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

[AlanF]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Just a little devil's advocacy...

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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

 

[AlanF]

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??

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]

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

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.

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]

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...

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

 

[Tugela]

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

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.

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

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

 

[Tugela]

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

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.

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/

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]

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

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.

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/

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.

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]

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

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.

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/

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.

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]

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

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.

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/

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.

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. 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).

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 ?