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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they dont address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; ...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia. This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. I'm not so sure. Isn't the proposal similar the copyright rules which already apply to photographing the lights on the Eifell tower? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On Jun 23, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:34 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...aphy-of-public - b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. I'm not so sure. Isn't the proposal similar the copyright rules which already apply to photographing the lights on the Eifell tower? Yes. However, there are several countries which currently follow the French model of highly restrictive photography, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Ukraine,&Belarus. Some of the others including the UK, (and fortunately for you) The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Hungary, Serbia, and Moldova all permit free photography of all structures and works of art depending on museum/gallery restrictions. This French promoted rule change for the European Union is dependent on a vote in the European Union Parliament. Hence the opposition to it being led by a German MEP. I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote. ....but I have been known to be wrong from time to time. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On 6/23/2015 11:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. No so sure. A talented amateur takes a cityscape. He likes it so much that he enters it in a competition. In many competitions the entrant must certify in essence, that the image does not violate any copyright regulations and that the entrant has created and owns the submitted work. With people photography there are established rules and enforcement procedures. However, with buildings, I see a lot of issues. -- PeterN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On 6/24/2015 10:19 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 6/23/2015 11:26 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. No so sure. A talented amateur takes a cityscape. He likes it so much that he enters it in a competition. In many competitions the entrant must certify in essence, that the image does not violate any copyright regulations and that the entrant has created and owns the submitted work. With people photography there are established rules and enforcement procedures. However, with buildings, I see a lot of issues. Sent too soon. Here is an exerpt from the Smithsonian competition: "Similarly, entrants whose photos depict other people’s work (such as sculptures, statues, paintings, and other copyrightable works) may be need to obtain a release from the rights holder and provide it to the Smithsonian upon request. When photographing the work of others, it must be as an object in its environment and not a full-frame close-up of another person's creation. A sample release is available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/artrelease/. Read mo http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/rules/?no-ist#41Ytd06oiqoEFqBJ.99 -- PeterN |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
snip I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote. ...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time. As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible. -- PeterN |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ): On 6/24/2015 10:19 AM, PeterN wrote: On 6/23/2015 11:26 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...raphy-of-publi c- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. No so sure. A talented amateur takes a cityscape. He likes it so much that he enters it in a competition. In many competitions the entrant must certify in essence, that the image does not violate any copyright regulations and that the entrant has created and owns the submitted work. With people photography there are established rules and enforcement procedures. However, with buildings, I see a lot of issues. Sent too soon. Here is an exerpt from the Smithsonian competition: "Similarly, entrants whose photos depict other people’s work (such as sculptures, statues, paintings, and other copyrightable works) may be need to obtain a release from the rights holder and provide it to the Smithsonian upon request. When photographing the work of others, it must be as an object in its environment and not a full-frame close-up of another person's creation. A sample release is available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/artrelease/. Read mo http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/rules/?no- ist#41Ytd06oiqoEFqBJ.99 There are two things to consider, competitions and other commercial use of images of copyrighted work are quite different from amateur photography which might only have a limited public viewing, and/or online sharing. Then the issue under discussion only pertains to countries of the European Union, many of which currently allow unrestricted photography of buildings and public works of art. Art in galleries and museums in those European countries are decided by institutional rules. Some European countries, including Russia, only permit unrestricted photography of buildings. The big exception is France, Italy, and Greece, and it is the French seeking to impose their rule on the rest of Europe. So, in the USA you have an organization such as the Smithsonian covering by requiring releases for subjects which might be included in a competition entry. How does that stop you from taking a shot of a Calder outside on the Mall and sharing it? How does that stop you from taking a shot of the Vietnam War Memorial and sharing it without a release from Maya Lin? How does that stop you from taking a shot of the Manhattan skyline without getting releases from all the architect firms? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ): On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote: snip I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote. ...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time. As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible. That’s OK! I understand that attorneys have been known to be wrong from time to time, but they are usually reluctant to admit it. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On 6/24/2015 11:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote (in ): On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote: snip I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote. ...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time. As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible. That’s OK! I understand that attorneys have been known to be wrong from time to time, but they are usually reluctant to admit it. The last time I was wrong, was when I thought I was wrong. -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity
On 6/24/2015 11:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote (in ): On 6/24/2015 10:19 AM, PeterN wrote: On 6/23/2015 11:26 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote (in ): But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every property-holding to ask permission to publish? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...raphy-of-publi c- b uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506 This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist photography. There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following; “...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on Wikipedia.” This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur. This is a very FUDDish article. No so sure. A talented amateur takes a cityscape. He likes it so much that he enters it in a competition. In many competitions the entrant must certify in essence, that the image does not violate any copyright regulations and that the entrant has created and owns the submitted work. With people photography there are established rules and enforcement procedures. However, with buildings, I see a lot of issues. Sent too soon. Here is an exerpt from the Smithsonian competition: "Similarly, entrants whose photos depict other people’s work (such as sculptures, statues, paintings, and other copyrightable works) may be need to obtain a release from the rights holder and provide it to the Smithsonian upon request. When photographing the work of others, it must be as an object in its environment and not a full-frame close-up of another person's creation. A sample release is available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/artrelease/. Read mo http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/rules/?no- ist#41Ytd06oiqoEFqBJ.99 There are two things to consider, competitions and other commercial use of images of copyrighted work are quite different from amateur photography which might only have a limited public viewing, and/or online sharing. Then the issue under discussion only pertains to countries of the European Union, many of which currently allow unrestricted photography of buildings and public works of art. Art in galleries and museums in those European countries are decided by institutional rules. Some European countries, including Russia, only permit unrestricted photography of buildings. The big exception is France, Italy, and Greece, and it is the French seeking to impose their rule on the rest of Europe. So, in the USA you have an organization such as the Smithsonian covering by requiring releases for subjects which might be included in a competition entry. How does that stop you from taking a shot of a Calder outside on the Mall and sharing it? How does that stop you from taking a shot of the Vietnam War Memorial and sharing it without a release from Maya Lin? How does that stop you from taking a shot of the Manhattan skyline without getting releases from all the architect firms? -- Of course it doesn't. But in the unlikely event travel to Italy, France or Greece, I might not be able to enter those images in many competitions. Even though I am an amateur, if somhow I have a winning entry, the sponsors want to use my image commercially. With these competitions, I give the sponsor nonexclusive rights to the image. Some require exclusive rights, but I will not enter those. Here is an image that came very close two years ago. After the judging, one of the judges told me they debated for about half an hour between this image and a different image. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/the%20cxonference.jpg If the zoo had a restriction similar to the proposed rule we are discussing, the image would not have been eligible. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity | charles | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 15 03:55 AM |
Apple's grasping greed knows no bounds (Apps) | Mike[_25_] | Digital Photography | 14 | July 18th 11 01:12 AM |
Apple's grasping greed knows no bounds (Apps) | PeterN | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 7th 11 04:03 PM |
Depression and Creativity | 37or38 | Digital Photography | 0 | August 31st 07 01:29 PM |
Depression and Creativity | cjcampbell | Digital Photography | 0 | August 29th 07 03:59 PM |