fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...
We've been dancing for a while now. The music is getting a bit boring.
You say "For works in public space, the copyright doesn't exist, so you can do with the pictures what you want without asking for permission, because there is nothing to ask for."
I say "Copyright does exist, and permission needs to be obtained if one wants to do certain things. For works in public space that permission is already explicitly given, so you don't need to ask anymore".
The result is the same: one doesn't need to ask for permission in either case. The difference is that there is a formal consent in the second case, whereas there is no formal consent in the first.
In other words, you are saying that once a copyrighted object is in public space, the reason to ask for permission (copyright) goes away. I say, once a copyrighted object is in public space, the reason stays but permission is automatically given.
Neither one of us is going to budge on that fundamental distinction, so let's just stop.
I highly recommend having the comments here read by your computer. Lean back and enjoy! It's just totally hilarious to listen to all that "Sony is better, Panasonic is faster, Fuji has the best lenses, you suck, no you suck, you have no idea what you are talking about, mine is bigger", and so on.
I would suggest an obnoxious military-style voice. Also try a sultry female voice for extra kicks.
jkrumm: That two-headed dog deserves a gold award.
I see three heads even :)
nixda: As a scientist, I was immediately intrigued by this sensor and could think of a myriad of applications in various types of microscopy.
I find it annoying that many people here think, because they don't have a use for this type of device, nobody else would have a use either. And then there are even those who think that nobody else SHOULD have a use either. How narrow-minded and ignorant.
@Martian Keyboard: Low light really just means low intensity. It's like taking a picture through an ND filter or with very short exposure time: the scene is the same in terms of color as one with a longer exposure time, just darker.
As a scientist, I was immediately intrigued by this sensor and could think of a myriad of applications in various types of microscopy.
Thank you for finally looking things up - and supporting my point (although you just don't want to see and/or admit it).
Copyright not being infringed, and copyright not existing are two entirely different things.
If the law specifically points out, as you so nicely quoted, that copyright isn't infringed in certain cases, then copyright must still exist ("... COPYRIGHT in such a work is not infringed."). If copyright didn't exist, the law would state that quite clearly.
So, to convince me of your stance, you would need to find a passage that states that guardians/owners/etc. of " buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" LOSE the copyright (and that nobody else will assume that copyright).
@fz750: The copyright very much existed before FoP, as well as in countries that do not have FoP. The countries that adopted FoP have simply made an exception, in certain cases. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright: "exceptions to copyright are provisions in copyright law which allow for copyrighted works to be used without a license from the copyright owner."
Thus, the copyright still exists; it has never been abolished.
Copyright laws restrict the use of images. FoP is an exception to said copyright law in that it gives people the permission to use these images. Without FoP people would not be allowed to use these images. Therefore, FoP is an active permission for something that wouldn't be allowed otherwise.
There is a big difference between an activity that is not regulated and assuming that it is permitted by default, compared to an activity that is not permitted by default but for which permission has been granted.
The consequences appear to be the same, namely that one can engage in the activity. But whereas in the latter case, the situation is quite clear (there is formal consent, aka, permission), the situation for the former is ambiguous and unresolved: there is no formal consent but it's also not formally forbidden. Usually, courts make up their minds about previously unregulated activities when someone files a suit. Until then, it's unclear.
Regarding permission already in place: I am just going to copy text from Wikipedia: "Freedom of panorama (FOP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images (such as paintings) of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and to publishing such images".
Do you now finally get that FoP provides the permission you deny exists? Without that provision, or others like it, full copyright laws would kick in instead.
Regarding Google Photos, you had obviously confused the regulations for Google Plus with those for Google Photos.
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.
That copyright law applies only to buildings/art that have deliberately and expressly been photographed as primary subjects. So, in fact, you do have a choice.
If you happen to "accidentally" point your camera at the Eiffel Tower at night, and it occupies the entire frame, then you may have a problem. So, be careful where you point that thing!
I am more concerned about art in the classical sense, not so much about architects. But if they have to be lumped together, then so be it.
