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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.