UK at risk of losing Freedom of Panorama | Hacker News Reader

UK at risk of losing Freedom of Panorama

blog.wikimedia.org.uk

191 pointsdraugadrotten124 comments

> 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?

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

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.

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).

Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers

On that note: http://streetghosts.net/

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.

Yes, that's why freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright in many jurisdictions, because otherwise taking photos of public places becomes a minefield of copyrightable stuff strewn everywhere.

> Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable,

That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

It's not asinine. Being able to copyright creative lighting installations seems reasonable: what if someone copies your design? But it's not reasonable to charge anyone who takes a photo of it.

Yeah but come on... that sounds so ridiciouls.

I think the asinine part is copyright transferring to another medium. Its one thing to copyright the lighting installation (which is a fine thing, more power to you), but another thing to now own copyright a photo that happens to have said installation in it.

What if I take a high quality picture of a painting? What about a video of a photograph? What about a film based on a book?

I think we are talking about a public installation like a sculpture, building, etc. No photograph, book, or film is an actual copy; but your examples are all basically trying to make a copy that can function like the original.

Couldn't a series of photos be composited to function like an original sculpture? E.g. a photosphere or VR-like presentation that allows the viewer to experience the sculpture from different angles, perhaps even in 3D?

Let me get this straight. To justify the protection of a light sculpture from photography, you create a scenario where the photographer is taking a bunch of pictures to build a "photosphere or VR-like presentation"? I shouldn't be allowed to photograph the sculpture because there is the possibility I will use these photographs to create some virtual replacement? This is how bad laws are made.

What about clothes? chairs? umbrellas?

Soon we won't be able to take photographs of anything...

That's my point, the photograph, video, painting, etc. is not a replacement for any physical item.

If someone's e.g. selling a poster of the Eiffel Tower at night, I think a lot of that poster's value derives from the efforts of the lighting artist.

Ok, let's go with that. What can you photograph outdoors that does not have someones efforts to style an area?

Nature?

(I suppose you could argue that the ability to get to said nature is often dependent on roads and other transit networks...)

If the photo's "of" an artist's work then you probably do owe the artist. If you're photographing something that happens to have an artist's work in the background, that's going to be fair use, like the "dancing baby" video that has a bit of a Prince song in the background.

I don't understand how this could ever be enforceable. Maybe it's just a symptom of my inability to imagine how this would play out in other justice systems outside the US.

They already enforce that in France.

How? Just like any other regular old copyright violation.

In this particular case, I just don't see a copy of the Eiffel Tower's lighting arrangement appearing in exact form anywhere else...

What about performing your own version of a copyrighted song publicly? Reciting a copyrighted book in a theater performance? That's not allowed almost everywhere in the world and is still not appearing in exact form anywhere else.

Which is fair enough because they are easily reproduced but we're talking about famous landmarks here. I don't think I will find the Eiffel tower's light arrangement anywhere but the Eiffel tower any time soon simply because of its distinguished shape, not because of stringent copyright law.

Have you ever heard of the city Tianducheng which contains a copy of the Eiffel tower? Not that European copyright law would stop them...

Wow, I have no words because I've just eaten them.

I wonder if there's anything that would stop a European country from copying the Eiffel tower?

Wikipedia has a long list of replicas (though I wouldn't classify some of them as one):

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

The Eiffel tower isn't copyrighted anymore so there is nothing that would stop anybody.

Weird, I read that too!

> Wtf? what is the justification for this?

It's called a "money grab". Wouldn't you love to be able to tax photographers for taking pictures of public places too?

I mean, it's not as if there will be no pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night, that'd be silly. They'll just be able to restrict those photos to those willing to pay licensing fees.

But this is Europe we're talking about... the same people who think the label "cheddar cheese" should be copyrightable.

I think you might mean a "protected designation of origin" or a "protected geographical indication" rather than "copyright" - apparently "cheddar cheese" has no such protection although "Orkney Cheddar Cheese" does:

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

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

This actually seems reasonable to me, perhaps because I am European and also rather fond of good cheese!

This is more generally known as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation

Another example is champagne. Sparkling wine from other regions is not technically champagne.

However, limiting the ability of the public to photograph things outdoors doesn't seem quite comparable. If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms?

If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work?

Basically, what's the limit on this, because it seems like it has a pretty high ceiling for ridiculousness.

> If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms?

Usually copyright belongs to the architect and can't be transferred to anyone in Europe.

> If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work?

I'm pretty sure that's already the case in many jurisdictions, including Germany where there is freedom of panorama. That only applies for images taken without technical assistance to get the view and using a satellite to take the picture is certainly technical assistance (as is a ladder btw.).

