| Author |
Message |
Nivad
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 10:01
Reply
Yesterday I heard this on the belgian radio:
http://www.radio1.be/programmas/pepi/831768/
It is in dutch, those who understand the language might take the effort to check it and perhaps you also would listen to the audio-fragment.
Well it is about copyright of pictures of certain subjects etc. For example you can't publish a picture of the atomium for free, the building is protected by copyright and so are the pictures made of it even if it are your own pictures. As long as they are in your private collection there is no problem but once you publish them anywhere copyright should be payed.
Another interesting site on this matter is probably:
http://www.copypix.be/
Just wanted to inform you all...
I also already mailed this issue because I don't know if woophy has an agreement with the copyright organisations...
Grtz
|
3.1416
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 11:24 - Edited by: 3.1416
Reply
This is another -atomium- case, very interesting.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/notice.cgi? NoticeID=760#FAQID5319
|
joopvandijk
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 12:14
Reply
In Holland we have belgium jokes, is this one of them?
|
|
3.1416
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 12:21
Reply
Lamentably I believe that it is not a joke, which sad, that remind me when VITRA design museum buy absolutely all the rights of image and property of the house of Mexican architect Luis Barragan.
|
ray9
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 12:55
Reply
In France it exist also laws to protect private life and it's not permitted to shoot a person without it's authorisation and you can't publish that without a written authorization .
It's why when you watch the information on the TV , you can see many people blurred and it's not because the shooter is drank , it's because they don't have the authorization to publish them.
I read a topic in a paper about that and which explain that many photographers prefer to shoot people in the back to not have to request the authorization or they blur the eyes..........
|
zerega
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 12:57
Reply
What about photographing the Atomium and Barragan house from public and freely accessible space? Probably no commercial use for those images but anything else should be o.k.
|
joris
Moderator
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 13:42
Reply
In Holland it is the same but nobody really uses this law, exept the architect of this bridge Ben van Berkel. 
He tried to get some money of people who used the image of this bridge in advertisements.
I think as long as it is non commercial there is no problem at all, and even for commercial use I really doubt wether it would ever cause a real problem. I mean if you don't want your building to be seen just put a big fence around it
|
ortho158
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 16:38
Reply
There are even more ridiculous cases: the Eiffel Tower is also copyrighted, but only when lit during the night! If you don't believe me, just look at the FAQ's on their own web site.
|
|
zerega
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 17:15
Reply
That's probably because Eiffel is dead for more than 70 years, so his copyrights ceased but not that of the light designer.
|
|
ray9
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 20:08
Reply
I agree with with Ortho, I heard that on the tv 
|
Jan Durbin
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Apr 08 15:45
Reply
So many laws, including written permission, in the U S keeps me from posting some of my best work. Almost all public parks started by private peoples, such as Will Rogers Park, has signs everywhere that all photographers must have permission. & even with permission, THEY decide wich pictures you can use, have, or pay to publish. Verrry frustrating.
|
Boxclever
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Apr 08 16:39
Reply
So many laws, including written permission, in the U S keeps me from posting
That's bound to help attract tourists to the US (not).
|
Akbar
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Apr 08 07:56
Reply
F*** crazy laws!
|
SilviaO
Member
|
# Posted: 5 May 08 01:08
Reply
Es la primera vez que escucho esto.
Es realmente ridiculo. Creo que todo lo que se encuentre en espacios públicos tendría que poder fotografiarse y mostrarse sin impedimentos!!
Se hace cualquier estúpida ley para obtener dinero!!
With translator:
It is the first time that I listen to this. He is really ridiculous. I believe that everything what public is in spaces would have to be able to photograph themselves and to show without impediments! Any stupid law becomes to obtain money!
|
www.jgreentree.co.uk
Member
|
# Posted: 5 May 08 01:45
Reply
There is a big thing in the UK at the moment where there is groups lobbying the government about our silly photography laws i hope they succeed
|
TGB
Member
|
# Posted: 5 May 08 17:47
Reply
Jonny is quite right. The UK has some very complicated photography laws, made even more by a) the current hysteria about the fight against terrorism and the phobia on home grown terrorism, and b) the eager way that some people in power have used this as a reason and excuse to limit the freedom of expression that we have taken for granted for so long.
Reading this it would seem that I am making a political statement, but what I am really saying is that our freedom to take photographs is under threat from all sides; commercial, political as well as by intelectual property owners. Any pressure that can be applied to make things easier for us to pursue our hobby can only be very welcome.
|
chasamatazz
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Jun 08 17:20
Reply
I think Joris made the point, that copyright only really applies if you profit from it.
Therefore we are all entitled to take photos and publish them on woophy, as you do not make a profit from it. There are some exceptions of course, for example Hampton Court Palace is copyright of the crown, and you are forbidden to take photos inside the building. If you are photographing people you should get their permission before using the image in the public domain.
And once you have taken a photo, it does actually become a copyright of you.
|
Online now: Guests - 1 Members - 0