EU proposal to restrict the use of photos of copyrighted bulidings and monuments

[Laurie1]

<p>I haven't seen this picked up in the forums yet, my apologies if I have missed it.</p>

<p>On July the 9th the EU parliament will vote on the above proposal.<br>

In summary the proposal will restrict the "Freedom of Panorama" rights which allow the inclusion of copyrighted buildings and monuments in a film or photo (not all EU countries have this law, but most do). If the law passes, photos (with above mentioned buildings) will not be able to be sold or uploaded to such places as Facebook who have the legal right to use your images for commercial purposes - unless the copyright holder has been asked and agreed beforehand. This has implications not only for holiday photos but also for Wikipedia, journalists, film makers etc.</p>

<p>More details can be found <a href="https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/">here</a>.<br>

<br />If you find you do not agree with this proposal you can sign an online petition <a href="https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography?recruiter=127165295&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink">here</a>. (From my personal perspective I urge you to do so).</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Laurie</p>

[MarcelRomviel]

<p>I've signed the petition earlier today.<br>

A friend send me a link via facebook.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Signed. I urge all PN members to sign it.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I'll say what I said on the petition. Shame on them.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Ridiculous. How do they propose to enforce this? For what good it does, I signed the petition.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>A big Thankyou to all the folks from overseas signing too.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I am writing as a British citizen and a supporter of the principle of the European Union, but this proposal is utterly and completely absurd, not to say pernicious and directly contrary to the liberal principles of European culture. In the final analysis, if millions of people photograph, say, the Eiffel Tower, what could the European legislature do about it?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>It's called a Palace Revolution with copyright holders as upstart sovereigns. From our side, an offer of a petition in opposition to their move is an example of how generals always fight the last war, including our activist leadership. It's up to the soldiers now, since our generals have failed. Upstart sovereigns, the copyright holders, don't care one whit about your petitions nor do their political minions.</p>

<p>Better as a strategy to destroy the commercial value of selected key images now. For example, use Photoshop to create and distribute images of the Eiffel Tower that can't be unseen. Such that none would use it commercially any longer. Act up. Don't play by their rules.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I signed, for whatever good it does. (Be advised that you will be added to their email list and will receive a welcome email immediately. I had to unsubscribe -- hope it works.) There was a blank for giving a reason for signing, and I stated that if the restrictions go into effect, I will be forced to write the entirety of Europe off of my list of travel destinations -- since photography is a large part of what I enjoy.</p>

<p>A good motivation for the EU NOT to do this is an economic consequence, such as loss of tourism. I would think the restrictions would be difficult for the film industry too, so it would not surprise me if there are fewer movies set in Europe.</p>

<p>IMO, Europeans could turn this whole thing on its ear by creating their own copyrighted "public artwork" to be permanently installed on their buildings (e.g. homes, places of work, etc.), not giving permission to photograph, and then suing when that artwork is photographed anyway. Imagine a land full of legal landmines for all commercial photography, including by the movie industry! That would have quite a commercial impact! Or maybe all movies set in Europe would have to be CGI!</p>

<p>Or there's the civil disobedience approach, whereby everyone takes it upon him/herself to photograph European landmarks and portray them in some disrespectful manner (e.g. a giant dog humping the Eiffel Tower). It's easy to enforce restrictions like these against a few people, but it's impossible to enforce it against millions (as Chris has already indicated).</p>

<p>There's stuff that can be done, but I agree with Charles that signing a petition urging them not to pass this restriction isn't going to do much. Some big threat needs to be invented, organized, and stated prior to the vote.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Wouldn't it be better to get Facebook to stop using photos for their commercial purposes?

[charles_stobbs3]

Wouldn't it be better to get Facebook to stop using photos for their commercial purposes? Does everyone, Facebook members or not, have to be restrained from taking pictures?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If they really envision this as a European wide law (and in my experience, European laws still have to pass local legislation, so countries seem to have a bit of latitude with it), it is a really bad thing, no doubt (most of all because it isn't practical in any meaningful way).<br>

But Charles' question also come to my mind: isn't it also worth it to battle the Facebook-style use? I understand that free services see this as a sort of payment, but it's all very much lacking in transparency. It doesn't make this EU proposal any more justified - it isn't - but it is much part of the same problem.<br>

Second question: the lack of 'freedom of panorama' is already today effective in multple countries, according to the article. Apparently, where I live, I am restricted. I never really noticed any of that. I've seen tons of movies, adverts, photos showing and even highlighting parts of Rome, Venice, Brussels and Paris - all in countries where currently, this 'freedom of Panorama' is <em>not</em> active. It makes me think that about 90% of my photos must be illegal already (living in Italy, shooting in the public space). So, how does it actually really work, then? Isn't it more than obvious that a law against it apparently doesn't work, or are those laws much finer grained than the article suggests? The proposal is very vague on how things will be enforced, and if there are boundaries, and if so, where.<br>

