A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th 15, 04:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 05:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 03:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 03:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 03:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 04:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old June 24th 15, 04:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.