Hacker News Reader

The author gets it wrong. In the future you only will be allowed to take shot if your camera gets location-based DMCA authorisation clearance to take it. It will be blocked at all other times, and there will be pay per view from camera producer for displaying shots that were already taken, automatically sending money to copyright administration agency.

View on HN

Yeah it's disgusting. Witness the fight to copyright architecture, so that folks must ask for permission to take photos of public buildings.

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

I'm not sure if I follow. Could you point me to the section you are referring to? All I found was this, which seems quite positive.

"First, when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work.[13] Thus, the architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building. "

The bit you found is reasonable, but there's a movement to forbid it.

For example, it's illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night when its lights are lit:

http://wiki.gettyimages.com/897/

I am boggled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com