WetCanvas
Home Member Services Content Areas Tools Info Center WC Partners Shop Help
Channels:
Search for:
in:

Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Go Back   WetCanvas > The Town Center > Café Guerbois
User Name
Password
Register Mark Forums Read

Salute to our Partners
WC! Sponsors

Our Sponsors
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   Report Bad Post  
Old 03-20-2019, 12:50 AM
brianvds's Avatar
brianvds brianvds is offline
A Local Legend
Pretoria
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,986
 
Hails from South Africa
Re: New EU copyright rules closing in with upload filters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinguino
But I am told that, in France, a copyright work cannot even appear as a component of a larger scene, if its image is big enough to be discernible. Thus, the entrance to the Louvre cannot be commercially photographed, because even though the building is public, there is a copyrighted work of architecture near the entrance.

I Googled "entrance to the Louvre." A bazillion photos are freely available online. Absurd copyright claims can be pretty difficult to enforce. :-)

In any event, by getting all fanatic about copyright, the E.U. is probably achieving little more than shooting itself in the foot.

Quote:
* Being old enough, I remember when the current RSA was another USA!

My grandmother was originally from what is now Western Cape province. She referred to it as "the colony." Which is was in her day. :-)
__________________
__________________________
http://brianvds.blogspot.co.za/
Reply With Quote
  #17   Report Bad Post  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:54 AM
zardoz71 zardoz71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 141
 
Hails from Germany
Re: New EU copyright rules closing in with upload filters

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianvds
I Googled "entrance to the Louvre." A bazillion photos are freely available online. Absurd copyright claims can be pretty difficult to enforce. :-)

In any event, by getting all fanatic about copyright, the E.U. is probably achieving little more than shooting itself in the foot.

Well one of the points the wanted was to harmonize Freedom of Panorama for the EU. Atm every member of the European Union does it own thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

But that got axed in the trilog, the French did not like it. The best example would be, you are free to make a picture of the Eiffel
Tower and publish it without a problem, but if you take a picture at night when the lights are on and publish it, now this would be a copyright infringement: https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/pho...night-illegal/

For photographers this is a "sport" over here, never ignore a Cease and Desist Letter: https://photoclaim.com/en/abmahnung-...desist-letter/
Apropos we don't have in the EU a fair use exception, not in the old law and not in an update of this directive......

However not all is bad, the try at least to fix the error that a faithful photographic reproduction of public domain work of art has still a copyright in the EU. The wikipedia lost in Federal court vs the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen last year because the publish some pictures:
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/12/20...nicht-im-netz/ (text in German)
Reply With Quote
  #18   Report Bad Post  
Old 03-20-2019, 11:33 AM
Pinguino's Avatar
Pinguino Pinguino is offline
Enthusiast
Monterey Bay area, California
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,689
 
Re: New EU copyright rules closing in with upload filters

Quote:
Originally Posted by zardoz71
Well one of the points the wanted was to harmonize Freedom of Panorama for the EU. ... etc.
You might have heard of the lawsuit in the USA, in which Barbra Streisand sued a photographer who made a continuous panorama of the California coast, in which Streisand's estate could be seen. The suit was dismissed, presumably because her estate was a small part of a large work, and it was not about her.

Even in the USA, a high-quality faithful photo of public domain artwork is usually protected by copyright. That is, if you take the photo, then you have the copyright to that specific photo. I can still take my own photo, which is not covered by your copyright. Wikipedia has maintained that a low-quality photo (in terms of file size), not suitable for commercial use, is a "fair use" documentation; status of that argument is unknown to me.

And, if the public-domain artwork is privately owned (often the case), then the owner may prohibit photos, even if the work is publicly visible (such as, on loan to a public museum). The rationale is that the private owner's contract with the museum, is that the museum will not permit photos. Then the museum admits visitors only on condition that they take no photos of certain works (it's in the fine print); or if they do sneak a photo, then copyright is automatically transferred to the original work's owner.

As for those photos of the entrance to the Louvre, one possibility is that I am misinformed. Another is that the photos have no commercial value other than as documentation, and the copyright holder doesn't care or doesn't think it is worth pursuing.

I don't know about the EU, but in the USA, the government does not initiate copyright enforcement except upon complaint by the copyright holder. This is because the government does not know whether or not the copies are properly licensed (which they may be).

In many nations, the creator of a work cannot release it directly to public domain without copyright notice. The correct procedure is to assert copyright, then license it freely to anyone.

As for the Eiffel Tower: Due to its age, it is past copyright protection. Another factor might be whether it is government-owned (I really don't know who owns it). But the lighting is a contemporary "performance" or "coordination" that retains copyright.

In terms of images on the Internet, it is often argued that if the web site makes any money by any means, then it is commercial. Merely running a single ad would do that. Offering a product for sale, or perhaps even providing a link to a different site that sells a product (if the first site gets a cut) might be a problem.

Copyright laws go back to the era when there was no such thing as low-quality, non-commercial usage. The only means of distribution was print, which necessarily involves investment and work effort, for a printed product that would lose money if it were free. There was no concept that anyone could take photos from a phone, scale them to small size, and post them at no cost for anyone in the world to see in a matter of minutes.
Reply With Quote

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 PM.


© 2014 F+W All rights reserved.