course the undoubted bad publicity such a claim would bring ?

Of course leaving the EU would solve the issue
Actually there may not be an EU for much longer so not really much point in worring about this! ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2015)

I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 27, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.



You could probably rubber stamp this and apply it to a lot of various legislation applied over the years.


----------



## sanj (Jun 28, 2015)

Certain laws are made never to be enforced.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 28, 2015)

So much for visiting EU countries....


----------



## Aglet (Jun 28, 2015)

impressively daft legislation ideas come along every once in a far too often

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285

gotta keep wondering if the onion's out of control


----------



## emko (Jun 28, 2015)

sorry but don't these people want free advertising to get tourist to visit so that its making money for their economy? i mean come on with camera phones now everyone photographs their vacation no? why on earth would someone want to visit a place where you cant photograph the place you are visiting?

Lets build a tower to attract people to visit our city but we cant let them take photos that would get shared and increase the attention to our city this law is so damn stupid.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

emko said:


> sorry but don't these people want free advertising to get tourist to visit so that its making money for their economy? i mean come on with camera phones now everyone photographs their vacation no? why on earth would someone want to visit a place where you cant photograph the place you are visiting?
> 
> Lets build a tower to attract people to visit our city but we cant let them take photos that would get shared and increase the attention to our city this law is so damn stupid.



Not really - these people are lawyers who want to send out copy right infringement notes and make profit on this. The same happened here with youtube and also with a partnership which was specialized on copyright in the porn industry. The thing is once you are able to start sth. like this e.g. protect a building and enforce the copyright you can make a lot of money as a lawyer. This is especially true, if your partnership also owns the rights, which they could acquire from an artist or architect. In some cases 10s of millions of Euro would be possible. e.g. with the Pyramid infront of the Louvre or with the London Eye or the Shard


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.



It is important to note that first proposal of this law was made as an effort to extend the freedom of panorama to all EU countries (as Italy, France and some others are somehow limited in this regard)... However after some French MEP and IP lawyers got this into their hands they created a second draft proposal which does the complete opposite of what the intention was.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.
> ...



I'm far from cognizant of EU politics, but it should also be noted that the first proposal of this law was made by a self-proclaimed political pirate. I wonder if she has a history of her legislative proposals being blocked or turned on their heads.


----------



## 100 (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all *amateur* and professional photographers in Europe:



versus

_Considers that the *commercial use* of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorization from the authors or any proxy acting for them_

What’s your definition of “amateur photographers” exactly? 
The proposal is about “commercial use”.
There is no definition given of “commercial use” but in general we’re talking about using photography to sell or promote a product or service (advertising, merchandising, etc.). That is not something “amateur photographers” do. 
You also have “editorial photography” (journalism, education). Newspapers, magazines and educational material can be sold commercially but that doesn’t mean the pictures in them fall under “commercial use”. 

Without a clear definition of the commercial use involved in this proposal it’s hard to say if this is as bad as it’s made out to be in this petition. 
It reads like a huge exaggeration. Take the next line for instance: 



1982chris911 said:


> *With this, Street-, Travel- and Architecture-Photography would be dead as we know it.*



Can you take pictures of people in public places and use them in advertising without their (written) approval? Most countries don’t allow that. Does this mean street- and travel photography with people in it is dead? I don’t think so. 
If you have solid arguments, you don’t need to scare people into signing a petition.


----------



## meywd (Jun 28, 2015)

100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all *amateur* and professional photographers in Europe:
> ...



Maybe you should read this:

from Why The EU Wants To Stop You Posting Your Vacation Photos Online



> The new proposals apply only to commercial use; so you might think that uploading your photos to Facebook would be OK. You’re not going to be charging your grandma for looking at them, after all. But by signing up for Facebook, you’re agreeing to its terms of service, which include giving the company the right to use your pictures commercially.



from New EU proposal could make sharing photographs of copyrighted landmarks illegal



> The change in law would mainly prevent professional photographers who sell pictures of copyrighted landmarks but lawyers fear that the proposal would create a "grey area" for photos shared on social media also. Sites such as Facebook and personal blogs and websites may come under the proposed restrictions because they generate revenue through advertising.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



That's the name of the political party ... I have still no idea why they choose this, but it is mainly the party of internet activists and free speech advocates. You can look it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_Germany


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

Perhaps named for The Pirate Bay?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all *amateur* and professional photographers in Europe:
> ...



No actually by posting things online e.g. on Facebook or Google you make them commercial in the context of this law proposal. It does not even matter if you make money from it, it is already enough that a third party like Facebook could use them for advertisements e.g. to promote a hotel, destination or sth. By the law you will be held liable for this commercial use, even if you have nothing to do with it as a photographer.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 28, 2015)

Just another incident demonstrating how badly the EU needs to be scrapped...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps named for The Pirate Bay?



Definitely not, but I am not 100% sure why the chose the name: Actually it relates to a term used for people who are active in the distribution of free information on the internet. It was mainly used as negative term by the Music and Film industry for people who shared copyrighted materials online without permission (remember Napster etc... )


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 28, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor. Ideally, Sporgon should research this and report back. The combination of his professional and photographic interests likely makes him the best person to understand the implications.



Only just read this thread: I think most of what we are reading is the press having some good old fashioned sensationalism and journalistic mischief, probably because they know it's unimportant, or Britain's vote for staying in the EU is coming up soon.

A number of points; Julia Reda was naive if she though tweaking the nose of the EU parliament was going to bring reduced restrictions; the services industry's bubble must be kept inflated, and secondly you can see why most of Britain would be happy out of the EU.

However this is looking at commercial use, and anyone posting private pictures on line or anywhere else cannot be regarded as commercial. In fact in the legal sense of the word I don't even see how use of wiki can be defined as commercial. 

How often have you hear of people having problems with the pictures they took in France, Italy or Greece - all popular holiday destinations ?

Also if anyone has tried taking legal action over breach of copyright over a relatively insignificant picture in the scheme of things, they will know what a pointless exercise that is, and the only winners are the lawyers. You have to be able to demonstrate what monetary value the image thief has made out of it and so on. I've been there and done it and it has only ever cost me money.

The other thing is that people generally_ think_ that they_ do_ have copyright of the image of their own person, property, etc. I've had this a lot, and it can cause a lot of issues, resentment, general bad relations. The chances are that if you are using imagery in this way you won't want to upset the owner anyway, so because of this we get permission anyway even where we don't need it. 

But irrespective of this it looks like the usual EU crap, and the sooner the EU can't enforce legislation that hasn't been through individual member states own parliaments the better.

I have meetings with my local MEPs on another matter early in July and will mention this proposal and see if they can shed some light on it.


----------



## 100 (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> No actually by posting things online e.g. on Facebook or Google you make them commercial in the context of this law proposal. It does not even matter if you make money from it, it is already enough that a third party like Facebook could use them for advertisements e.g. to promote a hotel, destination or sth. By the law you will be held liable for this commercial use, even if you have nothing to do with it as a photographer.



So you claim, and that claim is based on what exactly? 
A few “news” items? A quote by some lawyer who might work for some lobby group? 
Do you have any facts, is there any jurisprudence, any case law?
Please point me to any official source that says “commercial use” in this case is equal to making “any money with it”. 
It would mean newspapers can’t print anything either without permission and I don’t believe that because that’s not even the case in countries without a “freedom of panorama” provision in their copyright laws.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> ...I am not 100% sure why the chose the name: Actually it relates to a term used for people who are active in the distribution of free information on the internet. It was mainly used as negative term by the Music and Film industry for people who shared copyrighted materials online without permission (remember Napster etc... )



Mainly _used_ as a negative term?

*pirate* _verb_: to illegally copy (something) without permission

Basically a negative term, by definition.


----------



## surapon (Jun 28, 2015)

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I am not the Lawyer, Just Old Architect , who have a great Hobby = Photography.
In every times that I travel in USA, I must carry the Article of "The right of Photographers" with me all the times.
I think , Most of my dear friend already know and see the attachment.
Enjoy, and have a great Sunday.
Surapon.
PS, The New Law/ Regulations of Some State Parks---If you are the Professional Photographers, You must register and pay $ 35-40 US Dollars fee before Take the Photos with Tripods and Lighting equipments, include the Reflectors and Beautiful Models-----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Yes, I have to pay Extra $ 30 US Dollars to carry/ use my Tripods at " Antelope's Navajo Cave/ Canyon"


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I am not 100% sure why the chose the name: Actually it relates to a term used for people who are active in the distribution of free information on the internet. It was mainly used as negative term by the Music and Film industry for people who shared copyrighted materials online without permission (remember Napster etc... )
> ...



Yes exactly this meaning - however they themselves see it as kind of a Robin Hood thing (take away from big profit orientated business and distribute for free to the "poor" public) ...


----------



## gsealy (Jun 28, 2015)

This is absurd. What is the media going to do when there is a news event? Stop taking pictures? Stop taking video? Or go around trying to find the rightsholders for all the buildings in the background and pay them? NO WAY. They make more money than anybody taking pictures. 

April Fools Day was months ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

There are likely thousands of pictures of the night-lit Eiffel Tower on Facebook. Have any of the tourists who posted them been sued for copyright violation?

Mountain out of molehill, anyone? The OP has certainly bought into the sensationalist argument. Yes, lawyers love to collect fees, but does anyone seriously believe they'll go after Martha from Deluth who posts a pic of the London Eye to Facebook, and sue her for 100€? Heck, the postage would cost more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Pirate Party, aka The Ends Justify the Means Party. 

