
UK at risk of losing Freedom of Panorama - draugadrotten
https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/06/uk-at-risk-of-losing-freedom-of-panorama/
======
aikah
> It becomes even stranger in some cases. For example, you can share a photo
> of the Eiffel Tower because of its age – but only if it is taken during the
> day. If the photo is at night, the lighting is considered a separate
> installation and falls foul of Freedom of Panorama.

Wtf? what is the justification for this?

~~~
macjohnmcc
I read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more
recently.

~~~
mjn
Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, and that on the
Eiffel Tower is newer than the tower. Somewhat similar situation to a mural
being painted on an old building, or a new statue being installed on its
facade. Without freedom of panorama, in that case you could photograph the
building, but only if you're careful to crop out the mural/statue from the
photo.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Which leaves a loophole then, tourist locations can prevent photography from
including it by adding a copyrightable work to a building.

Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by
Google's streetview photographers (and copied and recopied many times over by
Google).

Based on such a draconian interpretation of copyright law I imagine a large
company could successfully sue Google with this (eg if new owners were asset
stripping anyway and so didn't need to use Google for advertising/location
services).

~~~
icebraining
_Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by
Google 's streetview photographers_

On that note: [http://streetghosts.net/](http://streetghosts.net/)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Love it, street art using images of blurred out people from Google's
Streetview pasted in the real life locations where the original images were
captured.

------
the_mitsuhiko
So since this is widely misreported currently, here is how I understand the
situation:

* Freedom of panorama is the freedom to take a picture of a building or environment that might be copyrighted. The EU currently allows countries to restrict this right because of historical context.

* There are a handful of countries that restrict that usage (France, Belgium etc.)

* They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage.

* There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not
> have it restricted.

This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member
states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits.

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europ...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more)

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC)

> They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction
> between commercial and noncommercial usage.

Yes, but "non-commercial usage" and "commercial usage" are poorly-defined
terms, particularly in the Internet age.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member
> states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits.

Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction
on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. This
only tries to harmonize the restrictions between the countries that have such
restrictions already.

~~~
kuschku
That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the countries.
That’s why everyone is in such an uproar.

The changed proposal would make it illegal for a nation to allow the freedom
of panorama.

Read the blog of the MEP who wrote the original proposal (which had a clause
saying that the Freedom of panorama should apply everywhere):
[https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-
threat/](https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/)

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the
> countries. That’s why everyone is in such an uproar.

Can you link to where this is written?

~~~
kuschku
Read the blogpost I linked? It’s from the MEP who wrote the original proposal,
and explains why it would add those restrictions for all the countries in the
first few paragraphs already.

------
synthmeat
End of day is nearing and my imagination is not at its daily peak, but I'd
really like to know - _why?_

EDIT:

Appears to 502 right now. Cached version for your convenience:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tu...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tuGB38J:https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/06/uk-
at-risk-of-losing-freedom-of-panorama/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
swombat
Apparently it's a misguided attempt to protect creators by preventing others
from profiting from their work. Most of the professional bodies being
"protected" are actually opposed to this, as I understand from an article I
read on the topic a few days ago, by the guy who wrote a report that has been
quoted in the debates around this law.

~~~
duiker101
so exactly who is pushing this and how would actually be profiting from this?
I don't see any reason why anyone would gain anything...

~~~
pgeorgi
The entire report is about harmonizing EU copyright, to make one set of rules
instead of 28.

Countries that already have this restriction (such as France) are interested
in keeping their customs and traditions, and lobbied to make this part of the
report where before, it would have called the EU Commission to write EU law to
forbid it EU-wide.

"Think of the artists" was a great pitch given that the report is penned by a
Pirate Party MEP (and so it's easy to believe that the entire report is pro-
consumer/anti-artist), and so that change slipped in.

[edit: As a funny side note, Google Street View is available in France, where
such a law is in effect, but very limited in Germany, where there is no such
law. It's not strictly enforced right now in France, except for night-time
Eiffel tower photographs, but they want to keep it. ]

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
I object to calling this "harmonizing".

This term is used quite a bit in reference to copyright laws, and it's always
bullshit. When two countries have differing laws and they want to "harmonize",
wouldn't you expect that at least once in awhile "harmonization" would mean
that the country with the stricter laws would adopt the more lenient laws of
the other?

This never happens.

~~~
germanier
The proposal contains several such instances. For example it shortens the
copyright of war heroes by 30 years in France, simplifies reuse of government
works and provides libraries more rights to digitize and e-lend books.

------
babney
A couple of counterpoints:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/)

[https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/eu_freedom_panorama-46...](https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/eu_freedom_panorama-46045)

So, serious question: is this actually a problem, or just scaremongering?

~~~
icebraining
I like how The Register uses an unnamed "campaigner" to call the MEP "a
cheerleader for the freetards". Classy.