Again, I am not in favour of this proposal as I think it is a law that simply cannot be enforced, and hence it's a waste of time. But there are some buts and ifs; and if anything, I'd be happier if the implied perpetual usage license as embedded in Facebook T&C are rendered impossible. Making copyright and ownership a more deliberate and omni-present thing isn't that bad at all. One can still actively, deliberately consent the usage of images to Wikimedia, Facebook or whoever you fancy: nothing lost, but we gain control.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Get Facebook to stop using photos for commercial purposes? Sure, and why stop with just Facebook. Here's how to destroy the value of images used to advertise: Copyright law could be written to exclude from its protections any portion of an image used to induce sales, except that portion of the image that depicts the tangible object offered for sale would be afforded copyright protections.</p>

<p>An example. Use a panoramic photograph to advertise the sale of airplane tickets, then that panoramic photograph isn't of the airplane tickets offered for sale. Therefore copyright protection doesn't extend to the image or any portion of the image.</p>

<p>An example. A panoramic photograph of a beach with beautiful women on it as part of an inducement to sell cruise ship tickets. Since the cruise tickets aren't in the image, the image and no portion of the image is afforded copyright protection. If instead the inducement is to rent hotel rooms, the rooms themselves aren't in the image even if the hotel exterior is.</p>

<p>Another example. The use of an image of a celebrity to induce the sale of a necklace. That portion of the image depicting the necklace is afforded copyright protection, but the portion of the image that is of the celebrity isn't afforded copyright protection.</p>

<p>Another example. An image of a celebrity on stage performing used to induce the sale of album or concert tickets isn't a picture of an album or of concert tickets. Therefore, no copyright protection is afforded the image.</p>

<p>Note that my rewrite of copyright protections aims to destroy the value of images used to induce sales. If commercial use of an image destroyed the value of the image, we would be thereby encouraging artistic expression instead of sales inducements, where sales inducements are the dregs of imagery.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I'm convinced that the European Parliament will surely have the mentioned proposal on the agenda the 9th of July, but we are nowhere near a “law” harmonizing national regulations in Europe concerning sharing photos of buildings and arts works in public spaces.<br>

Reading especially the English popular press one could have the impression that a law had been adopted in Brussels forbidding the sharing of "Panorama photos" throughout Europe!<br>

Reality is less less dramatic. The European commissioner responsible for the area, Günther Oettinger, has on his agenda for the coming six month to present "ideas" on how to “modernize” the 2001 EU copyright laws.<br>

The Commission needs to table a proposal for new “copyright law” for it to be adopted by the European Council of Ministers of all the Member States in some more or less distant future. When and if the Commission decides to present a proposal of a new Copyright Directive (?) it will probably take years before such a proposal could be negotiated (involving also the European Parliament of course) and eventually be adopted. Presently the Commission has received some 10.000 responses on its initial public consultation on copyrights. Whatever the European Parliament might conclude the 9th of July will feed into this long process of considerations.</p>

<p>One solution might just be to leave the individual countries decide on how they wish to regulate the so-called "Freedom of Panorama" rights as they have done since the 2001 "law".Meanwhile I strongly agree with Charles that Facebook should be invited to amend its abusive right of commercially exploitation of peoples shared photos.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it be better to get Facebook to stop using photos for their commercial purposes?</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

Exactly what commercial purpose is Facebook using the photos for? Have you looked at the terms?

 

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Suggested reading:</p>

<p ><strong>Europe is not banning tourist photos of the London Eye</strong></p>

<p >http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-tourist-photos-of-the-london-eye/</p>

<p >For a view on how countries around the world presently regulate the use of photos of copyrighted buildings and artworks, I would suggest you look at the map below:</p>

<p>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#/media/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_world_map.png</p>

[charleswood]

<p>The article stated Facebook terms to be "...the terms of service of Facebook, which state that you are giving permission to Facebook to use your picture commercially (Section 9.1 of Facebook’s Terms of Service), and that you have cleared all the necessary rights in order to do so (5.1 of Facebook’s Terms of Service). That means, if the commercial use of photographs depicting a public building requires a licence from the architect, it is <strong>your responsibility to find out whether the building is still protected by copyright</strong> (that is whether the architect died more than 70 years ago) and who actually owns the rights today. You then have to conclude a <strong>licence agreement with the rightholder or responsible collecting society</strong> that explicitly allows the commercial use of the picture by Facebook <strong>before you can legally upload your holiday pictures</strong> to Facebook."</p>

<p>How would we know whether Facebook has used all the rights granted to it by the agreement? It's the agreement that matters. What does it say about member photos if not as represented in the article?</p>

<p>Anders "...but we are nowhere near a “law” harmonizing national regulations in Europe concerning sharing photos of buildings and arts works in public spaces."</p>

<p>Laurie's article at a minimum shows the direction in which copyright holders want a new 'law' to take. Anders, your linked article just offers reassurances about the red herring <strong>Europe is not banning tourist photos of the London Eye</strong>. You'll have to provide more for me to read for your 'probably' and "I think" remarks to carry much weight.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p><a href="http://jirisubrt.com/beauty-fairy-tales">http://jirisubrt.com/beauty-fairy-tales</a></p>