If this becomes law, will she have any regrets about not leaving well enough alone? Probably not...unlike real pirates who were (and still are) executed, there's no downside for her...it's 'not her fault' that filmmakers and professional photographers are impacted.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



True ... Gives us also a lesson on how easy it is to completely change the meaning of sth. as important as a law proposal by just changing some words, taking the whole thing upside down. In that regard they should really left everything as it was


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are likely thousands of pictures of the night-lit Eiffel Tower on Facebook. Have any of the tourists who posted them been sued for copyright violation?
> 
> Mountain out of molehill, anyone? The OP has certainly bought into the sensationalist argument. Yes, lawyers love to collect fees, but does anyone seriously believe they'll go after Martha from Deluth who posts a pic of the London Eye to Facebook, and sue her for 100€? Heck, the postage would cost more.



They actually did a similar thing in Germany some months ago ... they even got a court ruling which backed them up. In that case ppl. where randomly fined for streaming copyrighted material (in that case porn).

First thing is that streaming by most definitions is not even making a copy (they got around this by a technical trick to define the cache of a computer as memory system and therefore got their court ruling) 

Secondly the people did not even know what they had done as their IP addresses were collected using malware or sth. else (it is still not known today)

However the whole case brought in about 10-15m euro to the partnership that did this within very short time. 

You can read the whole thing here in German only: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedTube-Abmahnaffäre

SO what I want to make clear is that when there is a law which grants such rights with copyright in place such things will very very soon start with photography... it is extremely easy to do... by the way in the above case they did not even use lawyers but an automated computer system to write the letters (as the amount was just to large to do by any person)... This is exactly what the law which the EU proposes could do to photography (and it would even be legal in that case)... In the other case it was later overruled and criminal charges were put upon the law company which wrote the latter... However if it is legal to do such thing will really start to become reality for photographers taking pictures in European Cities and of other copyrighted material (like artworks) while on vacation...


----------



## zim (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are likely thousands of pictures of the night-lit Eiffel Tower on Facebook. Have any of the tourists who posted them been sued for copyright violation?
> ...



So wait, some random computer generated letter lands on your door step saying that you watched porn and demanding money and hundreds thousands? of people paid up? hilarious, divorce lawyers must be having a field day ;D
Almost as funny as that German lederhosen porn in the 70s 8)


----------



## zim (Jun 28, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> Just another incident demonstrating how badly the EU needs to be scrapped...



+1 The sooner it goes back to a simple common market, we get our political borders back and those parasitic waste of space MEPs are made redundant the better


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all amateur and professional photographers in Europe:



This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign and should be either clearly marked as such or probably even better removed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign and should be either clearly marked as such or probably even better removed.



What, specifically, about this story is false? The parlimentary motion is certainly genuine. While I think the implications are being sensationalized, that doesn't make them false. 

In the US, millions of drivers violate the law every day by exceeding the posted speed limits, even if by only 1 mph. It's the law. Doesn't mean that it's enforced.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all amateur and professional photographers in Europe:
> ...



Maybe you should have a look at any news site regarding this matter. You will find that this story is very real... Of course if you believe that all the various media reporting on this are steered by a higher power to bring up false stories about a thing that will never happen, maybe you re right. Maybe my version Google is also manipulated by anti European forces as I get 215000 hits for "Panoramafreiheit" (German term) or 47500 for "Freedom of Panorama" if I search in Google News ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

zim said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well that is exactly what happened - of course there was a court order with this letter (as I said they were backed up by a court and that court did not check the validity of the IP addresses) and yes they got about 10-15 million which means that about 40.000-60.000 people paid. Estimates are that about 25-35% paid and did not take any measures against this.

btw. most people are quite frightened if they get a letter from a law firm with about 10-20 partners in the heading most with multiple degrees and if this letter tells them that if they don't pay much worse things will happen...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Hmmmm. On Google News, "anti-EU campaign" only gets 5500 hits.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all amateur and professional photographers in Europe:
> ...



Secondly I, like several other people I know, was already harassed on the claim that my photography looked professional (means commercial). Main indicator to that person was then either the size of the camera or the usage of a tripod. 

This happened in London several times (especially around Moore London Buildings) in Canary Wharf, also happened in Paris at Louvre, at the Grand Arch and at Sacre Coeur and also happened in Germany. In most cases those were security forces, but I don't really wanna imagine what will happen if these people are covered by European Law... just talk about harassing photographers at about every major new building ... So by no means a law that limits this freedom of panorama should become reality... It would be an open invitation to ongoing harassment at every major city and about everyone knows that neither security forces nor police are very willing to discuss such matters. it will always be either leave or stop or even worse like questioning by police etc...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign and should be either clearly marked as such or probably even better removed.
> ...



There is no such Parliamentary motion. Its a fabrication. Please document it if you believe it exists. This is a lie to discredit the EU and nothing more.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Maybe you should have a look at any news site regarding this matter. You will find that this story is very real...



No it is not. Its a fabrication. And its sad that news run these kind of baseless stories. Please document any such EU Parliamentary draft law if you believe it exists. This is a lie to discredit the EU and nothing more.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Well that is exactly what happened - of course there was a court order with this letter (as I said they were backed up by a court and that court did not check the validity of the IP addresses) and yes they got about 10-15 million which means that about 40.000-60.000 people paid. Estimates are that about 25-35% paid and did not take any measures against this.
> 
> btw. most people are quite frightened if they get a letter from a law firm with about 10-20 partners in the heading most with multiple degrees and if this letter tells them that if they don't pay much worse things will happen...



Good that not all people are completely gullible...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> This happened in London several times (especially around Moore London Buildings)



Exactly. Complain to your MPs and direct your attention to where it needs to be when it comes to vacation photography: National Parliaments.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you should have a look at any news site regarding this matter. You will find that this story is very real...
> ...



You can just look it up here: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-549.469+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

it is on page 70/131 of this report


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you should have a look at any news site regarding this matter. You will find that this story is very real...
> ...



*Motion for a resolution
16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted;*

was changed to:

Amendment

*16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;*

So there is not any fabrication here as this directly out of very real EU document 

and as already discussed Facebooks usage of pictures there could already be coined as commercial - especially if they use your pictures to make advertisements (a right which you grant to them in their service's terms & conditions) which was singed by all users.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> You can just look it up here:
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-549.469+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
> it is on page 70/131 of this report



Exactly. There is no draft EU law that would make our vacation photos illegal or payable towards royalties etc. Thank you for documenting this to everyone here. 

The question they are debating is if all and anything displayed in public should be available for commercial photography purposes for free (as suggested in the original draft text).


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> "With this, Street-, Travel- and Architecture-Photography would be dead as we know it. It is impossible to find out the architect of every public building in order to ask for permission before you can publish _and possibly sell the photo_."



The above quote is simply a lie hidden behind the afterthought following the death of street, travel and architecture photography "and possibly sell" which is the opposite of the truth. And since you have found the proof yourself I suggest you help counter it whenever it reappears (as I am sure it will like so many other internet myths). 

At least this story has not gotten 1/100 of the spread that the girl-who-nearly-died-wearing-skinny-jeans-got as it was only widely reported in the UK (so far). 

There are other - very real - freedom of speech (photography) concerns out there. I would wish people would focus on those in stead of chasing red herrings.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > You can just look it up here:
> ...



and here is the problem. Commercial use by the intend of Mr. Cavada starts already if you post sth. on Facebook ... also every kind of architectural photography (if it is sold by someone), use in postcards, prints, city guides, photo contests, pages like trip advisor etc are considered commercial. 

You can read Mr Cavada's statement here: and it is very clear that he intends to basically ban all photography of modern landmarks from the social part of the internet or wants to impose fees either for the photographers highly likely or Facebook and other (which won't work due to Terms you need to sign when using the service) ... 

You can read it here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjeanmariecavada.eu%2Fma-position-sur-le-droit-de-panorama%2F&hl=de&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Original in French: http://jeanmariecavada.eu/ma-position-sur-le-droit-de-panorama/


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Facebooks usage of pictures there could already be coined as commercial - especially if they use your pictures to make advertisements (a right which you grant to them in their service's terms & conditions) which was singed by all users.



I trust you do not believe this stupidity yourself.

I am leaving this discussion now. Everyone can now easily draw the right conclusion from the above exchange.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > You can just look it up here:
> ...



Ok so in order to only make simple vacation pictures me and everyone else here should better not use a professional or semiprofessional Canon camera in any European city... Hopefully that will save the P&S camera market ... Or who explains to the nice security people and police persons who question you whether this very professional looking gear is used commercial or not ... that you are just a tourist... Well hopefully they then also ban all painters from the streets ... they could by accident paint something copyrighted and try to sell it ... Goodbye Freedom... Hello North Korea


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Facebooks usage of pictures there could already be coined as commercial - especially if they use your pictures to make advertisements (a right which you grant to them in their service's terms & conditions) which was singed by all users.
> ...



Well if you believe it or not, this is exactly what several IP lawyers questioned today in German State Television said will happen...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> You can read Mr Canada's statement here: and it is very clear that he intends to basically ban all photography of modern landmarks from the social part of the internet or wants to impose fees either for the photographers highly likely or Facebook and other (which won't work due to Terms you need to sign when using the service) ...



Well, that will be great for tourism which, as I mentionec above, accounts for ~9% of the EU's GDP. Practically speaking, this will not have an impact on tourists taking vacation photos. Period.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Maiaibing said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Facebooks usage of pictures there could already be coined as commercial - especially if they use your pictures to make advertisements (a right which you grant to them in their service's terms & conditions) which was singed by all users.
> ...



And in this regard I know what I am talking about: 

Yahoo already uses pictures which I posted on Flickr as advertisement material. Of course they never asked me for permission. You can just google "Yahoo Weather App" in pictures. about 10% of all pictures in the first 500 hits are by me ... Some are even taken from my apartment in New York so no one else could have taken them ever!