Does using a tripod count as technical assistance?

Not as long as it doesn't help you to get a view you wouldn't get without (e.g. peeking over a wall).

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.

If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?

> If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?

Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted.

A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)

A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those

Ah, I didn't get that from your earlier post.

> A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those

A country would no longer be permitted to allow commercial use, period. EU law does not allow member states to add additional copyright exemptions.

> 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_2015_EVA...

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

No, existing member states will have a restriction. It will only have Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use. Member states are NOT allowed to have freedoms beyond those in the directive: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...

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/

> 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?

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.

Interesting point re:commercial usage. If a user of a social media site posts an image not for their own profit, it's still contributing to the social media network's profits in that it's keeping users engaged with the site while the social network runs ads.

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...

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.

I'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?

Except the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.

Weren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?

Many copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.

The question is whether the copyright holder expected to retain copyright of photographs of the said buildings. To me, it's a very unreasonable expectation since the photographs are not only of artistic value, but of practical use when you need to identify a landmark.

What if I write a description of the building? Would it be considered a copyright violation?

In France they certainly do. And no, descriptions are not reproductions so they are not covered under this proposal.

"Practical use" would also extend to other kinds of copyrighted material, just think of art catalogues, music databases, and newspaper archives.

I could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?

As far as I know, no court has ever decided something like that but most likely yes. But don't ask me where to draw the line.

Also note that this is no different to other copyrighted works: If you were to describe the shapes of all letter in a copyrighted text that would be a violation just as it would be if you gave a pixel-by-pixel description of a copyrighted photograph.

Continental European law is mostly decided on a "spirit of the law" basis not on a "letter-by-letter basis". So if someone finds a loophole that obviously is one it is automatically covered.

It probably has something to do with tourism. The thinking must be that if you see the Eiffel Tower's picture online (I believe this new law threatens the whole EU) you won't want to go see it in person anymore.

And using the typical "copyright math", they must also think one picture view = one lost tourist, so their studies probably already show that picture taking is "costing the EU trillions of euros".

Kind of like this absurdity here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-th...

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...

You're absolutely correct. The optimal end result would be that nobody sees the creator's works online. Which could be useful in a "I hope nobody sees my terrible work" sort of way.

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. ]

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.

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.

Jean-Marie Cavada MEP (ALDE, France)

The MEP of the Pirate Party Germany has this explanation. Obviously from a particular direction: https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-fre...

A couple of counterpoints:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b...

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/eu_freedom_panorama-46...

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

If I'm reading the 2nd article correctly, the current situation is that the European Parliament will vote on July 9 whether to recommend removing the freedom-of-panorama exception, but whether that recommendation would be acted on is up to the European Commission. That's better than it being actually passed into binding rules on July 9, but I think some level of concern is warranted. It would definitely be better if the EU Parliament didn't make that recommendation. But it's true that some articles are implying EU copyright law will actually be changed on July 9, which is not the case.

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

The Register is the Daily Mail of IT news.

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...

It's a very serious problem for Wikimedia, because it would force them to remove virtually all photos of public buildings and works of art in Europe.

Baker's Law (just named it - let's hope it catches on): If a theregister.co.uk article appears that has a controversial standpoint related to intellectual property then the probability it will be penned by Andrew Orlowski approaches 1.

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

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?

Only if you live in specific countries in Europe.

That seems like a crazy level of protection in those countries if it really can apply to any random building in a city.

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).

> 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."

I thought the Met also vigorously defended the copyright on its building (in the US) as well?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_House_(Li...

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.

> 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.

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.

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

Just painting a tiny 1mm blue speck should be enough.

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

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

Yes.

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)

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

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

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

Here is another view of the situation: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/europe-is-not-banning-to...

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".

Google cache/mirror as the site seems to be down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Zb24tu...

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?

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.

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).

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...

Seems weird to use that site instead of the EU Petitions platform: http://www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/

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... )

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/...

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

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

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#...

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.

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.

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

Risk may be overstated: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_b...

The horse blinders industry must be behind this.

Insane!

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

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

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

Countries have the right to be forgotten too!

TIL The UK has still freedoms to lose.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

> That article smells of ignorant sensationalist journalism to me.

This a EU related article on a UK blog. Knowing the US position on this is interesting but is no indication of the quality of this article.

> Us Copyright law

irrelevant, this is about the UK and EU

Not entirely irrelevant since this same scheme was attempted with the Chicago bean sculpture. My question is that if a mirrored piece of public art reflects an image that you own the copyright to can you hold the owner of the artwork in violation for an unauthorized "reproduction"? If not then why does light traveling the other way get special treatment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com