Possible new Eu Rules to ban landmark pictures
Jun 24, 2015 04:13:36 #
flipping usual insane stuff from EU
Now EU wants to BAN your photos of the London Eye and the Angel of the North
TAKING photographs of the London Eye and the Angel of the North could soon be banned if the meddling European Union (EU) gets their way, it has been claimed today.
The EU is threatening to restrict the long-established principle of "freedom of panorama" - which means major landmarks will be blocked from videos and photographs for fear of infringing on the owner's copyright.
A senior French Liberal, Jean-Marie Cavada has suggested amendments to legislation that would mean recognisable views such as the Eiffel Tower, the London Eye or the Angel of the North, would no longer be free to depict.
He has suggested introducing rules, which would force photographers, artists and filmmakers to seek permission and even PAY to be able to film, paint and photograph some of Europe's most iconic landmarks.
The original proposals were submitted by Germanys Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda to protect freedom of panorama in a report earlier this month.
However the European Parliament's legal committee, while approving most of the report, implemented several amendments one of these reading, 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 authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them.
Tourists will not be able to capture recognisable views such as the Eiffel Tower, the London Eye, Angel of the North, and even the Paddington Bear statue at Paddington Station in London and use them for commerical use.
This is even if the piece of work is not the primary subject of the image, according to website Breitbart London.
UKIP's MEP for London Gerard Batten said: "As so often before when the European Union passes its laws it ignores the law of unintended consequences.
Now EU wants to BAN your photos of the London Eye and the Angel of the North
TAKING photographs of the London Eye and the Angel of the North could soon be banned if the meddling European Union (EU) gets their way, it has been claimed today.
The EU is threatening to restrict the long-established principle of "freedom of panorama" - which means major landmarks will be blocked from videos and photographs for fear of infringing on the owner's copyright.
A senior French Liberal, Jean-Marie Cavada has suggested amendments to legislation that would mean recognisable views such as the Eiffel Tower, the London Eye or the Angel of the North, would no longer be free to depict.
He has suggested introducing rules, which would force photographers, artists and filmmakers to seek permission and even PAY to be able to film, paint and photograph some of Europe's most iconic landmarks.
The original proposals were submitted by Germanys Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda to protect freedom of panorama in a report earlier this month.
However the European Parliament's legal committee, while approving most of the report, implemented several amendments one of these reading, 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 authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them.
Tourists will not be able to capture recognisable views such as the Eiffel Tower, the London Eye, Angel of the North, and even the Paddington Bear statue at Paddington Station in London and use them for commerical use.
This is even if the piece of work is not the primary subject of the image, according to website Breitbart London.
UKIP's MEP for London Gerard Batten said: "As so often before when the European Union passes its laws it ignores the law of unintended consequences.
Jun 24, 2015 05:59:16 #
Somewhat akin to the protest of some, some years ago, when it comes to the flying of the American flag for commercial purposes!
I would suspect this EU thing has to do with yet another way of taxing the people for one more thing ......and the Carbon Tax comes to mind.
Eventually you will have to have a license granting you the right to live......
I would suspect this EU thing has to do with yet another way of taxing the people for one more thing ......and the Carbon Tax comes to mind.
Eventually you will have to have a license granting you the right to live......
Jun 24, 2015 06:26:49 #
TucsonCoyote wrote:
Somewhat akin to the protest of some, some years ago, when it comes to the flying of the American flag for commercial purposes!
I would suspect this EU thing has to do with yet another way of taxing the people for one more thing ......and the Carbon Tax comes to mind.
Eventually you will have to have a license granting you the right to live......
I would suspect this EU thing has to do with yet another way of taxing the people for one more thing ......and the Carbon Tax comes to mind.
Eventually you will have to have a license granting you the right to live......
Ze Deutsch haf vays and means of ruling ze vorld!
Jun 24, 2015 07:25:38 #
lemontart wrote:
flipping usual insane stuff from EU br br Now EU ... (show quote)
According to the amendment you have cited, there appears to be no restriction on taking such photos, only on the commercial use of them. I really doubt that there are going to be "photo police" arresting tourists for pointing their cameras at the Eiffel Tower or Lord Nelson. The commercial use of such photos is a legitimate issue that has been disputed in courts all over the world. How happy would you be if someone used a photo of you to make money without your permission and without offering you a share, and perhaps in a context that would be offensive to you? That's what it comes down to. Would you be happy to see Big Ben used in a condoms commercial? I would think that a good many people on your side of the pond would consider it to be in poor taste, at best.
Jun 24, 2015 08:13:45 #
LFingar wrote:
Would you be happy to see Big Ben used in a condoms commercial? I would think that a good many people on your side of the pond would consider it to be in poor taste, at best.
Big Ben is as much a part of the landscape as is Ben Nevis. But the Topic is not about taste? Do the paparazi pay celebrities when their pics are published?
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
Jun 24, 2015 08:36:05 #
Delderby wrote:
Big Ben is as much a part of the landscape as is Ben Nevis. But the Topic is not about taste? Do the paparazi pay celebrities when their pics are published?
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
well put !
Jun 24, 2015 09:51:30 #
Delderby wrote:
Big Ben is as much a part of the landscape as is Ben Nevis. But the Topic is not about taste? Do the paparazi pay celebrities when their pics are published?