They even cut out my signature and replaced it by someone elses for the pictures they used in Apples App and Googles Android store ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Ok so in order to only make simple vacation pictures me and everyone else here should better not use a professional or semiprofessional Canon camera in any European city... Hopefully that will save the P&S camera market ... Or who explains to the nice security people and police persons who question you whether this very professional looking gear is used commercial or not ... that you are just a tourist... Well hopefully they then also ban all painters from the streets ... they could by accident paint something copyrighted and try to sell it ... Goodbye Freedom... Hello North Korea



Overreact much? 

Basically, this brings the whole EU in line with France, yes? Recently at L'Arc de Triomphe, I was wandering around with a tripod-mounted 1D X and TS-E 17L, and as I walked toward the stairs leading down to the tunnel, I was approached by one of those nice (machine gun-toting) security people you mentioned. Did he accost me and demand to know why I was violating French copyright law? No...he kindly suggested I collapse my tripod before walking down the stairs, for safety reasons.


----------



## 100 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Maybe you should warn people about the practices of social media instead of scaring them with your (unfounded) interpretation of the consequences of EU proposals. 
Or simply delete your social media accounts if you don’t like their terms of use. No one is forcing you to put photos on Flickr. You complain about Yahoo using your pictures without your permission, yet you link to your Flickr account with every post here.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so in order to only make simple vacation pictures me and everyone else here should better not use a professional or semiprofessional Canon camera in any European city... Hopefully that will save the P&S camera market ... Or who explains to the nice security people and police persons who question you whether this very professional looking gear is used commercial or not ... that you are just a tourist... Well hopefully they then also ban all painters from the streets ... they could by accident paint something copyrighted and try to sell it ... Goodbye Freedom... Hello North Korea
> ...



Not really an overreaction as basically the amended version says "the commercial use of photographs, video footage or *other images of works *which are permanently located in physical public places" means that of course paintings and drawings also need authorization ... 

And the thing I am talking about with police and security forces is not today's standard but what could be the result of such laws. Remember the situation in UK due to their Antiterror laws: http://www.wirefresh.com/uk-minister-reassures-photographers-about-police-harassment/


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Ok so you wanna say that people like me have no right to share their pictures online and complain if some company uses them for ads without permission ... just bc. the pictures are there and hey they can use them and don't need to pay someone like eg. Gatty images ... Great !!! 

But of course if some architect or some lawyers who represent his rights wants to collect royalties from people who take pictures of some buildings they know nothing about in a city they maybe visit for the first time that is OK ... 

What great show of double standards ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



And by the way if I look at your own flickr profile I see exactly the same kind of pictures and that there are lot building in them which would fall under copyright laws ... So the same would be true for yourself... 

Oh and you also link your account with every post as part of your signature ... I guess that is quite common in a photography related forum ...


----------



## 100 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Where exactly do I say you have no right to share pictures online? 
And where do I say it’s ok for architects to collect royalties from people taking pictures? 

These kind of conclusions say a lot about your (lack of) interpretation skills.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



*"Or simply delete your social media accounts if you don’t like their terms of use. No one is forcing you to put photos on Flickr."* Sounds to me like I have no right to complain ... and btw I did not bring this whole FB/Google/Yahoo thing up first hand, it was only an answer to another person saying that such thing does not happen ... well in my case it happened ... and that is the only point which I wanted to make by mentioning this ... so maybe you should also read the context of how that came into place first before making such statements ... 

I also think it is funny that you who could obviously be a victim of such laws if they ever happen, says that an opinion which is based on a lot of sources who everyone can access online, thinks there is a need to somehow protect what a certain MEP (Mr. Cavada) of the EU made out of proposal which had the aim to protect photographer's rights within the EU ... otherwise your statement of "scaring" does not make much sense ... bc. if that what MR Cavada purposes really happenes this* IS* scary and will limit photography a lot in EU cities... especially the one we are talking about in the context of this forum... purely assuming most ppl. here wanna use their gear in public without being questioned or harassed ...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so in order to only make simple vacation pictures me and everyone else here should better not use a professional or semiprofessional Canon camera in any European city... Hopefully that will save the P&S camera market ... Or who explains to the nice security people and police persons who question you whether this very professional looking gear is used commercial or not ... that you are just a tourist... Well hopefully they then also ban all painters from the streets ... they could by accident paint something copyrighted and try to sell it ... Goodbye Freedom... Hello North Korea
> ...



You can legally take photos of the Eiffel Tower during the day: "The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889 which means that it falls within the public domain, so tourists can snap away liberally during the day. "The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889 which means that it falls within the public domain, so tourists can snap away liberally during the day." But "lights that illuminate the attraction at night are technically an art work, so 'reproducing' requires the permission of the artist."

So, Neuro, you were probably accosted during the daytime.

see for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2831331/Tourists-warned-breaking-law-taking-photos-Eiffel-Tower-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html#ixzz3eOhhpFuN


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Ok so you wanna say that people like me have no right to share their pictures online and complain if some company uses them for ads *without permission* ... just bc. the pictures are there and hey they can use them and don't need to pay someone like eg.



Really, without permission? I suppose you have grounds to sue Yahoo for infringement and commercial use of your images. Don't worry, I'm sure your lawsuit will be successful because Yahoo's laywers will undoubtedly be unable to produce the Terms of Service to which you agreed as part of your Flickr account.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



AlanF said:


> You can legally take photos of the Eiffel Tower during the day: "The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889 which means that it falls within the public domain, so tourists can snap away liberally during the day. "The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889 which means that it falls within the public domain, so tourists can snap away liberally during the day." But "lights that illuminate the attraction at night are technically an art work, so 'reproducing' requires the permission of the artist."
> 
> So, Neuro, you were probably accosted during the daytime.
> 
> see for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2831331/Tourists-warned-breaking-law-taking-photos-Eiffel-Tower-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html#ixzz3eOhhpFuN



In fact, I was speaking about L'Arc de Triomphe, but of course that's sufficiently old as well. However, I'm pretty sure I recall the time of day during which I visited the Eiffel Tower, and neither I nor the many other people walking around with high-end camera gear and tripods were accosted by security personnel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

As for being accosted by security personnel, it must be noted that creating the reproduction would not become illegal...only commercial use of it.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so you wanna say that people like me have no right to share their pictures online and complain if some company uses them for ads *without permission* ... just bc. the pictures are there and hey they can use them and don't need to pay someone like eg.
> ...



See that is the point why you could not do anything and that is funny (I also never did anything just mentioning this as an anecdote how pictures suddenly end up in commercial use) ... bc of course some of the pictures where there long before Yahoo with this Weather App announced that screenshots could be used for promotion ... and at that time these pictures were uploaded by me there was not even a Yahoo weather app. 
About 1 year later their group admin requested me to share some of my pictures in their group to use them as background for the app which was course non commercial use and I kind of liked that idea ... For some reason they then about 6 months later after the app became quite successful, started to use screen shots of these pictures while in the app and use them as promotional material on Apples App store etc... this is of course use commercial use then ... so that is how this developed and again it is nice example how no commercial becomes commercial without the photographer even knowing at first ...

that what many think cannot happen to their "vacation" pictures ... 


Second thing ... those terms of service also change ... Companies like FB, Yahoo etc. obviously change them every few months (years in some cases)...


----------



## 100 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...


I ask you again, where do I say you have no rights to post pictures online and/or complain about anything? 
If I say “throw away your old shoes, no one is forcing you to wear them” do you really think I mean you have no right to wear old shoes and complain about them? 

On page 2 and 3 of this discussion I made it clear we have different interpretations of what “commercial use” amounts to in this case. I don’t think tourists and amateur photographers have anything to fear. 

I do believe architects and artists should have some rights. 
Imagine you give permission to a charity to use one of your pictures for their campaign. They use it on a billboard in a public place. I take a picture of that billboard (basically copying it) and use it commercially (print it on T-shirts, make postcards, sell it to other people) without your permission and without paying you anything. 
You’re ok with that? 

If not, don’t you think other people (like architects, painters, sculptures) should have some rights as well? If I design a building, paint a picture of make a sculpture that ends up in a public place do you think it’s fair anyone can use an image of that work for things like advertising and merchandising? 

This has nothing to do with tourists taking pictures or amateur photographers using “professional” looking camera’s. You can believe whatever you want, you can interpret any proposal however you please, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is the right one. To me you are just trying to scare people without any real facts, any relevant jurisprudence and/or any real arguments. 
If you make enough smoke some people might believe the world is on fire, but I’m not one of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Of course you could do something – not agree to the ToS. 



1982chris911 said:


> Second thing ... those terms of service also change ... Companies like FB, Yahoo etc. obviously change them every few months (years in some cases)...



Of course they do...and they must notify users of those changes, and users must agree to them or stop using the service. You seem to be playing the martyr here, suggesting you had no option to prevent this from happening, and that's manifestly untrue. 

Incidentally, if you remove those images from your account, Yahoo must also cease their use of them. If they do not, I suspect you _would_ have grounds for a lawsuit.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for being accosted by security personnel, it must be noted that creating the reproduction would not become illegal...only commercial use of it.



