• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Right to publish and sell photographs of public buildings and artworks in EU

Evidently the requirement to engage the brain before making changes in laws and approving them has been suspended. Of course since I am using film, I have not physical images only latent images that I am removing from Europe. Therefore I can avoid their wrath getting the photographs out. After the fact I can taunt them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read a little of the article. The Author is not consistent. In the first paragraph, the author is states and end to the Freedom of Panorama ruling will not allow photos of public building to be published and sold without consent. Then in the second paragraph outlines his concern he cannot take a photo and place it on Facebook (not sold). If the authors first paragraph statement is true (cannot sell an image), then the second paragraph statement (posting and image without sale) should not be a concern.
 
The basic idea seems to be to install consistent legislation on a legal issue long time existing.

Thus something positive for photographers who typically work more internationally than decades ago, with existing legislation/jurisdiction already being complicated enough nationally.
I do not consider such as madness. Of course one could argue about the loss of national sovereignity, but that would be a general issue related to the EU.


The major issue though is on which standard to equalize.
Germany for instance has a quite far reaching freedom of publication of photographs of things being visible from public ground.

Another issue of course is whether for public owned buildings, artwork etc. in general all rights should be free. That would imply that a municipality etc. has to aquire those rights themselves from the start. Also currently there is a growing tendency for the public to have buildings built for them by private investors, those buildings are thus less public as it may seem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If people don't want their buildings photographed, they should keep them covered up!


Steve.
 
Well, Christo did so.

And with the Reichstag it become an exception to the german legal freedom of panorama, as it was only a temporary intervention.

Things easily get complicated...
 
I think the overiding principle should be that the state is subject to the same laws as everyone else. i.e. not one law for us and another for you.
 
I do not get your point: Is there a difference between state and public on that matter?
(I cannot access the site you linked to.)


By the way, it would be nice to read the original EU proposition. I could not find it at an EU-site so far.
 
maybe I have misread what was posted but
there have been laws like this in the U.S. for over a decade.
plenty of people get or have gotten arrested or
stirred trouble on the web for knowingly breaking these laws
( not photographing state /public buildings ) being obnoxious about it &c too.
I seem to remember someone photographing a federal building in DC and
a security officer attempting to do his job got stuck in the crossfire..
and there was all sorts of blowback about over reach .. maybe in 2006?
and in private places like shops and shopping plazas
if one photographs without permission, and publishes
owners have th right to sue. been that way since before 1990
I know as a student with a camera in 1980 I was asked to stop ...

agx I think christo got permission before wrapping "stuff" and like christo I am sure if
someone got permission to photograph public and private places they would be given access
( I know I have, and I have been told that I looked like a desperado )...

ymmvftmots
 
Basically one could argue, if one puts something into public sight, may it be a building, a painting, a sculpture etc., the public right to publish images of it would be logical.

Well, all those legislation date from a pre-internet, mass-communication period. Before that a owner of such right, where restrictions already existed, could easily make businees with those who could not access that public place with that sight, by selling them photographs one way or the other, or control the images of that object to some extent.

In times of internet images of any of such objects likely spread anyway.
Thus the right to free publication would be more practical. However this incentive may be seen in the context of general dissolving of control on intellectual property and attempts to fence that in again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Christo got permission to wrap the Reichstag. The wrapped Reichstag itself become a new object, which draw attention. Basically it would be free to publish photographs of that new object as with the unveiled building, however german legislation yields such freedom only for objects located continuously somewhere (being visible from public ground). In this case the wrapping was limited in time from the beginning and thus Christo gained the respective rights..
 
AgX said:
I do not get your point: Is there a difference between state and public on that matter?
(I cannot access the site you linked to.)


By the way, it would be nice to read the original EU proposition. I could not find it at an EU-site so far.
Click to expand...

http://bit.ly/1FykQHL

and sign the petition at

Dead Link Removed
 
To avoid misunderstandings:

the current EU proposal refers to the Freedom of Panaroma.

Here basically the the visibility from public ground is decicive. Thus one may publish photographs of objects visible from typical human position at such places.
Though that freedom does not exist at all countries, and also may be restricted to some extend by legislation or jurisdiction.


Matter of public ownership may only be an adding issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In a democracy the public owns the building and the copyright.
It is like the Ge own two houses their own and one just to South East, you need to lobby your EU rep with the question "how many people ie % have smart phones".

