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

[emko]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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:

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Perhaps named for The Pirate Bay?

 

[1982chris911]

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:

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.

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]

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

 

[1982chris911]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

...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.

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]

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]

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]

...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.

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) ...

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]

...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.

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) ...

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.

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