Well funnily there is an Canon or B&H add on my screen (I suppose everyone else's also) just below that picture... so in some way we are already in that grey area of commercial and non commercial... and the thing with the Eiffel tower is different... 
Not taking the picture is the problem but the usage. In London in my experience the wording of the security guard was quite different: 
About like this: "Please immediately stop taking pictures! you are not allowed to take pictures of these building."
I told him then that there about 15 other people taking pictures around the place (at Moore London). but he insisted on that I am not allowed to take any pictures with my camera here, only if I point it at the Tower Bridge" I asked him again for the reason and was told that my gear looks professional and that the building owners do not allow pictures of the buildings. For your information this is an open space just infant of London City Hall ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



well you are not the one who decides what is commercial use and what is not, that is the point in that case. Instead a highly paid IP lawyer will do it for his/her client with the intent to use every weird way possible to open a case and make people pay if it is possible by the law ... in our society such thing unfortunately happens from time to time and it is also what some lawyers make their money with. This is especially difficult if you have no longer a 100% control over your pictures (as they are on some cooperate server located somewhere else in maybe a different country and also if you like most ppl don't know exactly the ToS or how to read them in legal terms of services like FB/Google/Yahoo) or even know if the building or artwork you where taking pictures of is protected or not ... it is quite a nice uneven field for a lawyer to play as you are mostly always lacking some information... 

Second thing: *If I take a picture of that billboard (basically copying it) and use it commercially (print it on T-shirts, make postcards, sell it to other people) without your permission and without paying you anything. 
You’re ok with that?* Well taking a picture of a billboard is not the same as taking one of a building or a public work of art (in most countries artworks are further protected by more specific laws- so don't worry too much about them) ... you may also not take pictures of random people and use them for commercial purposes if they can be identified. That is what model releases are for ... However in the case of the freedom of panorama one is talking about the cityscape in general also and there public art and building will always be visible - and all artists and architects know that ... mostly that is the reason why they wanna create very elaborate works - (they are also paid very much) so if they have any problem with their work being shown publicly and being photographed that is their problem not the one of the public ... This case is the same as if someone wants all people to leave Times Square in New York bc. he feels his privacy is invaded by all the people there, so he could walk there on his own ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



First thing maybe I just don't wanna do that and have better things to do than to consult IP lawyers. Some photographer friends actually asked me, but I never did, as I see no point in this... It's about the same what you wrote above when you wished me good luck with that ... ;-) 

Secondly do you really read every terms and condition change and analyze it on what future implications it might have for you when you use a service like FB, Google or Yahoo and Flickr ... Of course I could remove my pictures, but that would make my account at flickr quite useless...

And regarding that martyr thing: I am not even really complaining like "Yahoo stole my pictures to make ads or sth." I am just telling you that case to show how non commercial becomes commercial (with me NOT being the one making the commercial usage here)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> In London in my experience the wording of the *security guard* was quite different:
> About like this: "Please immediately stop taking pictures! you are not allowed to take pictures of these building."
> I told him then that there about 15 other people taking pictures around the place (at Moore London). but he insisted on that I am not allowed to take any pictures with my camera here, only if I point it at the Tower Bridge" I asked him again for the reason and was told that my gear looks professional and that the building owners do not allow pictures of the buildings. For your information this is an open space just infant of London City Hall ...



Security guards generally neither know nor care about the law. I have no doubt that scenario would be equally likely if this parlimentary motion passes with its original or inverted intent.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > In London in my experience the wording of the *security guard* was quite different:
> ...



Well at the moment they are on lost ground if you re on public ground - however if a law limits the rights of photographers this may become quite different... In UK in 2010 it was an anti terror law that was mis(used) to harass photographers... So I would not expect them to become any kinder if a lot of modern architecture becomes protected by copyright things and owners of such rights could basically prohibit commercial photography ... suddenly everything bigger than an iPhone could be a commercial camera ... the problem is you just cannot prove that what you do is non commercial


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

What's clear is that you're sensationalizing the issue and promoting FUD to further your cause. It's a common strategy when the honest facts aren't likely to generate the reaction you're seeking. 

Do let us know when all those letters from lawyers start pouring into your mailbox, demanding recompense for all those copyright violations you post to Flickr and Facebook. No doubt you've received many already, from your visits to the red countries on that map (or not, because you probably obtained written authorization from the building rightholders prior to sharing your images).


----------



## 100 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> well you are not the one who decides what is commercial use and what is not, that is the point in that case.



Neither do you, but the basis for your arguments seems to be your personal interpretation of what commercial use is.
It’s up to the legislators and the courts, that’s why I asked for relevant jurisprudence for your interpretation. 
Do you have any or not?




1982chris911 said:


> Instead a highly paid IP lawyer will do it for his/her client with the intent to use every weird way possible to open a case and make people pay if it is possible by the law



Do you really think lawyers costing €1,000 or more an hour will sue tourists just because they are taking pictures in public places with a dslr or people posting selfies on social media with a building in the background? 




1982chris911 said:


> you may also not take pictures of random people and use them for commercial purposes if they can be identified. That is what model releases are for ...



Do you use a different definition of commercial use this time? 
If not, you are saying every journalist needs a model release form from everyone in a mass protest that is recognizable before printing or a sports photographer needs a model release form from every recognizable spectator in the picture. 
We know that’s not the case. 
So what exactly do you mean to say with this example?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > well you are not the one who decides what is commercial use and what is not, that is the point in that case.
> ...


Commercial means either directly making money on it or indirectly using for things like ads. it is very easy and in their ToS you grant commercial use of your pictures to FB ... Secondly I know some people making very long exposure photography that is shown and sold in several galleries. Most of this involves architecture... is that commercial?



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Instead a highly paid IP lawyer will do it for his/her client with the intent to use every weird way possible to open a case and make people pay if it is possible by the law
> ...


 
Well very easy the lawyer needs to write one letter, that is copied and send to all people where a breach of copyright is found ... maybe 2 hours work ... those letters are not sent to one or two persons but to 100s or 1000s (same as the film or music industry is doing) ... thats how those things are usually done here in Germany 



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > you may also not take pictures of random people and use them for commercial purposes if they can be identified. That is what model releases are for ...
> ...


Wrong still same definition, the journalistic work which you quote is not commercial but editorial work and covered by the freedom of press that is a big difference and a completely different story ... Here the interest of the public regarding information is the main reason and not the copyright or personal rights ... That's also the reason why there are press passes etc ... if you don't believe just maybe try to get a nice big DSLR into some concert without a press pass ... good luck ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



100 said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > well you are not the one who decides what is commercial use and what is not, that is the point in that case.
> ...



Evidently the answer is, "No."


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Well if don't believe me what this proposed law could bring just look at the FAQ page of the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/support/support_faq_en.cfm#94

Even the EU is not able to provide pictures of its own building as they have problems with the copyright: 

*"Point 2 

Where can I find photos of the buildings of the European institutions on the website? 

Unfortunately we have had to withdraw from our website all photos containing images of the buildings of the European institutions due to issues concerning copyrights. There is a small selection of very general photos of the Berlaymont available and these can be found on the thematic pages. 

Both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have their own photo libraries that may contain photos of their respective buildings.
Top page"
*
Secondly here is an open letter by the Governing body reperesenting all German Professional Photographers written by a specialized lawyer on this matter: 
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fhoesmann.eu%2Foffener-brief-der-berufsfotografen-fuer-die-panoramafreiheit%2F&hl=de&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Here he also explains that uploading to Facebook can be considered commercial use:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fhoesmann.eu%2Feuropa-und-die-panoramafreiheit-im-urheberrecht%2F&hl=de&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Third Letter by the German Journalists Association:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.djv.de%2Fen%2Fstartseite%2Fservice%2Fnews-kalender%2Fdetail%2Farticle%2Ffaires-urheberrecht-aber-einschraenkung-der-panoramafreiheit.html&hl=de&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Fourth Letter by the Bavarian Conservative Party (Part of the ruling conservative Party in Germany):
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csu.de%2Fcommon%2Fcsu%2Fcontent%2Fcsu%2Fhauptnavigation%2Fpartei%2Fparteiarbeit%2Fcsunet%2F2015_PDFS%2F15-06-26_CSUnet.pdf&hl=de&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=null

Fifth: Letter to the Times in UK signed by several high ranking professionals in UK
https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/614350072847990784

I hope that somehow you are now changing your opinion that this is not all bogus but very real indeed


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



In Germany every Website that has advertisements on it could be regard as commercial ... I am sorry but that is the law here ... When there is advertisement on sth. it is commercial... End of discussion in regard to German Law ... therefore FB, this Forum and everything else where ads are in place and where pictures of copyright protected buildings would be shown already cause problems


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> I hope that somehow you are now changing your opinion that this is not all bogus but very real indeed



The opinion of a lawyer is not the decision of a court of law. The 'evidence' you link comprises opinion about what _might_ be possible interpretations of such a law, _if_ it passes. As I provided in an earlier example, there are many laws on the books that are not enforced in any meaningful of consistent way. 

You're putting the hype in hyperbole, here.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that somehow you are now changing your opinion that this is not all bogus but very real indeed
> ...


1982chris makes some valid points. Across the EU the law is not harmonized as it is in the US, so tourists visiting Rome may well not be aware that they cannot take pictures and technically upload them to Facebook and its almost impossible to know which ones are OK and which ones are not. The law itself is arcane anyone going to the Vatican or a publically ownd building taking "selfies" with ancient relics is likely breaking the law yet millions do every year so its un-enforceable. 
Technically shifting songs from a CD to your computer and then onto your iPhone is platform shifting its illegal yet who is going to take millions of people to court. The law is blantently out of date and the French are putting their heads down a hole trying to impose their will across Europe I hope the Brits vote to leave.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that somehow you are now changing your opinion that this is not all bogus but very real indeed
> ...



Where I live there are well defined penalties and mandatory sentencing for possession of large amounts of drugs and restricted weapons.....

And now the fun part (true story)..... A couple bought a house which had been used as a marijuana grow-op in the basement. Professionals had come in, ripped out all the stuff from the basement... checked for mold.... and prepared it for sale.... After a couple of years living in the house they decide to do a major kitchen renovation and min the process of doing so, found a large cache of drugs, guns, and money hidden it the wall. They called the police who came and dealt with it.