~~~
jahnu
The Register is the Daily Mail of IT news.

~~~
JonnieCache
Sad isn't it? el Reg used to be more the Sun of IT news, so at least there was
a cheeky sense of fun. Now it's just wild-eyed and scary.

Also it amuses me how obsessed they are with "Storage," a concept we on this
site _never_ talk about. Different worlds...

------
ap3
_not the onion_ \- had not heard of freedom of panorama. I just assumed it was
part of the commons social contract - you can put something in public view and
others are free to see it.

I can understand copyright protections preventing someone from copying a
building's design or aesthetics, but can't imagine how it would extend to
holiday pictures were the building just happens to be in the background

------
TeMPOraL
Does this mean that I suddenly can't post any picture made outdoors because
I'll get sued by some City Architects Association which happen to "protect"
the "rights" of a random architect which designed that block of flats I have
in the background?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Only if you live in specific countries in Europe.

~~~
pgeorgi
The amended section of the report asks to extend that provision to cover the
entire EU.

Even the parties that voted for the change (because protecting artists can't
be a bad thing, right?) aren't sure any more after artists (incl. architects
who are the most obvious beneficiaries of such legislation) complained.

And it only covers buildings that aren't out of copyright (ie. if it's
personal copyright, the original artist not yet dead for 70 years, for
corporate copyright 95 years IIRC).

~~~
jdminhbg
> The amended section of the report asks to extend that provision to cover the
> entire EU.

The entire EU is still "only certain countries in Europe."

------
hyperion2010
This kind of law isn't even at the level of those laws that reduce people's
belief in the importance of laws. It is the kind of law that people aren't
even aware of because it is so far outside the realm of something anyone could
possibly legislate or enforce that it never enters into their mind that
someone could have tried to actually write a law about it.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> it is so far outside the realm of something anyone could possibly legislate
> or enforce

No, it's a real, existing thing in some European countries that actually does
get enforced, and it's scary.

------
thomasfoster96
Why isn't Greece now suing everyone who's ever taken a photo of the Acropolis
for damages? That's the only vaguely useful application of this silly law i
can think of.

~~~
fennecfoxen
No, no, the Acropolis is too old. What they need to do is install some
dramatic lighting, and claim that the new combination is copyrighted. See
also: Eiffel tower

~~~
mcv
So all the old monuments will now get fancy lighting and other extra
decoration on them in order to reclaim copyright on the monument?

------
blfr
It's not just the UK, it's the entire EU, right?

~~~
pgeorgi
Except France, Greece and a bunch of other countries that already have this
restriction.

The fight is now if that restriction is lifted EU-wide (original proposal in
the Reda report) or established EU-wide (what the amendment made of it)

------
spacefight
What's next with these corporate shizzles? Do I need to pay a cent each time
they detect me just looking at their buildings?

~~~
coldcode
More like $10. Plus you must wear the special goggles which record where you
look and automatically deduct the price.

~~~
nekopa
Wow. i think you finally found the business model for Google Glass...

------
saevarom
Here is another view of the situation:
[http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-
to...](http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-tourist-
photos-of-the-london-eye/)

~~~
icebraining
That post is talking about people taking personal photos and sharing them
privately; it doesn't address Wikimedia's concern that sharing those photos on
their sites might be construed as "commercial activity".

------
LukeB_UK
Google cache/mirror as the site seems to be down:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tu...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tuGB38J:https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/06/uk-
at-risk-of-losing-freedom-of-panorama/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

------
DanBC
The film and tv industry should get on board. I can't imagine they want to pay
extra licensing fees when filming in public.

Is there going to be a body like PRS (which collects a fee from people playing
music in public, and distributes some of that money to performers) but for
buildings?

How would they work out the fee to charge? Per metre of height? Percentage of
screen taken by building?

~~~
icebraining
I don't think you'll ever get the film and TV industry to campaign for a
reduction of copyright authority, even if it benefits them in that particular
instance.

~~~
pgeorgi
Just propose a retro-active extension of copyright so that all the Disney
movies based on fairy tales (which aren't actually _that_ old, at least the
versions they based their movies on) require licensing of the original story.

That probably produces quite an outcry (given how hard it likely is to
identify all constituents of the estate).

------
richardwigley
There is a petition against it on Change.org .. currently 192,000
signatures.... Now 193.... [https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-
the-freedo...](https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-
of-photography-savefop-europarl-en)

~~~
icebraining
Seems weird to use that site instead of the EU Petitions platform:
[http://www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/](http://www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/)

~~~
richardwigley
Agreed, it would make more sense to use the EU apparatus. The change org was
promoted through German pirate party (according to link I followed from here
[https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-
fre...](https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-freedom-of-
panorama/) )

------
ghaff
Note that this isn't necessarily something especially new. Stock sites already
require property releases based on various (ill-defined) criteria.

See e.g. [http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-
manuals/...](http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-
manuals/photography/legal-requirements-art-architecture-performances)

However, unlike model releases for people required for commercial (as in non-
editorial) use like marketing and advertising, it's a very fuzzy area.

