Photographers - is this a late April 1st joke?

[Eric The Viking]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...ould-mean-holiday-snaps-breach-copyright.html

It apparently says this:

"A new EU proposal could see millions of Britons face legal action
for uploading photos of famous UK landmarks onto personal websites
or even Facebook pages.

"Monuments such as the Angel of the North and the London Eye, or
public works of art such as Trafalgar Square’s Fourth Plinth or Liverpool’s
Superlambananas, may need to be blacked out in holiday snaps to avoid
breaching the copyright of individual architects or artists. Members of the
public would only be able to upload the uncensored photograph with
prior consent from the author.

"These are restrictions that already exist in some member states of
the EU, including France, Belgium and Italy, but, in an attempt to
harmonise copyright law, Brussels could extend this to the UK as
early as next month."

Honestly???

Personal disclosure: I've been an Eurosceptic (Eurorealist?) for a very long time, and I know that many "Euromyths" are actually true, or have a good basis in truth. But surely this one is crazy though.

The article shows this "censored" image from Wikipedia's entry on the Atomium in Belgium:



I know Wikipedia is "variable" so this may well be a hacker's hoax.

If they're right, the restriction only applies to pictures of things in copyright, so, for example, a picture of the Clifton Suspension Bridge like this would be fine...



... apart from "Kenny the Minion", who's in copyright to the film makers, and, presumably, Cameron Balloons too. It's a great picture incidentally -- kudos to Kenneth Cox, the photographer (I wish it was mine!). There can't be a pro-am photographer in Bristol who hasn't at some point been drawn to the Balloon Fiesta!

If true, I'm staggered.

Anyone actually got personal experience of all this and care to comment?

E.

PS: The Napoleonic code exemption for photographers is apparently known as "Freedom of Panorama". There is a presumption in English law, however, that images captured in a public place are the copyright of the photographer, and it remains the law that no permission is required to take them. This includes images of people. There are exceptions regarding commercial use, official secrets, etc. This is a gross simplification, however the gist is that this is EU law overturning longstanding Common Law rights.

PPS: The mouse in my avatar was unavailable for comment last night. This may have something to do with the deliberate lack of seed this year (he was getting a bit fat).

 

[MIGNAL]

You can, no doubt, file it under this lot:

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eur ... a-z-index/

There's hundreds of them. All presented as though they are 'true' and 'fact'.
Which just goes to show, the lying British press are completely and utterly full of sht (that is an actual fact!) Believe them for one nano second and you are a complete idiot.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It did say it was a proposal, not a fait accompli.

 

[MIGNAL]

Here's a classic:

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/bru ... es-remain/

But look how it's presented by. . . . The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express.
Hardly surprising. Scum, the lot of them.
Odd is it not. We aren't being lied to by those nasty, bad people in Brussels. We are actually being lied to by our very own, those who supposedly support the British people.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The problem basically is that all it takes is is for a minor panjandrum in Brussels or Strasbourg to have a dream, and within days our politicians and press treat it as a law. The business I worked in saved many tens of thousands by our getting wise and asking for everything that was told us in writing - when the crunch came most "laws" were "recommendations".
Also of course, some things they have done over the years encourage us to believe anything we read.

 

[MIGNAL]

Nope. The 'reporting' is quite deliberate. Read the website that I linked to. it's not just one or two examples but numerous, hundreds?
Any serious journalist or editor would never dream of writing/publishing any piece without thoroughly investigating the source etc. This is not a matter of lazy journalism. It's a matter of deliberately undermining the EU. Even if you disagree with the membership of the EU one has to admit that the press are just peddling a load of lies.

 

[gregmcateer]

Good link, Mignal - I've bookmarked it for when I suffer from a party conversation bore, (otherwise known as a bullsh***er)

 

[Eric The Viking]

Nope. The 'reporting' is quite deliberate. Read the website that I linked to. it's not just one or two examples but numerous, hundreds?
Any serious journalist or editor would never dream of writing/publishing any piece without thoroughly investigating the source etc. This is not a matter of lazy journalism. It's a matter of deliberately undermining the EU. Even if you disagree with the membership of the EU one has to admit that the press are just peddling a load of lies.

They often do peddle lies, and nowadays journalists are very lazy.

However, beware any site owned by the EU that exists to scotch "euromyths".

They're hardly impartial. I couldn't possibly suggest that they lie, ether, however, one well known EU-phile MP had to apologise from a platform when he scoffed at the idea of directives on the shape of bananas and cucumbers... until I very publicly handed him copies of the two documents (from the EU's own web site), which I 'just happened to have' in my briefcase at the meeting.

I really didn't want to go down the hate/love the EU route, in this thread. I'm interested in the specifics: If it is all nonsense, why the Atomium removal from Wikipedia, etc.?

And my original question: there are a bunch of good photographers on here -- has anyone had experience of this already, or knows any more about it?

E.

 

[petermillard]

And my original question: there are a bunch of good photographers on here -- has anyone had experience of this already, or knows any more about it?

E.

