Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

The app provides pictures of art without permission. That part seems clear.

The OP claims 'even when its in a public place and owned by the public'. That part seems odd. It would be good to (be able to) read the decision.

View on HN

I think since this is a Wikimedia project, that the images themselves were freely licensed, but Sweden has weak or no Freedom of Panorama, which is where the "public" part would factor in. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama)

edit: I found more details here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom...

I notice that the pictures in your first link contradict each other. The world view shows Sweden as ok, the sidebar European map says that it's not.

That's because the former wasn't updated yet. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it.

There must be some subtly in the law. Or perhaps Sweden has unusual laws about what you can photograph in/from a public space.

That being said, I wonder if an architect could claim an unusual/interesting building as a work of art, and then have it removed from google street view?

This is actually something that is attempted every now and then; architects claiming that they own the (commercial) visual rights to something that exists in public space.

In 2004 the architect of a bridge in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, tried to claim that photographs and reproductions of 'his' bridge were unlawful, and that a fee would have to paid for any sold reproduction of that bridge (such as a postcard). Luckily this was prevented by an EU directive that states clearly that any art or architecture located in a public area may be photographed, provided that it is reproduced as-is.

I wonder if this EU directive is applicable to this situation in Sweden?

Same thing with the Eiffel tower lights - they're copyright art separate from the public tower.

http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-c...

The owners of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland decided they own rights to pictures of the building from the outside as well http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/16/us/rock-hall-of-fame-asser...

That was a fascinating case. The photographer lost in the initial round, but won 2 appeals, and then the hall of fame gave up after that. Imagine if you could prevent people of taking pictures of buildings. Then you couldn't take a picture of downtown cities, you'd have to negotiate with all those building owners! If you search for the above case (Gentile vs Rock and Roll Hall of Fame), then you find the famous Sydney Opera House tried to keep iStockPhoto from having a picture. That doesn't seem to have gone to trial, but a law professor thought it wouldn't hold up in court.

Hm, maybe you can find some more details about that case? As I understood it, the EU copyright directive does not say anything about freedom of panorama either way (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#European_U...), but maybe there are some subtleties.

From what I can tell without any legal expertise, the EU Copyright Directive provides a way for countries to make certain exceptions (article 5(3)), which literally includes the case of architecture and sculptures in a public setting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive

So whereas the Netherlands sensibly chose to enact this exception, other countries selectively allowed certain situations, such as the lights of the Eiffel Tower and possibly Belgium's Atomium landmark.

This blog post (in Dutch) contains a good summary of the Dutch bridge case:

http://www.nandoonline.com/?p=4543

That makes sense, but it would mean that the EU directive does not override national law, right? So it would not be helpful in Sweden.

Taking that a step further imagine if the architects of iconic buildings like the Burj Al Arab etc would start requiring people to ask permission before posting photos of it on the internet or using it in maps.

Buildings are explicitly from the law banning databases of depictions. So Street View for example would not be affected (or any photo of a unique building).

How long before google replaces your google adwords with the artists if it detects the somewhere on your page you have a photograph of a public place that happens to contain a statue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com