Another New Law From Europe - Photography Restrictions

[Habeas Domus]

Street photography in Europe and Freedom of Panorama
On Thursday 9 July 2015, the European Parliament will vote on whether to abolish our right to freely take and share photographs, videos and drawings of buildings and works of public art.

Rather than allowing everyone to take and publish photographs of buildings and monuments in public places — for example Wikipedia, as well as many, many books with author-supplied photographs — full permissions, clearances and royalties would need to be negotiated for videos, photos, paintings or drawings with any potential commercial use, or only authorised images could be used, again with royalties to be paid.

full details here

There are two things we want to ask of our MEPs:

1. Please support amendment A8–0209/3 by Marietje Schaake, to restore the meaning of the original text, as endorsed by IMCO and ITRE.
2. Should Schaake’s amendment fail, then please vote to remove paragraph 46 from the report altogether, as even Jean-Marie Cavada himself is requesting now.

UK residents can contact their MEPs through WriteToThem, where you just have to enter your postcode to get a list of them.

I sent a quick message to my MSPs (I didnt even realise we had more than one) and it was very interesting the different responses I got back, the most sensible non robotic reply so far is from UKIP

[CunningPlan]

I thought this had always been the case. I once published a painting that included the Millennium Dome. Got a pretty heavy solicitors letter insisting all stock was destroyed as I did not have the right to do this.

[libspero]

I thought this had always been the case. I once published a painting that included the Millennium Dome. Got a pretty heavy solicitors letter insisting all stock was destroyed as I did not have the right to do this.

I know the US are very funny about it..

Hence all the computer games have to have imaginary city names, eg, "Liberty City" for New York or "San Andreas" instead of San Francisco.. even though the cities are pretty clearly modelled around real places.

[libspero]

Sounds a bit stupid because it will clearly be a "one rule for one person, another for someone else".

I can't imagine they will be confiscating cameras and phones from tourists as nobody will want to visit.

On the other hand they will try to screw money out of professionals who want to make a living out of it.

[olde guto]

I thought this had always been the case. I once published a painting that included the Millennium Dome. Got a pretty heavy solicitors letter insisting all stock was destroyed as I did not have the right to do this.

I'm pretty sure this has been the case as well, especially for commercial stuff. Pretty suresure that even photography magazines say that new buildings may be subject to copyright and hence there are restrictions on commercial use.

[weirofhermiston]

It's just Jimmy Wales getting his libertarian knickers in a twist.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again

[billybong]

So with permissions/royalties the taxpayer is paying twice on public sector buildings and probably paying twice on quite a few private sector buildings as well.

For buildings like museums if you pay to enter then it's pay three times.

[wonderpup]

Meanwhile in Greece people are dying for lack of access to even basic medical care while still being pressured to implement more austerity measures.

Still it's good to see that the European Parliament cares about the really important issues.

[bkkandrew]

Meanwhile in Greece people are dying for lack of access to even basic medical care while still being pressured to implement more austerity measures.

Still it's good to see that the European Parliament cares about the really important issues.

I think its known as "fiddling whilst Rome burns"...

[mmt]

I believe this whole thing began as a way of making the law across the EU consistent. E.g. in some countries like France, there are restrictions on photographing public monuments (e.g. you can't publish a night time photo of the eiffel tower - crazy but true, see below). So instead of freeing it up for all (which is what they should have done), they are going to apply restrictions on countries that don't already have any.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2831331/Tourists-warned-breaking-law-taking-photos-Eiffel-Tower-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html

[South Lorne]

..this is another reason why we should not be in Europe...they fiddle while it is all going up in flames ...bring our vote forward

to next weekend...if the Greeks can do it...we can also...

[davidg]

I thought this had always been the case. I once published a painting that included the Millennium Dome. Got a pretty heavy solicitors letter insisting all stock was destroyed as I did not have the right to do this.

I've had a few of those. I've always found a polite fuck off works wonders.

[Peter Hun]

I thought this had always been the case. I once published a painting that included the Millennium Dome. Got a pretty heavy solicitors letter insisting all stock was destroyed as I did not have the right to do this.

That doesn't sound right.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/14/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide/2/

[happy_renting]

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

― Benito Mussolini

© Benito Mussolini

[SNACR]

I've had a few of those. I've always found a polite fuck off works wonders.

+1, I could paper the inside of the Millennium Dome with solicitor's letters for brand infringement.

You get surprisingly ridiculous ones like crappy downmarket brands claiming passing off where if you'd known, in the first place, it looked in any way like theirs you'd have had a total redesign anyway.

[whitemice]

Julia Reda is actually my Euro MEP (i.e. I live in Germany, can only vote in euro elections and am therefore part of her small voting block). From her own blog: "Last-minute attempt to sneak “snippet tax” into copyright report".

Reading around it seems that nobody has any idea how laws in Europe are made. Calling this a bogus issue sounds a bit bizarre considering that it's an MEPs job to get people interested in law making and that dodgy VI laws only get in if the population is sleeping.

[Guest eight]

Julia Reda is actually my Euro MEP (i.e. I live in Germany, can only vote in euro elections and am therefore part of her small voting block). From her own blog: "Last-minute attempt to sneak “snippet tax” into copyright report".

Reading around it seems that nobody has any idea how laws in Europe are made. Calling this a bogus issue sounds a bit bizarre considering that it's an MEPs job to get people interested in law making and that dodgy VI laws only get in if the population is sleeping.

That's the point though isn't it. You'd like to imagine that democracy means that our elected representatives somehow act on the aggregated concerns of their constituents. Do you think that's what happened in this instance?

[whitemice]

That's the point though isn't it. You'd like to imagine that democracy means that our elected representatives somehow act on the aggregated concerns of their constituents. Do you think that's what happened in this instance?

Better link: "Was a shadowy lobby behind the attack on freedom of panorama? The truth is more worrying."

Depends on who you consider to be the constituents.

If you go by the Julia Reda version of events, she is trying to push for copyright reform (Pirate party agenda which I generally support), while collecting societies are trying to cash in.

This is part of a wider ongoing fight between users of content vs owners (typically corporations), and somehow Europe vs the Americans (corporations on both sides).