Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
21st October 2010, 11:26 AM
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2010102...enge.shtml
I've tried to verify this story, and it does seem that it's true.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that English Heritage don't have a leg to stand on, especially considering that they've only looked after the site since the 1980s.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
21st October 2010, 11:34 AM
surely they just mean images they have taken, or have direct curatorships of?
still shows that people are ready to claim 'public benefit' when it suites....
EH desperately looking for revenue?
perhaps not the smartest move (if true...).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
21st October 2010, 11:38 AM
Quote:
I've tried to verify this story, and it does seem that it's true.
minutes meetings policy twice monthly lawers FOI its hard being a pg
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
21st October 2010, 11:43 AM
PG?............
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
21st October 2010, 11:55 AM
sorry, not you, just me perennial swipe at p..... grabbers. I was just imaging what it would take to try to find out if it was true and mixing in a few answers. Never understood why national trust scam didnt get stonmehenge. I was told off only a few weeks ago for trying to take a picture at whitby abbey. Does anybody know how old the pond is, its in funny position on top of a cliff.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
21st October 2010, 12:24 PM
Its been many years since I studied copyright law, but i'm unaware if its changed.
Copyright belongs to the photographer unless altered by agreement. Therefore English Heritage can claim copyright on photos they've taken. Photos they own in their archives I would imagine would be included too, if the original owners cannot be found or have agreed to transfer the copyright.
You can walk up and take as many photos as you like, flog them, use them for commercial purposes, etc.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
21st October 2010, 01:04 PM
Dirty Boy Wrote:Copyright belongs to the photographer unless altered by agreement. Therefore English Heritage can claim copyright on photos they've taken. Photos they own in their archives I would imagine would be included too, if the original owners cannot be found or have agreed to transfer the copyright.
That was my understanding as well - although likewise I'm somewhat rusty on the precise details. If EH are that keen to generate money through copyright channels perhaps they could take a leaf out of the Eiffel Tower's book - any photographs taken of the tower at night are subject to copyright restrictions as French Courts have deemed the lighting display itself to be an "original piece of work"! Perhaps if EH applied a fancy paint scheme/light scheme to the stones they could copyright that...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
21st October 2010, 01:11 PM
tmsarch Wrote:That was my understanding as well - although likewise I'm somewhat rusty on the precise details. If EH are that keen to generate money through copyright channels perhaps they could take a leaf out of the Eiffel Tower's book - any photographs taken of the tower at night are subject to copyright restrictions as French Courts have deemed the lighting display itself to be an "original piece of work"! Perhaps if EH applied a fancy paint scheme/light scheme to the stones they could copyright that...
That applies in France - if someone takes of photo of you on the street you can claim the copyright (or royalties I believe). Doesn't apply here though.
Hurrah! My dusty legal knowledge is slowly coming back!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
21st October 2010, 01:58 PM
From
Urban75:
Quote:Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside).
It is also not an infringement of copyright to "take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises that are open to the public"
However, if you're standing on private property and the landowner/occupier objects, then they have every right to request that you stop immediately and ask you to leave if you refuse.
From reading the original article, I don't think they are trying to claim all copyright, just commercial rights. So if you have a photo on Flickr under a non commercial creative commons licence, then that is not affected.
In terms of legal standing, from the Urban75 quote it would appear that EH are within their rights to stop people selling images as long as the photo is taken on the land EH manage. I would guess this also means you could quite happily sell photos of Stonehenge if you took them from the road.
I don't agree with the EH stance, but I think it's worth considering it in the context of the cuts and
Jeremy Hunt's statement on the EH this morning:
Quote:We also want them [EH] to strengthen their fundraising capacity and increase self-generated income.
Taking tighter control on the selling of image rights would appear to fall quite neatly into the 'self generating income' bracket.
