AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.
Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.
Only in France. Not in the UK.
I do not have any choice whether a building is there or not, so I have no obligation to compensate the builder, architect or occupier for something I have no choice in. This is true of any permanent structure in plain sight, hence the law protecting the 'right of panorama'.
If you want to destroy something that is a right in many countries then that's fine, but I personally do not agree that this is fair. However, the implications of the new law are indeed very obscure. There are already many private estates in London which try and prevent use of photographs because of copyright, but currently this is protected if the picture was taken from public land. They can make any restrictions they want about commercial use OF THE LAND for taking pictures, but this is different. You have to be ON the land to be in breach.
Seems you apply 'art' to any copyrighted structure or edifice, in which case anyone holding an iPhone, or reading a book, or driving a car, or sitting in front of a building less than 70 years old, would potentially not be usable on any website that supports advertising.
It is a very shallow argument to say that someone who photographs a building on a paid site is profiting at the expense of the owner or designer of the building, since the building's main source of profit is occupancy rents.
This is very different from copying a unique artwork and selling the copy, when the work is the main source of profit for the artist.
In other words, there is NO DAMAGE OR LOSS to the building's designer from the sale of the photograph.
This would be different if a company logo was affixed to that building which then appeared in an advertisement for a competing product. In that case, the owner of the trademark would have recourse to sue for misuse. Nothing to do with copyright.
That certainly is the interpretation in most countries, but not all it seems.
Deliverator: Vanitas and nixda, you are replying to every single post expressing concern over these new laws, saying there is nothing to worry about.
The UK does not charge fees, the copyright holders do. If the law would let them.
But even if they don't I am obligated to seek permission.
Plus, the whole issue of what 'commercial exploitation' includes is wide open to debate. If the image is being used in advertising, then fair enough. If it is part of a documentary about architecture on a website supported by banner ads, is that commercial? More of a grey area.
Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.
Step 0: Learn to readStep 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completelyStep 2: Interpret what you readStep 3: THINK what you readStep 4: RE-THINK what you have just readStep 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is writtenStep 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...
And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT
Using a picture commercially would include any website I own which also has advertising. Several million people do the same.
I am not exploiting their copyright because I had no choice but to include what is in public view. That is the right of panorama.
If I sell ANY shot taken anywhere in London, I am potentially going to include thousands of copyrighted structures. In most cases I would not even know.
It is absurd and unworkable.
As is the issue with cars.
Architects don't work for free.
These works are not being copied. They are in plain sight.
I did not grant the copyright holder the right to spoil my view, so they have no right to demand payment when I take a picture of it.
Besides, a photo of a building is not a copy or facsimile. It is simply an image of a building. It bears no relation to copying written text or images which can substitute for the real thing (a poster of a painting, a photocopy of a book, a recording of a song.
Technically, all car designs are copyright. Do you propose that I have to ask BMW, Ford and Toyota every time I include cars in my images?
Tungsten Nordstein: What is not clear is whether an artist can take a photograph/film of a building and then display and sell such a photograph/film. Would Warhol's film Empire be allowed under such legislation?
In general, I don't think anyone who puts a building or artwork up in full public view (i.e in our living environments) should be able copyright and restrict its image and uses of. Developers should be forced to waiver all such rights on grant of planning permission.
RichRMA: So some multi-billion $$$ bank is going to ask some photo (avg. earnings maybe $30k.year) to fork-over money (perhaps) or beg to use a skyline image with their building in it? What is WRONG with Europeans? Another good reason Britain should maintain a distance from the odious EU.
The upside is that you don't have different versions of all those stupid odious laws in each individual country which makes selling anything in Europe a complete nightmare.
This bill has not been approved and is unlikely to be in it's present form. You can write to your Euro MP, though if he or she is a UKIP MEP, they won't be there to vote so it won't help.
And please try and distinguish the EU from the Eurozone. We are in the EU, but not in the Eurozone. Monetary union was indeed premature, but it is not the same thing.
Marty CL: I think this a very interesting announcement and as Sony and other companies introduce other advancements--it's good for consumers and good for the industry as a whole. Since the 1920's---we've seen photography advance in similar fashions and we've seen winners (surviving companies) and losers (those who went out of business or were merged into bigger companies). It's just the way advances in technology works.
