Photograph This Statue, but Do Not Publish: If you're going to Denmark, you might want to see the Little Mermaid sculpture. You can photograph it, but you cannot publish the image.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you're going to Denmark, you might want to see the Little Mermaid sculpture. You can photograph it, but you cannot publish the image.

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/try-publish-picture-statue-denmark-youd-better-ready-pay/

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

jerryc41 wrote:

If you're going to Denmark, you might want to see the Little Mermaid sculpture. You can photograph it, but you cannot publish the image.

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/try-publish-picture-statue-denmark-youd-better-ready-pay/

I have done that in the past and is was no issue at all, this must be something new.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

jerryc41 wrote:

If you're going to Denmark, you might want to see the Little Mermaid sculpture. You can photograph it, but you cannot publish the image.

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/try-publish-picture-statue-denmark-youd-better-ready-pay/

I think there may be two issues here. The first is the use of a specific photo of what I shall refer to as the rock. That does not mean the rock cannot be photographed by others from different angles and perspectives. The other issue is Danish law which can prohibit pictures on a national artifact.

But the real question is this...... If other countries prohibit or control the photography of national artifacts, why doesn't the US government prohibit or charge every time a tourist (at least a non-citizen) takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Alamo or White House?

GC-FineArt Loc: WDC

Mogul wrote:

I think there may be two issues here. The first i... (show quote)

This story has nothing to do with national artifacts [?]. Its ostensibly about what seems to be an unreasonably strict interpretation of Danish copyright law; but IMO what its really about is, as the commentator, David Trads, puts it in the original article from The Local:

Quote:

Its absurd that some lazy heirs should make a fortune on a little statue that sits out in the sea, he told Journalisten.

( http://www.thelocal.dk/20140816/denmarks-iconic-symbol-that-we-cant-show-you ) :)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Mogul wrote:

I think there may be two issues here. The first i... (show quote)

It's the sculptor, not the Danish government doing this. Remember a similar situation with an images of the Korean War monument in Washington being used on a stamp? Copyright and ownership can be complicated.

bodacious Loc: Oregon

jerryc41 wrote:

If you're going to Denmark, you might want to see the Little Mermaid sculpture. You can photograph it, but you cannot publish the image.

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/try-publish-picture-statue-denmark-youd-better-ready-pay/

I was unaware that something in a public place for all to see could be copyrighted. Just does not make a lot of sense to me. I guess the rock is privately owned but if it sits in a public viewing area I would think any rights to privacy or copywrite would be null and void.

MtnMan Loc: ID

jerryc41 wrote:

It's the sculptor, not the Danish government doing this. Remember a similar situation with an images of the Korean War monument in Washington being used on a stamp? Copyright and ownership can be complicated.

I consider it weird that photos of a anything can be considered as copyrightable by anyone but the photographer. Likewise the Korean memorial thing was an aberration of the law, IMHO. Such can happen when clever lawyers prevail with a Jury or stupid judge. Some judges graduated at the bottom of their classes. Maybe some Danish legislators also.

The Korean case involved lawyers trying again and again till they got one of the stupider judges.

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2008/12/postal-service-stamps-out-korean-war-memorial-challenge.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/27/sculptor-says-postal-service-owes-him-for-korean-war-stamp/2592719/