Copyright Issues - Buildings, Art, etc.

[+lumbricus]

Hi,

today I read something unbelievable. It's not allowed to load up pictures of some buidlings. Lawyers are contacting people who loaded up pictures of the "Atomium" or the "Sydney Opera House" or the Eiffel Tower at night (yes, only night pictures are forbidden). It's forbidden to publish them without permission. http://atomium.be/AuthorsRights.aspx?lang=en

Should we think about archiving all Waymarks showing the Atomium, or Sydney Opera House? Which buildings could make problems, too? I often thought about this when I approved Waymarks. Sometimes I get sculptures from museums, I'm not sure if it's allowed to publish them online. Perhaps it's allowed to take pictures inside, but publish them online is forbidden in 99%. Can I get in trouble as publisher? Should I check if it's allowed to publish things or not?

What do you think?

Thanks,

lumbricus

[+netdust]

Hi,

 

I was aware that there is an issue with things inside a museum. For one of my waymarks, I actually asked for the permission to use the photo:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN2TR_Mensch_und_Natur_Earth_Globe_Munich_Germany

For some other potential waymarks at another side, I got no answer, so I did not submit them. But honestly, most often I do not feel like contacting someone and just waymark something else instead. There is enough around here ;-)

 

ButI was NOT aware that for some buildings, also outside pictures can ge forbidden! How do they hope to control this? There must be myriads of pictures with these very famous buildings around in the web..

I actually have a waymark with the Opera house:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN10N_Ferry_Trip_on_Sydney_Harbour_Sydney_Australia

Should I archive that now???

And what about visits? I think I also uploaded some visit photos of the Opera. These cannot be controlled by the reviewers anyway!

 

I think it would be useful to have a list of buildings that might be problematic. But I think its sad that one nearly needs a to have studied international law to be a waymarker... By the way, does Waymarking count as "commercial use" for copyright issues?

[+lumbricus]

Hi netdust, if the 'Opera House' is shown with something else, like the sea, a bridge and some other buildings than it's okay. They have a faq about what you are allowed to do and what not. But if the picture is only about the building it could be a problem. If Waymarking.com is a commerical site I'm not 100% sure, but I think there are some ads. We should not go crazy now, but we really should keep in mind that there are some things we should be careful with. Perhaps this was a topic in the forum already, not sure.

[+on4bam]

It's not just about "landmarks". In Belgium the architect has copyright on the buildings he designed up until 75 years after his death. The Atomium in Brussels is a notorious example of a building for which people are contacted and are "requested" to remove pictures. Only recently it was decided that they would no longer go after people putting their Atomium pictures on their blogs as long as it was non-commercial. They still could if they wanted to though but it was a sign of "good will". As a WMO (waymarkowner) you might not be "commercial" but GS/Waymarking.com is and so they might come after you.

 

BTW, it might get worse as the EU, in their infinite wisdom, is working on new laws that may restrict the use of pictures even further.

In many countries there's a "panorama right" meaning photographs taken from public places can be used and published (even commercially). The new law would eliminate that right.

 

More info here (petition against the proposal).

If this proposal becomes law Wikipedia foundation would have to remove 40000+ photographs from their servers.

 

BTW, the copyright laws for buildings mistakenly consider a photograph as "copying" or "duplicating" a building which of course it isn't. Building a "hard copy" replica of the Eifel tower or Atomium in your garden of course is. (just my "feeling" not lawtalk )

[+netdust]

Hi netdust, if the 'Opera House' is shown with something else, like the sea, a bridge and some other buildings than it's okay. They have a faq about what you are allowed to do and what not. But if the picture is only about the building it could be a problem. If Waymarking.com is a commerical site I'm not 100% sure, but I think there are some ads. We should not go crazy now, but we really should keep in mind that there are some things we should be careful with. Perhaps this was a topic in the forum already, not sure.

 

Hi lumbricus,

 

Thanks for your fast reply! Good to know I can keep my waymark

If Waymarking counts as "non-commercial", the atomium should be no problem, as stated on the website you quoted in your first post. I think that the question of "commercialness" is an important point, as often with copyright issues.

