
List of copyrighted places - hippich
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php
======
Anechoic
This is an unfair title. Some of the prohibitions discussed (brands, U.S
political party logos) are about copyright, but others (St Paul's Cathedral)
seem to be about public disruption, and others (The US National Arboretum)
apply only to commerical photography.

This is a list of places/things where photography (commercial photography in
general) is prohibited, but it's not necessarily about copyright.

~~~
Natsu
You're correct about the title being misleading, but I think that most people
don't much care about why they can't take a picture of something, only the
fact that they can't do it.

~~~
OstiaAntica
No, what it is says is they can't resell a photo, royalty-free, for commercial
gain.

~~~
Natsu
Some of those are because photography is, in fact, completely forbidden. The
first item on the page being a prime example.

There are also plenty of examples where commercial use isn't the issue, like
with the trademarks, where things like "tarnishment" can come into play.

~~~
watchandwait
The reason there's no photography permitted in the first item:

"In the past St Paul's has, as an experiment, relaxed the photography rule.
However, the combination of camera flashes and groups queuing up to pose for
photographs under the dome led to the conclusion that allowing photography
would greatly detract from the spiritual life of the Cathedral."

------
nostromo
I was surprised to see the National Arboretum on this list since most works
created by the US Government are not protected by copyright (which is a great
situation not enjoyed by people in most countries).

Turns out they have a special law about collecting fees for using the
arboretum:
[http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1...](http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1.1.2)
\-- however I wouldn't call this a copyright restriction per se.

I was also surprised to see that they included an example image for most
images that require royalties. :-)

------
troymc
"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content."

In other words, if you want to release an image of the Queen under a royalty-
free license, you must also remove the royalty.

So, if you remove the queen and license the resulting image under a royalty-
free license, you have an image that's royalty-free in two senses!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That must be a British thing; she's not my queen, she's an old lady in a funny
hat.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really! I'm not British; I don't recognize Royalty any more than I recognize
magic or spells or holistic medicine. Other than of course as "a funny little
belief held by weak-minded persons"

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Royalty is a real as the law or countries. I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you
choose to recognise it or not, it still exists. Whether it should is a
different question altogether.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Laws enforcing priviledge for some genetic line exist. The 'fact' of royalty
is a myth. Magical thinking. The very word is cognitive nonsense.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Like I said "Royalty is a real as the law or countries.". Claiming it doesn't
_exist_ is nonsensical.

But lets examine your "magical thinking" hypothesis.

Are some people more able to govern effectively as dictators? Is it possible
that this governing ability can be effected both by a highly tailored up-
bringing and genetics? If both these points are true then a hypothesis that
says that an ability to rule effectively follows a particularly family/group
of families who have ruled over generations and established a specific
training regimen for offspring could find high validity.

As I've aged the idea of benevolent dictatorship has grown to be attractive.
It seems all forms of [choosing] government are flawed and finding the least
flawed is rather difficult.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
One only has to examine the current crop of miserable selfish "royal"
offspring to discount that theory.

Anyway, if you Want talented dictators there are a dozen obvious ways to find
them, the very lamest (ineffective) of which is "choose from the same inbred
line for centuries".

------
mecredis
A lot of these are simply private places that prohibit photography -- it
doesn't make sense to say the place itself is copyrighted since the term
copyright refers to the right to make a reproduction a work, not a physical
location.

Additionally this really seems like a list of places or things that
iStockPhoto won't allow as sources for royalty free images, which is even more
narrow.

In the US it's legal to take photos anywhere in public, even federal
buildings, and there have been several cases establishing this right:

[http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-
can-t...](http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-too-take-
that-picture/#/1/)

~~~
xiaoma
I don't think I saw any private places on the front page, excluding the one
which was a large region of land, possibly containing homes. All the others
were open to the public and many of them. such as the cathedral, actively seek
visitors.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Private in this context doesn't mean "not open". Private means not _owned_ by
the state/public. A cinema is still a "private[ly owned] place" despite its
_raison d'etre_ being to attract and welcome the public.

Private land usually means that the owner can control some of the activity on
that land, such as photography.

------
Kilimanjaro
Under the universal-fraternity-of-common-sense law, shouldn't I be able to
sell any picture I take no matter what or who?

Can an artist make a painting of the interior of the church, or the french
valley, with just his memory of the sighting? And then sell it? What if the
artist was so realistic it was pixel perfect like a picture? And mass
produced? And uploaded to the webs?

Laws, lawyers and hell. So many jokes it's not funny anymore.

------
daimyoyo
"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content."

I lol'd.

~~~
Francis_Davey
Where does this odd idea come from? I read the iStock page, but I have no idea
what legal basis this might have.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It's a joke "royalty free" is a double entendre, it means both without paying
a royalty charge OR without a member of the royalty present.

That said recognisable public figures who trade on their personal image have
protection under trademark law for commercial use of their image (note that
commercial has a broad definition wider than just "financial gain").

------
nitfol
I think this list is greatly erring on the side of caution. Some of the
descriptions are incorrect, for example:

 _Aspirin (Bayers) is trademarked in several countries around the world,
including Canada and the United States. The word Aspirin cannot appear on any
imagery submitted to the RF collection._

Bayer famously lost its trademark for Aspirin in the United States after WWI
as part of war reparations. It is still trademarked in Canada and many other
countries, so possibly should be avoided in photos that are being used
globally.

------
dotBen
All photos of the Eifel Tower taken at night are copyright of French
government. I have no idea how the French can assert that but it's written in
their law.

(<http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw>)

~~~
jrockway
How does the French government assert these rights outside of France?

~~~
tonfa
Most countries signed the WIPO treaty.

------
rflrob
Aren't most works-for-hire for by US Government employees immediately released
into the public domain? In that case, then, how and why is it that the
National Arboretum is a "copyrighted place"? Also, does anyone know a good
primer on copyrighted places in general? My understanding of copyright law is
hazy at best, but that seems unreasonable.

~~~
jrockway
As mentioned above, there is a special law just for this particular place.

------
ck2
Ah governments. For the people, by the people, sold back to the people.

------
lhnn
I think the site would benefit from a chart of place vs. type of restriction
(total, commercial, fees, etc.)

~~~
sitkack
you are addicted to infographics.

------
gue5t
(or: how to know when to yell "fuck the police" after uploading images to the
global nexus of free communication known as the internet)