By the letter of the law, they were in possession of drugs and weapons and should be sent off for mandatory jail time....sounds pretty stupid..... and that's what this photography law is.... just because a law is on the books does not mean that it will be enforced.... you have to look at the intent of a law, not the most outlandish scenario that anyone can imagine...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



jeffa4444 said:


> Across the EU the law is not harmonized as it is in the US,



Lol. In Massachusetts, liquor-filled chocolates above 1% ABV can't be sold (fortunately, there's no law against bringing them in). In one city in MA (Woburn), it's illegal to hold or consume a drink while standing in a bar - you must be seated. In Alaska, it's illegal to wake a sleeping bear to take a photograph (but if you have a valid hunting license, you can shoot them in their sleep). In Vermont, it's illegal to take off your clothes in public...but as long as you disrobe on private property, it's perfectly legal to walk around nude. 

Oh yeah, our laws are all harmonized.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 30, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Across the EU the law is not harmonized as it is in the US,
> ...


I was referring to "Freedom of Panorama" which is harmonized across the US. I wrote to my MEPs and have had two replies it is indeed a case of the EU taking a simple revision and turning it on its head and unless amendments are made before the vote of 9th July then "Freedom of Panorma" will no longer exist across the EU. How they could ever enforce it is another matter but it would be a severe backwards step and kill a big part of the photographic industry as we know it for amateurs. Utter madness and another reason why I will be voting to leave the EU in the UK referendum.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that somehow you are now changing your opinion that this is not all bogus but very real indeed
> ...



Lack of enforcement of a terrible law doesn't make it a good law. It also doesn't make it ok for the law to exist.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

*About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



LonelyBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Exactly my opinion and the main reason why everyone ever being interested in photography at a public place in Europe should oppose this law proposal ... the simple fact is, that no one know what they could come up with ones this would go through or what might be the results if such a stupid law proposal is in place ... the danger that something negative for most photographers within the EU arises from this is far too high to simply ignore it and do nothing


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



1982chris911 said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So then I will ask again...can you describe the problems for 'everyone ever being interested in photography at a public place' and for 'most photographers within' France, Italy, and Greece? Those EU countries do not have a freedom of panorama law. For residents of and visitors to those countries, has the lack of freedom of panorama *destroyed photography as we know it*? In those countries, are *street-, travel-, and architecture-photography dead*? 

Given that those three countries are popular international tourism destinations, are replete with renowned architecture and iconic locations, and lack freedom of panorama protections, you should be able to provide a plethora of specific examples where the 'danger of something negative' has become manifest, with deleterious consequences for individual photographers and for photography in general. 

So...would you like to provide some examples (i.e. things that _have_ happened), or will you just continue to *hype*rbolize about what _might_ happen? 

To be clear, I think this motion is something that should not become law. However, raising awareness of the issue by predicting doom and the end of photography as we know it is disingenuous and deceptive.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



The red text is not by me but the offical petition text - there is a media & question link provided there if you follow the link... Maybe they are better at answering why this wording was chosen.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...


http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/02/15/the-french-privacy-law/


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 3, 2015)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



1982chris911 said:


> The red text is not by me but the offical petition text



Yes, I'm aware of that. You stated this motion is a danger to most photographers in the EU, and I'm asking you to support that assertion with specific examples of deleterious consequences to photographers in/visiting EU countries where what you're warning against is already law. Interesting that you cannot seem to provide any such examples. 


@jeffa4444 – your links also fail to provide such examples.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > The red text is not by me but the offical petition text
> ...



This is not possible bc we currently have Lex Loci Protectionis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_loci_protectionis) in Europe ... therefore such case cannot exist ... It could only exist if the law is amended to be the same in whole Europe, which is exactly the aim of that law proposal ...

For an individual country this means that it could only exist within the country if all three are from that country. the photographer, the holder of rights, the subject of interest and additionally if the law already exists in that country and if it is enforced and if you would be able to gain access to the court decision in local language which due to the nature of theses cases are normally private and therefore not published ...


I think the problem is you assume we have case law in Europe which we don't have ... our law system is totally different from the anglican and US case law based system as we have codified law.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 3, 2015)

Rather than go back and forth with a bunch of posts, I'm just going to put my thoughts into a single post and let it be...

*Thought #1*

There is relative safety from predators for a single zebra in a vast herd. The probability of falling prey to a lion or cheetah is comparatively small and might not feel like a big deal. For the zebras that do fall prey, it is a very big deal.

The "herd" breaks speed limits on the freeway every day. It's not enforced en masse. This emboldens the masses to accept comparatively low risk and break the speed limit, thinking it's not a big deal. For those of us that have been pulled over and received a speeding ticket, it's a big deal.

*Thought #2*

Practical enforceability changes with technology. When I lived in New Zealand, there were speed cameras employed for limit enforcement. Some were mobile, some were fixed in place. No one pulls you over -- you just get your violation and fine in the mailbox.

If municipalities wanted to enforce speed limits en masse, they could, thanks to technology. The reason they don't? It's the same as any vice tax purported to discourage the vice: if it's too successful, the revenue from fines dries up. If it's not successful enough, the revenue dries up.

*Thought #3*

Technology for enforcing copyrights for images will advance. In years ahead, recognition algorithms might advance to the point where images posted online, regardless of the context, will be tagged and flagged by automated technology designed to identify possible copyright infringement and notify the rights holder. Such technology can be a blessing, but it can also be a vehicle for enforcing ill-conceived laws.

France and Italy might not enforce the current copyright/photography laws, like a cop with a radar gun against the tide of traffic, but things could be very different once they trade that "cop" in for the cyber-enforcement equivalent of a speed camera.

*Thought #4*

Those wishing to enforce copyrights for images taken of their public structures without permission will be the initiator, not a municipality. That produces a very different dynamic. Think of patent enforcement and even patent trolling, but for photographs. If I receive (authentic!) notice from attorneys representing the owner of a prominent building in Europe, and I don't have the funds for a legal battle, I might opt to pay the fine because it will cost me less in the long run, regardless of whether or not I was within or without the law and how "commercial use" is defined.

*Thought #5*

If I remember correctly, there were mentions at the start of this thread of getting input from attorneys to better understand the proposed law as it is currently written. When references to attorneys' opinions/testimony on the very subject were provided, they were dismissed as just opinion. Such opinions need not be sufficient to prove an outcome in order to be relevant to demonstrating the _potential _outcomes. After all, it will be attorneys who argue before judges when it comes time to enforce the law. You might not agree with their opinion _now_, but a judge might _then_.

*Thought #6*

One might argue that, as the motion is currently written, some of the sensationalizing is unwarranted. Let's also remember that laws are often poorly written. It could very well be that this law is intended to do what the "sensationalists" purport but was just poorly written. The concerns represented by the media reports might be from interviews of the backers of the motion who communicated more clearly an intent that was poorly encoded in the motion verbiage.

Discouraging sensationalizing is one thing. Getting sidetracked in trying to prove the accuracy or inaccuracy of predictions of the practical effects of a law is quite another. Perhaps we can be less confrontational in this dialogue, eh?

*Thought #7*

Freedom is not protected by playing the odds of enforcement. It is protected by vigilance and guarding against the enactment of laws that expand power, even if that merely opens the unlikely _possibility _of it being "lawfully" enforced to the fullest. Historically, governments tend to continue to expand their power, reach and appetite for central control. Only very rarely to do governments relinquish control back to the people without bloodshed. Thus, it is imperative that those who love freedom are watchful. I would prefer not to leave my practical freedom to the whims of enforcement of a law that should never have been enacted. I'm not in favor of sensationalism, but let's also be sure not to label exploration of potential outcomes as sensationalism.

To American readers (and to those elsewhere who share the sentiments of the holiday), Happy Independence Day tomorrow! 

PS: I normally avoid writing such long posts. For those who made it all the way through, I hope it was easy to "connect the dots thoughts."


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 3, 2015)

Famateur said:


> To American readers (and to those elsewhere who share the sentiments of the holiday), Happy Independence Day tomorrow!



Bah ! 

You'd have never got independence if Great Britain had been a member of the EU in 1776 !


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > To American readers (and to those elsewhere who share the sentiments of the holiday), Happy Independence Day tomorrow!
> ...



shhhhhh ... don't tell them


----------



## zim (Jul 3, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



36% of the Scottish population would apparently disagree with that


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2015)

@Famateur: thanks for posting your 7 thoughts. While agreeing with all of them, something fundamental is still
Missing with regards to the subject matter. Basically the "rights mafia and their lobbyists" along with many othet MPs who dont habe a clue what image capture abd sharing really entails and means in the digital age have managed to pull a 180 degree u-turn on the initiative of Julia Reda, MP EU parliament. https://juliareda.eu/de/ (german language).
The whole debate falls into an overall development, where the only legally permissible cameras in the public space will be CCTV/police/Big data "security" and surveillance cameras. "Private" image capturing in public will be strictly outlawed quite soon, if we let things move any further in this direction.

The proposed change to the legal framework for the entire EU would habe immense negative effects on our ability to create/capture and share images of our daily environment. Not only for amateurs but even more so for professionals. This is why for example the german pro-imagers association has mgone public with a strobg rejection of the proposed change to EU legislation. The freedom to capture anything you can see from public ground without using specific technicals means (drones, cranrs, ladders, paparazzi paraphernalia etc.) and use the resulting images or footage as you see fit is of the utmost importance to anybody creating imagery outside the confines of artificial studio setups. 
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Deutsche-Berufsfotografen-wenden-sich-gegen-Einschränkung-der-Panoramafreiheit
(Sorry, only available in german language).