~~~
cbr
Model releases are also a fuzzy area.

"The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by
jurisdiction."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release)

~~~
ghaff
Fair enough although that link isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's finest
efforts. This link is more complete: [https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-
model-releases.html#...](https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-
releases.html#.VZVlHThViko)

It's generally pretty well established that a properly executed model release
provides a pretty wide latitude of commercial usage--although one can always
come up with corner cases, e.g. use of a photo in a context that implies the
subject is a drug addict or something similar.

By contrast, there's very little legal precedent around the scope of property
rights in commercial photography.

~~~
cbr
The analogous question is what rights you have to use a photo for which you
don't have a model release, and that's where I think things are pretty fuzzy.

------
tzs
It would have been nice if they had linked to some explanation that gives some
more details on what "Freedom of Panorama" is. I had never heard of it before
today.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it, to save others a few seconds:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama)

------
abandonliberty
Risk may be overstated:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/)

------
vermontdevil
The horse blinders industry must be behind this.

Insane!

------
carsonreinke
So if I own some land, can I copyright the landscape so no one can sell a
picture of it?

~~~
germanier
Not if you don't put any creative work in.

------
rbanffy
Eventually, remembering something - a movie, a song - will be considered
copyright infringement.

------
jakeogh
Countries have the right to be forgotten too!

------
aluhut
TIL The UK has still freedoms to lose.

------
byteofprash
haha. I find these laws quite amusing.

In India, there "could" be a lot of ridiculous laws, but people generally
violate all these laws. I think with such a huge population, a law that is
quite unpopular is never followed.

------
bsenftner
Realizing the article is about the UK, it smells fishy...

Us Copyright law has the "personal use" exemption, which is entirely separate
from commercial and non-commercial use. Taking a photo of ANYTHING and using
it for ANY PERSONAL PURPOSE, such as sharing it among family and friends is
perfectly legal, as long as no commercial or non-commercial entity profits
from the situation.

Posting said photo to an online service where it is exhibited publicly has
not, as far as I know, been tested in US courts yet. I'm sure the lobbying
powers of Facebook and Google will prevent that case of ever taking place.

That article smells of ignorant sensationalist journalism to me.

~~~
pgeorgi
As soon as ads are shown on the page, it's typically considered commercial, at
least in Germany (but probably throughout the EU).

Also, Facebook, Google et al usually have ToS that allow commercial re-use. So
sharing your personal photos is possible - so posting images with any kind of
copyrighted scenery to such services (likely includes Twitter and Instagram,
too) becomes a legal minefield for the user, because they may be liable if the
platform operator ever chooses to use such an image.

~~~
stephengillie
So does that mean that you're not allowed to use the images in places where
other people would make money?

Most copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the property
and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then pays
royalties.

In my scenario there is a 3rd: Aki owns the property and copyright still, and
Ben still takes the photo and posts it. But then Caro monetizes the page that
the photo is on.

Does Ben owe royalties to Aki? Does Caro? Do both? Neither?

~~~
icebraining
_Most copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the
property and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then
pays royalties._

Usually it's the reproducer who has to pay, so Caro would have to pay both Ben
and Aki, for the photo and property licenses respectively.

~~~
stephengillie
But Caro isn't reproducing the image, merely hosting it, as part of a larger
image-sharing site. The site has ads, which is how the image is monetized. Ben
uploaded it without getting permission from anyone.

So Caro is getting money because Ben is using a copywritten photo for private
use.

~~~
icebraining
_But Caro isn 't reproducing the image, merely hosting it_

A private backup service would be mere hosting. If Caro sends the image to
third-parties, it's reproduction. Now, in the US, the DMCA law grants Caro a
safe harbour, which is to say, a pardon for the infringement if Caro takes it
down rapidly after being notified. But it's still an infringement.

Ben is also infringing, of course, assuming he knew the image was to be shared
by Caro.

~~~
stephengillie
Well, I guess you could say that Ben is requesting Caro send the image to
third parties - Ben's friends Darius, Esmre, and Fae - by linking them to the
page on Caro's site that holds Aki's copywritten photo.

Also we'll assume that Ben waived rights to the photo on upload (as is common)
and that he's one of those "No copyright intended" fools that also seem
relatively common.