But as mentioned, buildings, art, etc. that are in the anonymous background are generally exempt from copyright. The DPR article claims that the skyline of London in the background would be protected, but I think that's an exaggeration. Any proof? That would indeed be unacceptable.
Agreed, there is probably no loss for a building's designer, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be fair compensation when others make money off of a building, because, e.g., they wouldn't be able to make money if that building wasn't there in the first place.
But when both the copyright holder and some tourist are selling photographs, the tourist would take business away from the copyright holder.
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
However it all may be, according to Cavada the point of the proposed legislation is "to ensure that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr provide fair compensation to artists."
There has got to be a way for that goal to be achieved, or not to violate copyright law in the first place.
In any case, like with every such law, some of the groups interested in that law will suffer. Who should it be? Facebook et al., or the artists? The common photographer is caught in the middle and has to make a decision. Not an easy one, but I think fundamental aspects are being dismissed too quickly over matters of convenience, like it is so often the case nowadays.
Thanks for the discussion!
Are you saying that the example you gave occurs in France or other countries that do not have FoP? If so, do architects demand a share of the profits when one takes pictures for selling one's house? Or is that covered under Fair Use or similar provisions?
@Glorfindelrb: I think I just now understood what you were referring to in your "neighbouring rights" paragraph. What I meant is that someone a long time ago already decided that visible works of art in public space can be copyright-protected. It's not helpful for the present discussion to question these copyrights. You'd have to fight a different battle.
@Glorfindelrb: yes, that's what I said all along: if it is too big of a burden to ask for permission (or to grant permission), then I can easily understand the resistance to the proposed law. There are still two choices here: decrease the burden or continue on as is (with some countries upholding the burden and others not). I would still advocate to try to resolve the underlying,, more fundamental problems, rather than fighting the symptoms.
HubertChen: If this law passes something as simple as taking a picture of family on a sightseeing trip could end up in exchange of legal documents and extra expenses ans surely sore thoughts about the government.
I can see how copyright owners can benefit from it. But I also can see how those who would just want to take pictures for fun will get into trouble. Is creating feelings of resentment, anger and feeling extorted in thousands or even millions of people worth to pursue this?
@Hubert: that's correct. The easy solution for the tourist would be to not post to Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Twitter, etc. But it seems that many people feel that posting to these sites is such a vital part of how humans live their lives that it must be protected. I wonder why that is? Is it because these sites are seemingly "free", as in "posting there doesn't cost me any money". Or because they are simply popular? If so, why?
Benoz: I wonder if this proposed law would affect also the producers and sellers of gift-ware for the reproduction of miniatures of famous buildings and artwork one usually finds in stalls, streets and shops in just about any city in the world...or would it only apply to photographers?!
I am pretty certain that making smaller copies of protected art requires express permission already. The proposed law only addresses photographs.
JohnEwing: Although Cavada says that nobodyhas ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in non-FoP countries, the FoP law is there as a convenient stick for the backs of photogs should the need arise.
It looks as if a vast campaign of civil disobedience is in order.
Millions of people have already been in violation of copyright (and privacy) laws over the years. So that "vast campaign of civil disobedience" to help work out kinks in the copyright system should probably have occurred a few years back, but it's never too late.
@Glorfindelrb: Re. audible vs visible art, copyright laws do in fact cover photographs of works of art. If you think that doesn't make sense, then you will need to take the fight into a completely different direction.
Regarding Wikimedia policy: If Wikimedia ism't compatible with existing copyright laws, then we'll change the copyright laws, is that what you are suggesting? Honestly, it wouldn't be a bad thing. But if it is generally possible, when there is no commercial intent, to post pictures on the web without running into copyright issues, could there not be a version of Wikimedia that could do the same? Or when you say "freely accessible", do you mean "at no cost to us?", in which case it seems to come down to money.
@GlobalGuyUSA: I think you may be talking about privacy laws, not about regulations of commercial activities.
Regarding the latter, if the Rolling Stones gave a concert in public space, would it be allowed to record their songs and sell copies of these recordings? Of course not. So, why would one treat audible works of art differently than visible works of art?