In addition the whole notion of "architects needing copyright protection" is simply ridiculous. People who are in a position to place landmark architecture into our cities - from eigfel tower to burj el arab to petronas tower to christos temporary wrap up cr*p - are well paud for their works and any image of these works published and shared in any sort of media just serves as free advertising and further increases the - deserved or often utterly undeserved - hype and the fees those guys can demand.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 3, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > To American readers (and to those elsewhere who share the sentiments of the holiday), Happy Independence Day tomorrow!
> ...



Wouldn't have needed to -- Great Britain would have gone with us!!!


----------



## Famateur (Jul 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> @Famateur: thanks for posting your 7 thoughts.



You're welcome -- glad it was useful to someone! 



AvTvM said:


> The proposed change to the legal framework for the entire EU would have immense negative effects on our ability to create/capture and share images of our daily environment.



I certainly hope it never comes to that, but hope isn't enough, is it? Good to see people getting involved, especially if the debate stays constructive.



AvTvM said:


> In addition the whole notion of "architects needing copyright protection" is simply ridiculous.



It does seem silly (to me) to construct something in the public view and then try to control and license the creation and use of photographs of it. It's not like someone is building a duplicate building, then trying to pass it off as the original and of their own design. I fail to see how someone is harmed, especially monetarily, by even commercial use of images of publicly visible buildings and sculptures.

If we were talking about things NOT in public view, it would be another matter...


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 3, 2015)

If the EU proposal is approved, would it apply to images that were captured prior to it coming into effect ?.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



So, in other words despite the fact that it's extremely likely that French photographers have taken pictures of French buildings designed by French architects (and likewise in Italy and Greece), and the fact that in the age of the Internet we have instant translation and dissemination of information, you can't produce even one example of this 'danger' that will affect 'everyone ever interested in photography at a public place in Europe'. Hype and FUD. 

OMG, the world will end and we'll all die a fiery death when the sun exhausts its fuel and becomes a red giant. You have been WARNED!!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> If the EU proposal is approved, would it apply to images that were captured prior to it coming into effect ?.



Yes. The descendants of the owners of this field, who built these haystacks, will soon be launching litigation against the descendants of Claude Monet for copyright infringement. 







Oops, is that hyperbole? :


----------



## Famateur (Jul 4, 2015)

I'd be interested in one example of what the proposed motion/law is intended to _correct_. Any specific cases of the deleterious consequences of the motion _not _becoming law? Can someone show me one example of an architect or owner of a building that lost money because someone took a photo from public view and published it, even for commercial gain?

If there's even the _possibility _of enforcement of a law having the negative effects postulated in this thread and around the interwebs, but there is no argument nor evidence for why it's necessary, it seems pretty reasonable to oppose it.

Other than making money for lawyers, what is this law intended to accomplish?

One possibility: An opportunity for a technology company to create the web-crawlers and recognition algorithms to then provide a subscription service to copyright holders wanting to find instances of infringement to pursue.

Might be a good business opportunity...still doesn't seem like a good reason for the law. In fact, if successful, such a business/technology would facilitate the very consequences many are concerned about.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Famateur said:


> I'd be interested in one example of what the proposed motion/law is intended to _correct_. Any specific cases of the deleterious consequences of the motion _not _becoming law? Can someone show me one example of an architect or owner of a building that lost money because someone took a photo from public view and published it, even for commercial gain?
> 
> If there's even the _possibility _of enforcement of a law having the negative effects postulated in this thread and around the interwebs, but there is no argument nor evidence for why it's necessary, it seems pretty reasonable to oppose it.
> 
> ...



Google the Hundertwasser Entscheidung ... was about a picture taken out of a private apartment on the opposite side of the street of a building build by Hundertwasser ... it was then sold as a print... the settlement took over twenty years and 8 national courts among them the highest court of Germany and Austria involved ... 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundertwasserentscheidung


To make things short: In the end the company that sold the print had to pay 50.000 EUR to the foundation of the artist and had to destroy all prints ... reason was that freedom of panorama does not involve pictures taken out of a private apartment ... if they would have taken it from street level they would have won the case bc. FoP would have been assumed ... that's actually what can happen if FoP is ruled out.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 4, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be interested in one example of what the proposed motion/law is intended to _correct_. Any specific cases of the deleterious consequences of the motion _not _becoming law? Can someone show me one example of an architect or owner of a building that lost money because someone took a photo from public view and published it, even for commercial gain?
> ...



Thank you for sharing! So the outcome hinged on whether the view (from which the photo was taken) was public or private (in this case, private)? Very interesting.

If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, passing the motion, as currently written, would mean that even if that photo was taken at street level, the settlement would have been the same. If the motion passed as originally written, it would have reversed the outcome of the case, regardless of where the photo was taken. Is that right?

I'd be interested to know how the architect persuaded the courts to conclude that he lost money because someone else made money on a print. Still seems like people feeling entitled to the fruits of other people's success...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Famateur said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Here is the building by the way:
http://www.mts-vienna.com/guide/vienna/what-to-visit/hundertwasserhaus/


----------



## Famateur (Jul 4, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for sharing! So the outcome hinged on whether the view (from which the photo was taken) was public or private (in this case, private)? Very interesting.
> ...



Ah...yes. That makes it a bit trickier. 

So, if you were to rewrite the motion, would it be to extend Freedom of Panorama to protect photographers from architects that would seek damages from photos taken of their work in a public place? Or would it be to more clearly define "commercial use," or both? Or something else?

If it was up to me, I'd say that if it's in public, people are free to make photographs of it and use those photographs for their own purposes, be they personal or commercial (as long as the photograph is not to represent the architecture as their own design/property or to mimic the exact composition/image sold by another photographer, be it the architect or someone else).


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2015)

Julia Reda, german member of the European Parliament (MEP) has put forward a motion in the parliamentary subcomittee for legal matters to harmonize different national copyright laws on a EU-wide basis along the lines if more liberal regulations like the ines in effect in Germany, Austria, UK abd other EU menber states. This motion was completely turned around via relentless wordsmithing by a few ultra-conservative MEPs who are likely influenced by the "copyrights mafia and their lobbyists". All of a sudden the subcommuttee passed a motion that would follow the most restrictive national copyright laws of countries like France and Italy where "freedom of panorama" has never been implemented or granted, although purported violations were only prosecuted in cases when very prominent buildings (eg the nightly light installation on eiffel-tower) were involved.

The current german and Austrian model of "freedom of panorama" is perfectly fine and would serve well as blueprint fir a very sensible harmonized EU-wide regulation. Anything - except individual persons - in plain public view from public ground can can be part of any sort of image (stills, moving image, paintings, drawings, ...) and the creators of works of architecture or works of art in the open public space cannot claim royalties for images that show or include these works. Neither can the artists widows, heirs or trusts of deceased artists or lawyers or any other members and racketeers of the ever mire greedy "copyright mafia".


----------



## Famateur (Jul 4, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> This motion was completely turned around via relentless wordsmithing...



Ugh...this happens in the USA, as well, unfortunately. A bill will be introduced and given a number, voted on and then passed to the other house of congress where it is then gutted, re-stuffed with garbage, voted on and passed back. It's maddening...



AvTvM said:


> The current german and Austrian model of "freedom of panorama" is perfectly fine and would serve well as blueprint fir a very sensible harmonized EU-wide regulation. Anything - except individual persons - in plain public view from public ground can can be part of any sort of image (stills, moving image, paintings, drawings, ...) and the creators of works of architecture or works of art in the open public space cannot claim royalties for images that show or include these works...



Sounds fair to me. Being mostly unfamiliar with European politics and balance of power, is there a chance it will be brought back to Ms. Reda's original intent?


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Sounds fair to me. Being mostly unfamiliar with European politics and balance of power, is there a chance it will be brought back to Ms. Reda's original intent?



The vote is scheduled for july 9. there are some encouraging signs/rumors that the public outcry in many EU countries by both amateur and professional image creators and more than 200.000 signatures on petition/s are having the desired effect and the plenum may not follow the subcommittees' draft. Source: Der Spiegel 2015/07/02 http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/panoramafreiheit-eu-parlament-lehnt-foto-einschraenkungen-ab-a-1041670.html

It is very unclear however, if/when/what law exactly will be passed. Highly unlikely however that Ms Reda's original proposal and its intent - maximum freedom for image creation, capture and royalty-free usage of any image content in plain view of the public - will pass in the end. The "copyright mafia/lobby" is way to strong unfortunately.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Famateur said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



First question: 
More likely to protect photographers ... What commercial use is is addressed elsewhere too, also this might change over time (IP lawyer of the right holder probably needs to show to the court that the use is commercial in nature, than it would be a court decision)...

Second part:

Theft of Ideas is not covered by FoP ... so if you for example recreate an image (not something like the view of city what everyone could take from that point but really coping the idea and style of another artist) that could also mean copyright infringement but has nothing to do with FoP ... however it would be difficult to make up a case here, as the images would need to be nearly identical, the other thing (wrongly telling the design is yours) is also another part of copyright violation and not covered by FoP


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2015)

To all carping sceptics etc, this issue has become so important that Wikipedia has become fraught that it will have to remove a huge collection of painstakingly garnered images

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015


Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia
2 July 2015

Images of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia.

Absence of full Freedom of Panorama means we can't illustrate Wikipedia properly.
For more than a decade, volunteers have compiled countless facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia. Photographers have donated hundreds of thousands of photos to illustrate the articles.

The reason Wikipedia can freely depict public spaces in most of the countries in the European Union is that we enjoy full Freedom of Panorama. This is an exception to copyright that allows people to make and use photographs of public spaces without restriction, while at the same time protecting the architect's or visual artist's rights.