<p>2nd column, last row is an example of a P/N member's use of the Eiffel Tower in an image. If that photo were used commercially, would some EU copyright holder want a piece of the action and envision a law to cut himself in? </p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Laurie's article at a minimum shows the direction in which copyright holders want a new 'law' to take. Anders"<br>

<br>

No it does not, not at all, Charles. It shows what presently is happening in a discussions in a European Parliament committee where Laurie is very proactive. The European Parliament does not make laws in the field of copyright in the European Union, and Laurie's committee, even less so. Laws are made only if the European Commission adopts a proposal, which they have not done. The amendment which Laurie refers to was introduced and adopted by a right wing parliamentarian (Mr Cavada) in order to: "limit the impact of “<em>American monopolies such as Facebook and also Wikimedia” and serve to protect “a sector of European culture and creativity</em>”. <br /><br>

If you really wants to dick into what is happening on the subject of copyright legislation and international agreements internationally, I would suggest that you look into the on-going negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - the one that Obama just got a fast-track adoption gift from the US Senate) and not least the the The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Large chapters in these agreements deal with copyrights including photographic work (Section G in the TTP). If you want to know about lobbying, this is where to go.<br>

They are both secrete and not for elected Parliamentarians and even less for the people to see before they are adopted and signed (in the future, if ever!). Wikileaks has published the draft copyrights chapter of the TPP<a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp/"> here</a>). </p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>The Berne Convention has already stated that a photograph of a building does not infringe any copyright in its design (and not many buildings actually enjoy copyright protection). So this would need to change too.<br /><br />I can't see it happening.</p>

[Laurie1]

<blockquote>

<p>No it does not, not at all, Charles. It shows what presently is happening in a discussions in a European Parliament committee where Laurie is very proactive. The European Parliament does not make laws in the field of copyright in the European Union, and Laurie's committee, even less so. Laws are made only if the European Commission adopts a proposal, which they have not done</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just for clarity the Laurie (me) that Charles refers to, made the initial post. <em>Julia Reda</em> is the actual author of the article and is the person I believe Anders is referring to in the above post..<br>

Laurie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Really? Have I got this all wrong? The article says "...Unfortunately, the members of the legal affairs committee <strong>turned this proposal on its head</strong>, by adopting the most restrictive amendment on the question of Freedom of Panorama, tabled by the member of the Liberal group Jean-Marie Cavada:" followed by Amendment 421 "<strong>Considers</strong> that the <strong>commercial</strong> use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in <strong>physical</strong> public places <strong>should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them</strong>;"</p>

<p>Are you telling me that the Liberal group headed by Cavada is right-wing? His The <strong>Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group</strong> (<strong>ALDE</strong>/<strong>ADLE</strong>) is the current liberal–centrist political group of the European Parliament per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Liberals_and_Democrats_for_Europe_Group">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Liberals_and_Democrats_for_Europe_Group</a>. What ever his odor, I don't believe him when he says his amendment would limit the impact of “American monopolies such as <a title="Facebook" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook">Facebook</a> and also <a title="Wikimedia" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia">Wikimedia</a>” and serve to protect “a sector of European culture and creativity”. Do you believe him? I would think that to protect "such" he would have taken Julia Reda's proposal a lot farther along to weaken copyright protections in law, regardless that European Parliament is, as I take it from you, little more than advisory. Maybe Jean-Marie wants a better job as a lobbyist for TTIP and was showing copyright holders just how much of a sell out he can be. When is his term up? What other brighter prospects exist for this 'leader' in a Parliament that doesn't have much power?</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Sorry Laurie, I should have written Julia.<br /> Yes Charles ALDE/ADLE is a liberal centrist, centre right party. The Uk Liberal party and the French centrist political groupings are parts of it. Right wing for me, maybe not for you.<br /> The amendment introduced by Cavada, was supported by the Socialist group in the EP Committee in what the Americans would call a bi-partisan vote.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Well we can't much go by what these parties call themselves any more and I won't bother learning all the spots on European running dogs. It is, as Tariq Ali has termed it, the extreme center, afflicting this country as well..</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree, Charles,it is complicated. My test of fire for centrist parties is which government coalition they enter into or support. Right Centrists in France more likely than not they would support a rightwing conservative government (UMP/LR), The Liberals in the UK after participating in a Conservative government it might now be more difficult to say. The Radical Left party in Denmark is, despite its name, such a centrist party too to the right of the Social Democrats! For most Americans I'm sure all these European political parties are all just leftists, socialists and commies... whatever they happen to call themselves.<br>

<br /> Back to the Topic !</p>

<p>For those who are interested, the European Parliament has just now published a document (one page!) on the reform of the </p>

<h3 id="section1" ><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_ATA(2015)564364">Towards reform of the EU Copyright Directive</a></h3>

<p>It concerns the report adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee (16 June 2015),on the implementation of one of the main pieces of legislation governing copyright in the EU, the 2001 Copyright Directive.</p>