All our bill boards have iPhone 6 photos on them.
 
It's a sign of the times, where so many areas of the planet have become actual in-your-face police states that APPEAR to champion democracy, but are actually a stones throw away from total fascism. Absurd doesn't even begin to get at the insanity of it all. So what happens if someone paints that which is illegal to photograph? Is that somehow OK? If something is in public view, what on earth is the difference between seeing it and photographing it? If it's about money, which it sure seems to be, then dock the pay of every playwright, poet and author that features a public landmark in their printed and spoken works.

Choosing the Statue of Liberty is a really poor example. First, it isn't even ours, it was a gift from the French! And it represents liberty (which they cleverly hid in the name of the statue), a subject that appears to be only an abstract concept to some people. Yes indeed I expect to be able to photograph it. Paying for its upkeep? Let it fall down. It's an inert thing, only a statue. It's not actual freedom.

There is really only one solution. Citizens everywhere should go en mass and photograph anything and everything. The authorities cannot arrest everyone, and when they see that it is an unenforceable situation will abandon it. If we allow the few freedoms that we have left to be stolen from us, its a world not worth living in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bobwysiwyg said:
How does this "gift" preclude ownership by the United States?
Click to expand...

If anything, it confirms ownership.

momus said:
So what happens if someone paints that which is illegal to photograph? Is that somehow OK? If something is in public view, what on earth is the difference between seeing it and photographing it?
Click to expand...

It's not the act of photographing it which is in question. It's the commercial use (from what I have read).


Steve.
 
Xmas said:
In a democracy the public owns the building and the Copyright.
Click to expand...

You mix up democracy with socialism.


At least here the architect of an outstanding building has the right on publication of photographs of his building.
Aside of rights falling off due to freedom of Panorama, or common use of the building by the owner. Or if transfer of the rights to the building owner has been agreed on.
 
I personally cannot see how this would be inforceable, I live in a non eu country, I go to France a few times a year, I take photographs while I am there, if I take a photograph of the Eiffel tower, or any other public building, what would or could theyu do if, when I get home, I print them up and sell them, also, according to everything that I have read and understand, should I include, say, a car ( my own classic) even if it is small in the photograph then I can claim that the main subject is my car,the building is simply in the background, then the rule would not apply as the building,if only a background, is not in breach of any rules, thousands, if not millions of photographs are taken in the EU countries, 99% of them are of public buildings, and millions are used on small websites, family websites(Our Holiday) in theory if the photo is published on the internet in any form then you are liable to pay a fee, but could you imagine the court systems being so clogged up by these people being taken to court for this law, or the cost involved in policing it, I can't see any way it could be inforced in any way, it would cost more than you would recieve, if it comes in then it will be like many EU rules, it will be there but will be ignored by the majority of the people involved,
Richard
 
AgX said:
At least here the architect of an outstanding building has the right on publication of photographs of his building.
Click to expand...

Really? The Berne Convention states that a building's copyright is not infringed by a photograph of it. This is because a photograph is not a copy.

The only way to copy a building is to build another identical (or very similar) building. That would be a copyright infringement (if the building was new enough to actually have copyright protection).


Steve.
 
Steve, german legislation on intellectual property gives the architect basically the right to control publication of photography of his buildings (with the exceptions I referred to above).
 
Steve Smith said:
If people don't want their buildings photographed, they should keep them covered up!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Better, just knock the building down lest someone photograph it.
 

Mmm... sounds a bit flaky as a defence, Richard. Now if it was the 1958 version of Brigitte Bardot then the claim that the Eiffel Tower is mere background is stout

pentaxuser
 
The point is that in any case I would not print or publish them until I get home, Jersey is not in the EU, and as the picture would not be of the building in the background but of my car anyway there would be very little they could do as the laws of Jersey apply, not any EU country, besides which, millions of photographs of buildings are taken every year, a lot by people from outside the EU, so if you come to Europe from the USA, you take a photograph of, say, the leaning tower of Pisa, which would be governed by the law, you publish it in the USA, what are the Brussels burcrats going to do? it would cost more than it was worth, it will be one of those EU laws that everyone, even the EU, ignores, I believe it already applies to some extent in France, but the French don't seem to bother about it,
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register