Moreover, in groudspeak's use agreement, there is a paragraph about granting Groundspeak some rights on the submitted content. I am not sure if this could cause a problem, because you cannot grant Grountspeak the rights on a picture you actually do not have yourself, can you?

[+on4bam]

Moreover, in groudspeak's use agreement, there is a paragraph about granting Groundspeak some rights on the submitted content. I am not sure if this could cause a problem, because you cannot grant Grountspeak the rights on a picture you actually do not have yourself, can you?

 

There are two issues.

1. Copyright on the building (not yours)

2. Copyright on the photograph (that you hold).

 

It's 2 that you grant GS rights too.

If your photograph infringes copyright on the building you're responsible. If GS uses your photograph commercially they can but the copyright owner of the building might come after you for "selling" their copyrighted material (and that won't come cheap).

 

Of course, this is worst case scenario.

[+netdust]

Moreover, in groudspeak's use agreement, there is a paragraph about granting Groundspeak some rights on the submitted content. I am not sure if this could cause a problem, because you cannot grant Grountspeak the rights on a picture you actually do not have yourself, can you?

 

There are two issues.

1. Copyright on the building (not yours)

2. Copyright on the photograph (that you hold).

 

It's 2 that you grant GS rights too.

If your photograph infringes copyright on the building you're responsible. If GS uses your photograph commercially they can but the copyright owner of the building might come after you for "selling" their copyrighted material (and that won't come cheap).

 

Of course, this is worst case scenario.

 

Thank a lot! That was a very useful clarification.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I know this is an old(ish) thread but i do remember hearing about the issue at hand. Is not about the building it self or the architect, he only owns the designs. And if it was either of those they would be chasing daytime pictures as well. If i remember rightly the ban is on photos of the light displays they put on like the recent light festival in sydney that used the side of the opera house.

[+on4bam]

I know this is an old(ish) thread but i do remember hearing about the issue at hand. Is not about the building it self or the architect, he only owns the designs. And if it was either of those they would be chasing daytime pictures as well. If i remember rightly the ban is on photos of the light displays they put on like the recent light festival in sydney that used the side of the opera house.

 

That may well be in Oz and the Eifel tower is one of those places you can photograph (and publish) except when it's lights are on. However, as long as laws are not changed, in Belgium (and other countries) it's not only about the designs. If fact, if the law was strictly applied there would be almost no coverage by Streetview here(copyright on any building until 75 years after the death of the architect unless granted permission).

 

So, at least here, it IS about the building and/or the architect. Remember other threads where I said a one size fits all rule/guideline/law is mostly useless?

[+Tassie_Boy]

Remember other threads where I said a one size fits all rule/guideline/law is mostly useless?

 

I do and while this is often true in this case the OP was talking specifically about Eiffel tower, opera house and Atomirium AT NIGHT. What you are talking about is a whole nother different (but very very similar) issue.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Tassie_Boy

[+lumbricus]

Remember other threads where I said a one size fits all rule/guideline/law is mostly useless?

 

I do and while this is often true in this case the OP was talking specifically about Eiffel tower, opera house and Atomirium AT NIGHT. What you are talking about is a whole nother different (but very very similar) issue.

 

Perhaps this happened because English is not my mother tongue, the night refers only to the Eiffel Tower, publishing (e.g. upload to the internet) pictures of the Opera House and the Atomium (by night and day) is forbidden. <Maybe night pictures are allowed if the night is very dark during a blackout, no flash for sure.> If the Opera House is a small part of a picture than it's okay.

[+on4bam]

publishing (e.g. upload to the internet) pictures of the Opera House and the Atomium (by night and day) is forbidden.

 

Although correct, daytime Atomium photographs on non-commericial (private) websites is no longer a priority. I guess they realized they can't go after the 1000"s of people making selfies every day

André Waterkeyn died October 4th 2005 so his copyright lasts until 2080