It's long been the case that property needed a 'release' if it featured prominently in photography that was being used commercially - I stopped shooting professionally in late '99/early 2000 and it had been a 'known' issue for a few years by then. I'd imagine this is an extension of that i.e. the logic would probably go that photos posted online even if in a personal capacity, are on a commercial website carrying advertising, therefore somebody somewhere ( a lawyer, probably) wants paying...

Other restrictions have been in place for even longer e.g. it's an offence to photograph government buildings - you can see the logic of say, a military installation, or the MI5 building, but I was once threatened with arrest for photographing a Job Centre, hilariously whilst working on a commission for the dept of Employment...

Pete

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

If it is all nonsense, why the Atomium removal from Wikipedia, etc.?

It's explained on that Wikipedia page. France, Belgium and Italy (among others) don't have a blanket freedom of panorama clause in their copyright law.

The ban is not an EU thing; rather, there is in fact specific EU legislation that allows member states to have freedom of panorama.

 

[Alexam]

It did say it was a proposal, not a fait accompli.

Isn't it amazing that we are paying for all our Euro MP's to travel abroad, stay in the very best of hotels,with security guards and luxury transport, have lavish meals to sit around and wast the public's time discussing such absolute rubbish, when far more important issues need to be covered.

Is it any wonder that there are so many who want to jump on the gravy train of politics. Some ( a few) do a good job, the others just lap up the benefits.

Alex

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yeah ... but what do we know, eh?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I bought some seeds the other day. I had to pay 1p for my membership of a club, as the seeds could not be sold to the public as they were not on the EU recognised varieties list. It is hardly surprising with tripe like that being true I tend to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous , about the EU.

 

[Eric The Viking]

If it is all nonsense, why the Atomium removal from Wikipedia, etc.?

It's explained on that Wikipedia page. France, Belgium and Italy (among others) don't have a blanket freedom of panorama clause in their copyright law.

The ban is not an EU thing; rather, there is in fact specific EU legislation that allows member states to have freedom of panorama.

We don't have such a clause, either, as it isn't necesary.

I'm grossly simplifying, but it's because we have common law here. Things are generally allowed unless specifically forbidden by statute, which, incidentally, includes almost all photography in public places. It is still not illegal in the UK to take pictures of commercial buildings, from public land, nor to use them commercially without permission from the building owners. That includes signage, works of art (if visible from a public place) and people. Commercial photography custom & practice (getting release forms, not using pictures of children, etc.) is not the same as the actual law. Government premises are different (OSA applies), as is private land/space, but the first is by statute and the second is because of property rights. It's also not illegal to photograph the police at work here, which it is in many countries.

Under the Napoleonic code, things not expressly permitted are often illegal by default. So you don't have rights in public places, only duties. AIUI, "freedom of panorama" is not EU law either, but national.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Reprinted courtesy of The Times :-
Sir, We agree that moves to restrict the freedom to photograph buildings and artworks in public places, currently permitted under section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, should give rise to the greatest concern (leader, June 24).
If such a measure is adopted in the future, most websites and most photographers would instantly become copyright infringers with any photo of any public space which features at least one structure designed by a person that is either alive, or died fewer than 70 years ago.
The prohibition would dramatically affect the way we share knowledge, culture and current events, as well as our everyday lives. Tourists would not be able to promote our country with their photographs on commercial websites such as Facebook or Flickr; Wikipedia, which is designed to be free for any use, would not be able to describe our landmarks; and professional photographers would need to contact dozens of rightsholders for any photo they shoot in public spaces, spending more money on paperwork than they can possibly earn with the outcome. Even blogs which have advertising would be affected.
We urge all UK MEPs to vote not to let the current paragraph 16 go through unamended during the vote in the plenary session in Strasbourg on July 9, and to defend our right to make and use photos of public spaces.
Paul Herrmann, chairman, British Photographic Council; Jeff Moore, chairman, British Press Photographers’ Association; Denise Swanson, British Institute of Professional Photographers; Jimmy Wales, founder, Wikipedia; Nigel Atherton, editor, Amateur Photographer; Stewart Gibson, Bureau of Freelance Photographers; Dominic Cooper, general secretary, Chartered Institute of Journalists; Alastair McCapra, chief executive, Chartered Institute of Public Relations; Jim Killock, executive director, Open Rights Group


It would appear that some people take this more seriously than others.

 

[RogerP]

I bought some seeds the other day. I had to pay 1p for my membership of a club, as the seeds could not be sold to the public as they were not on the EU recognised varieties list. It is hardly surprising with tripe like that being true I tend to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous , about the EU.

We also joined that club as it's the only way to get seeds for old English varieties of many vegetables.
Most people on our allotments are also members.

Sooner we get out of this nonsense the better.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

It's explained on that Wikipedia page. France, Belgium and Italy (among others) don't have a blanket freedom of panorama clause in their copyright law.

The ban is not an EU thing; rather, there is in fact specific EU legislation that allows member states to have freedom of panorama.

We don't have such a clause, either, as it isn't necesary.

We do, in section 62 of the CDPA. You're right that it's essentially covered under common law, but we also have a specific allowance in law.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I sit corrected, but that's worrying. That clause should have been omitted - sneaky drafting.

 

[Racers]

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

Pete

 

[Eric The Viking]

Thanks Pete. That explains a lot ;-)

E.