Now, the free use of many of these images is in danger by a proposal in the European Parliament. If the restrictive text accepted by the Legal Affairs Committee is adopted in the course of the upcoming EU legislative procedure on copyright reform, hundreds of thousands of images on Wikipedia would no longer be free and thus would no longer belong in Wikipedia. Read more →

Contact a Member of the European Parliament

Facebook & Twitter: #saveFoP
Link: https://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/saveFoP


----------



## zim (Jul 4, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be interested in one example of what the proposed motion/law is intended to _correct_. Any specific cases of the deleterious consequences of the motion _not _becoming law? Can someone show me one example of an architect or owner of a building that lost money because someone took a photo from public view and published it, even for commercial gain?
> ...



Completed in 1985 at a cost of over €7 million, it's an apartment house owned by the city of Vienna and rented out to individuals just like any other public-housing project. 

Seems strange to me that the artist retains any IP on this, was it not commissioned and built under contract to the city?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

zim said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Nearly always like that, the cr. is mostly owned by the creator not the owner/developer ... that is usually part of the contract between architect and developer/building entity ... in some cases the developer may want to own the design as well (but usually that costs extra)


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 4, 2015)

Is this law likely to be passed or is it just scaremongering ?. The number of images of public buildings on picture libraries etc from contries that already have Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use only (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovenia), suggest that even if it is passed, it won't be enforced.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 4, 2015)

Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Nearly always like that, the cr. is mostly owned by the creator



Makes sense. So, if I understand correctly...when _you_ create something, like a photograph, you should own the rights to that creation and be able to use it freely for commercial purposes. But, when someone else creates something, like a building design, _you_ should also be able to use it freely for commercial purposes. 

Copyright mafia...bad guys when you want something that belongs to someone else, good guys when someone else wants something of yours?

Just a little devil's advocacy...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> Is this law likely to be passed or is it just scaremongering ?



Pretty clear that it's the latter. 

Well, enough posting in this thread for now, I'd best get back to building that rocket I'll need to escape when the sun explodes.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Nearly always like that, the cr. is mostly owned by the creator
> ...



For example, if one of 1982chris911's photos were to be displayed in a public place, it would be OK for other photographers to photograph it and sell their photos commercially. It goes without saying that their photos would be artistic critiques of 1982chris911's photo, hence original works; they would not be, therefore, in any way derived nor infringing. [/irony]


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 4, 2015)

For balance and entertainment, here's an appraisal of the FoP thing and Wiki's part in it in "The Register", a cynical IT blog:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/wikipedia_saves_internet_from_fictional_threat/


----------



## zim (Jul 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Nearly always like that, the cr. is mostly owned by the creator
> ...



I'm not trying to be an arm chair lawyer here cos I ain't! but I don't understand this. Every company I've worked for has by contract owned every bit of code and IP I've created (I see no difference between 'art' and code both look beautiful when done correctly) they owned me for those periods of time. In my mind this therefore seems like an absolute dereliction of duty and care of public funds used by the city of Vienna to fund this project i.e. the only people that should be in a position to sue is the city.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2015)

GammyKnee said:


> For balance and entertainment, here's an appraisal of the FoP thing and Wiki's part in it in "The Register", a cynical IT blog:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/wikipedia_saves_internet_from_fictional_threat/



How dare you promulgate this tripe? The EU is about to *kill photography* and you think it's some kind of joke??


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> How dare you promulgate this tripe? The EU is about to *kill photography* and you think it's some kind of joke??


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> GammyKnee said:
> 
> 
> > For balance and entertainment, here's an appraisal of the FoP thing and Wiki's part in it in "The Register", a cynical IT blog:
> ...



Here's another article from the register: "Biologists gasp at lemur's improbably colossal bollocks"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/lemur_impressive_plums/


----------



## photonius (Jul 4, 2015)

*Re: About the possible change in EU freedom of panorama law *



neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > The red text is not by me but the offical petition text
> ...



would these be acceptable examples? 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Initiative_für_die_Panoramafreiheit/Leserinformation

(i guess an english version exists as well)


----------



## Tugela (Jul 6, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).
> 
> You can read the whole thing here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015
> ...



They are referring to commercial uses if I understand it correctly. Unless you are planning on selling them, your selfies are safe.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



I'm curious, do you by any chance happen to live under a bridge?


----------



## Tugela (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



You do realize that the term "works" refers to works of art, in other words paintings and sculptures? In this case they are referring to commercial ownership of images of such works that happen to be displayed in public spaces. That is what your molehill is all about. I think any reasonable person would agree that commercial use of such images would rest with the owner of such works, not some yahoo who happens to snap a picture of it and then wants to sell it. For example, if you took a picture of the Mona Lisa (a "work") in the Louvre (a "public space"), you would not have the right to then use that picture to promote a porn site (for example) just because you happened to be the photographer. Ownership of the image would still belong to the owner of the Mona Lisa, and you would need their permission to use it in your hypothetical porn site.

All the proposal is doing is putting into law what would otherwise be common sense.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Tugela said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sorry but you do not realize that "works" refers to all architectural works as well - meaning every building constructed in the last 70 years which is not only an engineered construction but for which an architect made a design. It also includes older building if there were substantial modifications (general length of copyright is 70 years after the death of the creator). In an architect's contract there is always a copyright paragraph, otherwise the developer/building company could just take the plans and endlessly rebuild the building without the architects permission. So your statement is 100% wrong... further FoP is in most countries limited to 3 dimensional works and not 2 dimensional things like pictures posters advertisements paintings etc ... Further the ML is in a museum where FoP does not apply ... that is also plainly wrong... Further it is completely wrong to assume just because you own a painting or other work of art you are the copyright holder as well. Even if you buy a multi million Damien Hirst artwork (enter every other artist you may want) it is never allowed to reproduce it without the permission of the artist ... ownership of copyright IS NOT the same as ownership of the subject...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Tugela said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Im a member of the British Screen Advisory Council and Ive written to all of my MEPs for clarification. This is a proposed amendment to the existing copyright law which the EU is trying to harmonize across Europe. Freedom of Panorama is mixed across Europe with the UK & Germany enshrining it for over 90 years whereas in France and Italy its not to give examples. 
Four MEPs and two different views sums up the EU. Two say their is a risk, two say there is not, all however agree it will only be enforceable for commercial use. The grey area revolves around Facebook and its terms that allow it to use your images for their gain (personally I feel Facebook should be legislated against this abuse of position the onus should be on them if they know you could be sued if they use your image).


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



jeffa4444 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



However it still holds the problem that you as private person may not ever sell a picture (including prints) of cities bc. that is clearly commercial - even if the building is just minor part(e.g the skyline of London or Paris or Frankfurt) it is every modern building you would see there ...

I guess it is nearly impossible to shoot without having them in the frame... Further documentary films are another problem ? How would you film a city if need to exclude all copyrighted buildings ... even most big production films would become impossible in European cities ... where the city is just a background of the film plot ... 

Another questions is what about the billions of pictures which are already out there and licensed ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> They are referring to commercial uses if I understand it correctly. Unless you are planning on selling them, your selfies are safe.



Oh, if only that were true. But if you post your image to Facebook or even here on CR, there are ads and so that's commercial use. A lawyer even said so. And the OP said you'd have to pay a 100€ fine. Now I'm hearing that if you even _think_ about posting your image to the Internet, you'll have to pay a 25€ fine. 

*PHOTOGRAPHY ARMAGEDDON!!!*

Roll on, FUD.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now I'm hearing that if you even _think_ about posting your image to the Internet, you'll have to pay a 25€ fine.
> 
> *PHOTOGRAPHY ARMAGEDDON!!!*
> 
> Roll on, FUD.



What if you only think about taking the picture ? Is that intent ?


----------



## Kristofgss (Jul 6, 2015)

To put things into perspective, Belgium already has the law in place where it is forbidden to take pictures of monuments/buildings without consent. But in most cases, the copyright holders will put up a notice telling you what you are allowed to do. Take the atomium for example: http://atomium.be/AuthorsRights.aspx?lang=en

Fro their website: " There are some cases however where use of the image of the Atomium is not restricted by any rights. This is the case namely where photographs are taken by private individuals and shown on websites, social media sites, blogs for no commercial purpose."

Basic rule here is that you can take pictures, but just don't try to sell them or make a profit from them.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


Its not true about London no rights need be sought even when filming for commercial gain.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 6, 2015)

Why has there been so much debate on the subject ?. The amendment is not draft legislation. The European Parliament cannot actually write legislation, that's the European Commission's job. It's just a publicity stunt.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/


----------



## Tugela (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



1982chris911 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



I understand perfectly fine. But in English in that context the term "works" refers to works of art, not structural works. Same word, but completely different meanings. Perhaps English is not your first language and you are confused about what the phrase means?


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



Tugela said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



And I suppose Architecture is not an art in your book.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: This story is false and part of an anti-EU campaign *



anthonyd said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Nope. A bridge is not art. There are monumental structures which are art, but those are relatively few and far between and architecture is not among them.

As I said before, this proposed amendment refers to things like paintings and sculptures which are on public display, not buildings. The OP is misrepresenting all this to make a mountain out of a molehill due to paranoia. It is also specific to commercial images, not those recorded by the general public.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm confused. Consider this image:





The Dreiländerbrücke is a recent design, and spans the Rhine such that the left side (as pictured) is in Germany (where FOP currently exists) while the right side is in France (where there is no FOP). The concept was designed by an architect in France (no FOP), but the engineering design was done in Germany (FOP). Some of the pictured buildings are in France (no FOP), others are in Switzerland (FOP). 

