If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck,
news:2011091309595284492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom expounded this theory: Yup! The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. We have that right. All harassment has been greatly exaggerated. As you know Mr Duck I have been taking 1000's pictures in London for an awful long while and have never been stopped, challenged, arrested, harassed or even eyed suspiciously. Perhaps I did attract a few looks in Old Compton street ;-) PS: I know nothing of the rest of Europe... well perhaps just as much as you know about things in the UK :-) -- Graham Comments and criticism welcome |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 2011-09-13 17:59:52 +0100, Savageduck said:
On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said: In article , Bowser says... http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? Yup! The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. ? A few pages on the UK governemnt's website make most of the rules fairly clear, as do many of those whose job it is to enforce the rules (many, not all). The UK media has a self-serving interest to obfuscate the rules, hence the aparent confusion. According to the media, it is mandatory to lie about illegal phone tapping... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 2011-09-13 10:27:54 -0700, Graham said:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck, news:2011091309595284492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom expounded this theory: Yup! The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. We have that right. All harassment has been greatly exaggerated. As you know Mr Duck I have been taking 1000's pictures in London for an awful long while and have never been stopped, challenged, arrested, harassed or even eyed suspiciously. Perhaps I did attract a few looks in Old Compton street ;-) PS: I know nothing of the rest of Europe... well perhaps just as much as you know about things in the UK :-) Graham, if there is anybody who puts the lie to harassment of the hobbyist photographer in the UK it is you. I have always thought that most reports of harassment were anomalies rather than the norm. The unfortunate thing is photographers have been harassed both in the USA & UK, and in most cases the escalation caused by ignorant officious individuals testing their misguided authority. ....and I really like the way you are using that M9. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:54:44 -0700, Savageduck,
news:201109131054447987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom expounded this theory: Graham, if there is anybody who puts the lie to harassment of the hobbyist photographer in the UK it is you. I have always thought that most reports of harassment were anomalies rather than the norm. The unfortunate thing is photographers have been harassed both in the USA & UK, and in most cases the escalation caused by ignorant officious individuals testing their misguided authority. ...and I really like the way you are using that M9. Thanks. The M9 really suits my style of photography because I don't want my subjects to react to the camera. I like to capture the odd and peculiar doing what they do. I can get the pictures with it that would have been much more difficult with the D700 and fast glass. Fast glass on the M9 is tiny by comparison. -- Graham Comments and criticism welcome |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said: In article , Bowser says... http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? Yup! The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on copyright. I don't see any reason why the EU wouldn't adopt constitutional measures similar to the US Constitutional Bill of Rights. That would cover much of many of the issues regarding photographer's rights. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your local knowledge regarding photographer's rights and/or harassment of photographers in non-UK Europe. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 9/13/2011 4:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on copyright. The current FAQ for the Eiffel tower reads: The views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free. Permission and rights must be obtained from the "Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" (the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the illuminated Eiffel Tower. For newer buildings, monuments, and the like, further copyright restrictions can apply outside the U.S. While U.S. federal law explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted Architectural works without permission or license from the copyright holder (17 USC 120(a)), there is no such exemption in the Berne Convention. As in many other countries, if the photograph also includes identifiable images of people, further restrictions and laws come into play. This falls into the "don't take legal advice from random internet posters" category. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: : On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said: : : In article , Bowser : says... : : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers : : That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? : : Yup! : : The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers : seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on : public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it : comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. : : As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent : harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding : use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the : hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. : : The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on : copyright. How so?? Are you saying that someone has a copyright on all pictures taken of the Eiffel Tower? I hope nothing like that is even possible in the U.S. But what am I saying? I'm sure there are many building interiors and private parks in the U.S. where it's true. :^| Bob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 2011-09-14 17:46:36 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:30 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: : On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said: : : In article , Bowser : says... : : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers : : That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? : : Yup! : : The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers : seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on : public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it : comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. : : As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent : harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding : use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the : hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. : : The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on : copyright. How so?? Are you saying that someone has a copyright on all pictures taken of the Eiffel Tower? I hope nothing like that is even possible in the U.S. But what am I saying? I'm sure there are many building interiors and private parks in the U.S. where it's true. :^| Bob It is a little screwy. It is just fine to take all the photographs of the Eiffel Tower you want, just as long as you do it in daylight those are all public domain. However the French Courts ruled that the special lighting display installed in 1989 for the Centenary was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The ruling was upheld after appeals in 1992. So now any illuminated images of the Eiffel Tower are subject to copyright. The loophole is that any panoramas of night time Paris which include the lit Tower are not subject to the copyright restrictions. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:30 +1200, Eric wrote: : On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: : :On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred said: : : In article4cadndjNxPtZMPfTnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews. com, Bowser : says... : : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers : : That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? : :Yup! : :The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers :seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on :public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it :comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. : :As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent :harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding :use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the :hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. : : The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on : copyright. How so?? Are you saying that someone has a copyright on all pictures taken of the Eiffel Tower? I hope nothing like that is even possible in the U.S. But what am I saying? I'm sure there are many building interiors and private parks in the U.S. where it's true. :^| I know a guy who shoots TV commercials. The cost is prohibitive for copyright permission for most any American city with modern architecture visible, so he has to shoot in Canada or often Eastern European cities, and even has had to do CGI virtual buildings if the ad needs a real fancy piece of modern architecture to work. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 2011-09-25 20:49:24 +0100, Paul Furman said:
Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:30 +1200, Eric wrote: : On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: : :On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred said: : : In article4cadndjNxPtZMPfTnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews. com, Bowser : says... : : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers : : That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? : :Yup! : :The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers :seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on :public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it :comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. : :As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent :harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding :use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the :hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. : : The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on : copyright. How so?? Are you saying that someone has a copyright on all pictures taken of the Eiffel Tower? I hope nothing like that is even possible in the U.S. But what am I saying? I'm sure there are many building interiors and private parks in the U.S. where it's true. :^| I know a guy who shoots TV commercials. The cost is prohibitive for copyright permission for most any American city with modern architecture visible, so he has to shoot in Canada or often Eastern European cities, and even has had to do CGI virtual buildings if the ad needs a real fancy piece of modern architecture to work. Yep, hope this disease doesn't spread to the UK. Some act as if it has. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital Photography | 13 | February 12th 10 06:17 PM |
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers | Peter[_7_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 11th 10 09:52 PM |
READ | ACPOKER78 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 1st 04 02:38 AM |
Dan - please read | Simon | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 22nd 03 11:25 AM |