What is distressing is the increasingly angry posts--both in defense of mirrorless and criticism of DSLRs and the companies who make them.
As a user of both DSLRs and mirrorless---I appreciate BOTH systems for their respective advantages. But to claim that DSLR makers are in a death spiral is a bit premature. According to CIPA.JP, Jan- April DSLR shipments out number mirrorless by 3.8 times. With a smaller base, mirrorless will naturally show larger percent changes.
Some people can only think in binary. You either have to love something or hate it.
I use both as well, but I disagree with you in one respect. Mirrorless is at an early stage in its development, DSLRs are about as developed as they will ever get. There is no fundamental need for both.
Any practical differences are likely to be overcome within a couple of years. After that, they will start pulling ahead.
What killer feature will move people to ditch DSLR? I don't know. I suspect it will be the next generation of EVFs, which have the potential to make even a full frame OVF look small and dark.
This is not something to be celebrated or regretted. DSLRs are a film era carry over in a highly conservative market, but I am pretty convinced they are not going to be around forever.
However, I am pretty sure that Canon and Nikon have a few models and designs in development, and that they will protect the lens investment of their existing customers. They are just judging the market.
Sony finally get serious. Looks great on paper, for sure. Didn't expect a full frame BSI sensor, but I guess it was inevitable, and it may solve the light falloff issues on the 24-70.
justmeMN: CIPA's latest (January-April 2015) worldwide figures don't show any great surge in mirrorless shipments. To the contrary, they show mirrorless shipments falling slightly faster than DSLR shipments.
By value, DSLR is 98.2%, and mirrorless is 91.0% for the January-April time period, compared to the same time period last year. By units it's 93.4% and 91.6%.
Lower DR than the D7200 because of the low bit depth.
And why not have the option of lossless compression? Landscape photographers don't care about a few large files.
When all added together, issues like the compression, clunky shutter, shutter vibration, lack of lenses and relatively poor performance of the standard zoom don't make this a prime-time system. Not yet anyway. It's a spec sheet princess.
Sony make good sensors, so why can't they get as much out of them as Nikon manage?
57even: Mother Theresa was not a psychopath....
Sorry, just thinking about the idiocy of defining something by what is isn't.
iPhones are "mirrorless" cameras too.
It is NOT a technically specific term. It is a word that has been lazily co-opted by marketing twits who don't think further than next quarter's sales target.
SLR and SLT are technically specific. So is 'Rangefinder' or 'View Camera'.
What do you call a Fuji X100?
See, we now can't even define many existing cameras!
No, the word mirrorless means 'with no mirror'. You may read between the lines to add a lot of qualifications, but the term is meaningless to anyone who doesn't know much about cameras. Its does not alter the meaning of the word.
It is a term that is literally true for all cameras other than SLRs and SLTs.
So in 20 years when we have neither, I suppose you are just going to call them 'cameras', since mirrorless will be even more meaningless.
Wait until 2030 when someone says 'granddad, why are some cameras called mirrorless?'
It is just idiotic. Every other type of camera ever made in history has been named after what it was, what made it unique in design terms, not some vague general term that defines what it isn't, and which is not unique to the type of camera it refers to.
I think if I fully expressed how profoundly dumb this idea is I would be banned, but if the person who made that decision is reading, I hope they get the idea.
None of which makes this categorisation any less confusing or any more intelligent. It's like defining electric cars as gas-less.
It's a completely stupid form of categorisation. It would make more sense to define cameras with mirrors (which are only one type) as the exception, which they already do - they are called SLRs. Every other camera in current production is mirrorless.
SLR defines exactly what the camera IS. Mirrorless, as both of you pointed out, does not.
The word mirrorless implies nothing other than the fact there is no mirror. Which means it could just as easily apply to any camera without a mirror (rangefinders are also mirrorless ILC cameras for that matter but no one called them 'mirrorless', they called them rangefinders).
Mother Theresa was not a psychopath....
Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.
Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.
Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.
Yes, I know what gamma correction does, but it doesn't have the effect you are thinking of in this case - the conversion expands the encoded shadow values, but the quantisation has no effect on the accuracy of the values because the bit depth is much higher than the number of noise limited tonal values - there is no accuracy loss. Besides, it is compressed again by the display anyway. Zero net change.
I think you should read it again....