When I took the picture I was standing in Germany (FOP), but on private land belonging to a Chinese restaurant (China has FOP), and I had French (no FOP) wine in my belly. I first viewed the RAW image in Switzerland (FOP), and processed it in the USA (FOP for buildings, bridges have no copyright protection at all so FOP is irrelevant). I posted it to Flickr, having agreed to their ToS which allows then to use it to promote their products. It's here on CR, with inline ads nearby. Just now, I thought about offering it to stock services. 

With the new law parlimantary motion and lex loci protectionis, what am I to do?


----------



## martti (Jul 7, 2015)

I emailed a EU representative and she said that the proposition in its current form is so vague that it will not be presented for vote. The French have killed their own street photography already. They should be watched.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm confused. Consider this image:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well for start try taking the picture before you drink the wine. You missed both ends off the bridge


----------



## Kristofgss (Jul 7, 2015)

Problem with the bridge solved according to EU law ;D

maybe we will get EU-approved symbols to put over protected landmarks in pictures?


----------



## cayenne (Jul 7, 2015)

zim said:


> I'm not trying to be an arm chair lawyer here cos I ain't! but I don't understand this. Every company I've worked for has by contract owned every bit of code and IP I've created (I see no difference between 'art' and code both look beautiful when done correctly) they owned me for those periods of time. In my mind this therefore seems like an absolute dereliction of duty and care of public funds used by the city of Vienna to fund this project i.e. the only people that should be in a position to sue is the city.



Depends on the terms of your employment. Most people, doing code as a W2 employee of a company, basically is doing that work as a "work for hire" type situation, where they own the code you create while on the job. 

If you are coding and have a 1099 type contractor relationship to the company, the rights to the code are something you negotiate with the contractually as to who retains the rights to the code.

This is often the case with photography or video, etc. Are you employed or contracting as a "work for hire" where the employing entity owns the copyright, or do you retain the rights to the media, and license it out to the company paying for it.

You generally want to fight for the latter case, and rarely do you want to do work for hire as an artist.

And as someone who does some code...I also want to retain the rights to re-use much of the code I come in with, as well as the code tool box I've assembled (no pun intended) over the years.

Definitely a consideration when accepting employment.

I've done W2 work before where I had to have them rewrite or cancel out parts of the work agreement, to remove language what would have possibly had the company not only own any code I did or brought in to the company facility during the work day...but also possibly to anything I created outside of there on my own time. Stuff like that needs to be watched for....

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 7, 2015)

It seems to me that the general feeling in this forum is that this law (or whatever it is) will not have much of an effect.
let me share a counterexample with you. I'm currently in Athens Greece with my family. I tried to take pictures of my kids on the Acropolis only to learn that flashes and light modifiers are not allowed on the Acropolis. The next day I went to the hill across from the Acropolis to take pictures of my kids with a tele lens so the Parthenon in the background is recognizable. To my surprise, when I set up a large softbox a guard approached and said that flashes are not allowed there either! I'm not sure that this is due to FOP, but Greece has no FOP and the Parthenon is certainly considered a work of art in Greece (even if some members of this forum do not include architecture in the fine arts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> It seems to me that the general feeling in this forum is that this law (or whatever it is) will not have much of an effect.
> let me share a counterexample with you. I'm currently in Athens Greece with my family. I tried to take pictures of my kids on the Acropolis only to learn that flashes and light modifiers are not allowed on the Acropolis. The next day I went to the hill across from the Acropolis to take pictures of my kids with a tele lens so the Parthenon in the background is recognizable. To my surprise, when I set up a large softbox a guard approached and said that flashes are not allowed there either! I'm not sure that this is due to FOP, but Greece has no FOP and the Parthenon is certainly considered a work of art in Greece (even if some members of this forum do not include architecture in the fine arts).



Sorry, but I don't think that represents a counter example. The proscription of flash/strobe use has nothing to do with copyright protection, but rather with limiting distraction for everyone else and in some cases preservation of historical material. You weren't told to stop taking pictures or asked to pay 300€ to the Culture and Tourism Ministry for a professional photography permit. 

Moreover, I rather suspect the architectural copyrights for the structures on the Acropolis have expired by now.


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the general feeling in this forum is that this law (or whatever it is) will not have much of an effect.
> ...



You might be right, but what I forgot to mention is that when I asked "what's the obsession with the flashes" the guard didn't have a very coherent answer but mumbled something about the photo shoot looking too professional and so does my lens and so on. He also came back when my wife was changing the kids' clothes and asked why we are changing clothes for the photo shoot.

My opinion is not authoritative in any way but it sounds like they want to prevent proffesional photography around the monuments.

Regarding the copyright, it obviously doesn't belong to the original artists or their descendants, but I wouldn't be surprised if the monuments are considered IP of the Greek government.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 7, 2015)

I have seen several initiatives against this crazy proposal. Here is an easy way to add your voice to the opposition.

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography-savefop-europarl-en?recruiter=338415479&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm confused. Consider this image:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately for you, you would be breaking French law and the French have an extradition treaty with the US. Given that dilbert is an alias for a US lawmaker, they will probably exchange you for Roman Polanski.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 8, 2015)

Neuro, your image/situation is a perfect demonstration of the matter in question. 
If you photograph a bridge in say Cincinnati spanning the Ohio river, the same laws will apply on the Ohio and on the Kentucky side of that bridge. Unfortunately this is currently not the case between EU member states. So there clearly is a need for harmonization of the current legal situation throughout the entire EU.

If the EU parliament follows the intent of Julia Reda's initial proposal to harmonize the matter along the more liberal "german model" of freedom of panorama ("FoP"), it would be ideal from any photographers point of view - both amateurs and professionals. FoP has worked extremely well over the last 90 years in all countries where it exists. And to my knowledge, (good) architects and artists are starving in higher numbers in Germany, Austria or the UK than in the most photography-restricting EU countries like France and Italy. 

With a sensible and liberal European FoP law/directive in place, photographers anywhere in the EU would have peace of mind, that as long as they capture images of anything (other than individual persons) on and from public ground and in plain view of the public, they could publish and use these images as they see fit in commercial, non-commercial and "possibly commercial" situations (like those facebook, flickr etc. terms of service). Without having to stop and ask for all sorts of permissions before creating any image, without 100 page small print contracts, and without greedy asshole IR lawyers going after them with the most absurd "cease and desist orders under fine" ("strafbewehrte Abmahnungen") for all sorts of real or imagined "commercial uses" and "copyright infringements" of some long-deceased architects's heirs trust fund.

Unfortunately, some dirtbag copyright mafia-influenced MEPs have tried to turn Ms. Read's excellent proposal and initiative to grant freedom of panorama to photographers in all EU countries on its head. In effect they want to basically abolsih FoP in all of the EU, including countries where it has existed and successfully regulated matters for many decades. Not even the Nazis touched general FoP rights in Germany and Austria.

So yes, this matter is a big thing. It is not exaggerated. It is important to any photographer taking images outside of their own house, apartment or studio. It is even important to US and other Non-EU tourists taking images of and in European cities on public grounds (eg. images of multi-national bridges taken from the sidewalk of a street NEXt TO some Chinese restaurant  ). 

As photographers we should all be united in asking EU lawmakers (EU parliament does pass laws): "Madams/Sires Ladies & Gentlemen, grant freedom of panorama - everywhere!". It is essential for photographers and it also serves the public interest. The more images of our cities, buildings, monuments the better - the more will be available as documentation of the current state of our civilization to future generations and historians. Furthermore, there are more than enough legal safeguards provided under many other laws & regulations in all EU countries to very effectively prevent and/or limit "excessive" (commercial) use and any copyright infringements by means of images captured under FoP.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As photographers we should all be united in asking the eu lawmakers (the EU parliament does pass laws): "Madams/Sires, give us freedom of panorama".



"Madams" is the plural form for a brothel keeper. Mesdames is the correct plural of an archaic form of address for a woman in high position. Sire is used most often nowadays for the father of a race horse.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 8, 2015)

AlanF said:


> "Madams" is the plural form for a brothel keeper. Mesdames is the correct plural of an archaic form of address for a woman in high position. Sire is used most often nowadays for the father of a race horse.



ups ... Thanks!


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 8, 2015)

AlanF said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As photographers we should all be united in asking the eu lawmakers (the EU parliament does pass laws): "Madams/Sires, give us freedom of panorama".
> ...



And we all know that the members of the parliament are not the keepers, they just work there. :-}


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 9, 2015)

European Parliament rejects ‘absurd’ EU plan to axe Freedom of Panorama

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/european-parliament-rejects-absurd-eu-plan-to-axe-freedom-of-panorama-55708


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

Pirate Party and Wikipedia FOR THE WIN!!! maintenance of status quo. :


----------



## TheJock (Jul 10, 2015)

I just read it was rejected 8)


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 18, 2015)

Early on in this thread I mentioned that I was having a meeting with my local Euro MP, Timothy Kirkhope, an astute and serious politician actually.

He was instrumental in getting this ridiculous proposal thrown out, and if any of you who have felt so strongly about it would like to write and thank him for his positive input on this matter, his e mail address is: [email protected]

Incidentally Timothy is a keen photographer.


----------



## martti (Aug 6, 2015)

I would realy love to see an eminent photographer raise hell against 'site developers' or any old construction companies for demolishing the aesthetic values of a scenery. That would be cool. They love to soue people for imaginary loss of business, etc. but they never look at it the other way round: Maybe their business is not 'addding value' to a site but rather bringing it down.

In which case they should be very, very ashamed and then, eventually, realize that they owe somethng to people they had hurt.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 11, 2015)

http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/eu-copyright-reform-eu-parliament-vote-on-changes/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aaa


----------