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
The rules for celebrity photos are different and the courts have acknowledged that repeatedly. Try taking a picture of a celeb or anyone else and using it in an advertisement or promotion without their permission and see what the courts think. See what you think if it were to be a picture of you. As far as buildings, selling a photo of a large number of buildings is a whole different thing from selling a photo of one building or object for commercial use if the owner objects. In the amendment cited by the OP the term "commercial use" was prominent. There is a lot more to that then just the sale of a stock photo. From what was posted by the OP there was nothing to indicate any attempt to prevent the photographing of landmarks, etc. The commercial use of property by individuals other then the owners of that property is a valid concern of the courts. Even public property. Based on what was posted, IMO, the OP misrepresented the issue in order to vent frustration at the EU. Unless there is a lot more to this then has been posted, there has been no attempt to "ban landmark pictures".
Jun 24, 2015 11:35:13 #
Jun 24, 2015 12:47:30 #
Delderby wrote:
Big Ben is as much a part of the landscape as is Ben Nevis. But the Topic is not about taste? Do the paparazi pay celebrities when their pics are published?
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
If I take a pic of London from the top of the Post Office Tower, should I be paying the owners of hundreds of thousands of buildings depicted if I sell that pic? :D
Photos of celebrities used as photojournalism (even tabloids) doesn't require paying them. Commercial use is different. Try to use a photo of a celebrity in an advertisement without permission or payment and see what happens.
Jun 24, 2015 14:18:04 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Photos of celebrities used as photojournalism (even tabloids) doesn't require paying them. Commercial use is different. Try to use a photo of a celebrity in an advertisement without permission or payment and see what happens.
Are you able to explain why photojournalism is not "commercial use"? I buy mags and someone makes a profit. Obviously it would not be proper to use somebody's picture to imply that they were endorsing a product in any way without their permission - that is simply horse sense. But to photograph Paris to include the Eiffel Tower and include that picture in a magazine for sale should be lawful IMO. :-) BTW the EU stinks.
Jun 24, 2015 15:13:51 #
Delderby wrote:
Are you able to explain why photojournalism is not "commercial use"? I buy mags and someone makes a profit. Obviously it would not be proper to use somebody's picture to imply that they were endorsing a product in any way without their permission - that is simply horse sense. But to photograph Paris to include the Eiffel Tower and include that picture in a magazine for sale should be lawful IMO. :-) BTW the EU stinks.
You can't see a difference between journalism and advertising? Sure, journalists get paid, and news publications make a profit, but that isn't "commercial use."
Jun 24, 2015 17:02:44 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
You can't see a difference between journalism and advertising? Sure, journalists get paid, and news publications make a profit, but that isn't "commercial use."
Where did I say I can't see the difference between journalism and advertising? If you cannot read text then don't attempt to join intelligent conversations. The text is repeated here:
Delderby wrote:
Are you able to explain why photojournalism is not "commercial use"? I buy mags and someone makes a profit. Obviously it would not be proper to use somebody's picture to imply that they were endorsing a product in any way without their permission - that is simply horse sense. But to photograph Paris to include the Eiffel Tower and include that picture in a magazine for sale should be lawful IMO. BTW the EU stinks.[quote]
OBTW - you still did not explain.
Jun 24, 2015 17:08:20 #
[quote=Delderby]Where did I say I can't see the difference between journalism and advertising? If you cannot read text then don't attempt to join intelligent conversations. The text is repeated here:
Delderby wrote:
Are you able to explain why photojournalism is not "commercial use"? I buy mags and someone makes a profit. Obviously it would not be proper to use somebody's picture to imply that they were endorsing a product in any way without their permission - that is simply horse sense. But to photograph Paris to include the Eiffel Tower and include that picture in a magazine for sale should be lawful IMO. BTW the EU stinks.
Journalism is not commercial use, it is editorial use. Commercial use is intended to sell products or services, journalism or editorial use is intended to inform. The word "commercial" in this context doesn't mean anything which makes money.
Delderby wrote:
Are you able to explain why photojournalism is not "commercial use"? I buy mags and someone makes a profit. Obviously it would not be proper to use somebody's picture to imply that they were endorsing a product in any way without their permission - that is simply horse sense. But to photograph Paris to include the Eiffel Tower and include that picture in a magazine for sale should be lawful IMO. BTW the EU stinks.
Quote:
OBTW - you still did not explain.
OBTW - you still did not explain.
Journalism is not commercial use, it is editorial use. Commercial use is intended to sell products or services, journalism or editorial use is intended to inform. The word "commercial" in this context doesn't mean anything which makes money.
Jun 25, 2015 04:43:10 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Journalism is not commercial use, it is editorial use. Commercial use is intended to sell products or services, journalism or editorial use is intended to inform. The word "commercial" in this context doesn't mean anything which makes money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"Commerce is the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.[1] The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural and technological systems".
I do believe that "journalism and editorial use" are fairly described above as "political, social, cultural" QED.
Jun 25, 2015 06:16:30 #
This is good. It may force film makers to shoot elsewhere thus depriving those SHITHEADS of income. Like all the production staff spending money there, advertisement, transportation, hotel, fees, etc, etc, etc. Ft Lauderdale did this when they banned the college kids. Now Mexico, with open arms collects their money. I say good for cash starved and broken EU. Good for them.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.