Michael Markey
Veteran
Well that`s what I was told by the chairman of the club in question and the reason why he was preventing me from taking photographs.
I have no interest in the game so I`ll take your word for it as regards the correct governing body.
I don`t know what FUD is but I can only say that I reported what I was told.
Sparrow
Veteran
... and then there's the tendency of petty officials to claim powers they don't have
btgc
Veteran
Seeing in the map Ukraine marked as red, not OK that is, I question myself if I can trust that article at all or authors included some countries just to show more countries. Haven't traveled whole Ukraine but where I have been they couldn't care less about camera.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Oh indeed ...that may well have been the case.
If so it extended to members of the club itself ...they were bemoaning the fact that they had no record of their kids playing the game because of the restrictions.
If so it extended to members of the club itself ...they were bemoaning the fact that they had no record of their kids playing the game because of the restrictions.
Sparrow
Veteran
... this side of the hill the cricket grounds tend to be owned by either breweries or the local authorities, I can imagine they could enforce some pretty odd rules ... particularly when they have to carry third-party insurance
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
you know what pisses me off, apparently it is perfectly OK to put "copyrighted" "art" into public space cluttering my view but i should be restricted taking pics of it (and publish/sell/whatever).
Isn't this a bit backward??
If it's private art keep it in your basement. If you put it out there, then i take pics of it and do whatever i want with it.
Anyway it is stupid. Copyright should refer to COPYright, not picturemaking right.
If it's a picture and i make a copy, which is also a picture, i break the law.
If it's a building and make a copy BUILDING then i break the law.
But if it's a building and i make a picture of it, that is not a copy.
Isn't this a bit backward??
If it's private art keep it in your basement. If you put it out there, then i take pics of it and do whatever i want with it.
Anyway it is stupid. Copyright should refer to COPYright, not picturemaking right.
If it's a picture and i make a copy, which is also a picture, i break the law.
If it's a building and make a copy BUILDING then i break the law.
But if it's a building and i make a picture of it, that is not a copy.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I think we had concluded the article was just sensationalised drivel and a bit of fantasy ... to infringe copyright one would need to make a copy and clearly a photo of the London Eye is not a copy
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Sparrow
Veteran
... no worries ... I expect it'll be X-rays again soon enough 
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
hehe.
With x-rays we are on the same side..remember?
And with the london eye, too
With x-rays we are on the same side..remember?
And with the london eye, too
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Our current government down under seems hell bent on restricting freedom of the population at every opportunity for it's own purposes .... so why not photography too?
Seems right to me!
Seems right to me!
Sparrow
Veteran
... well there's no telling what your chap will do, he may just slip you a few dollars to go elsewhere
locheeboy
locheeboy
Ah wrote to my MEP (Member of the European Parliament ) on this matter. Here is his reply
It seems tae me the there was/is a vested interest, trying tae usurp this motion, which supported "freedom of panorama" (see link).
It's well-known that France and Italy, especially, have been relentless in their attempts to "strengthen" privacy and related copyright laws in the EU, tae fall in line with their own country's laws.
Looks like this was a first step in trying tae re-direct legislation. Hopefully, there are enogh votes tae defeat this amendment; whilst not becoming law (at this stage) it leaves a door open for possible future legislation. Although, the monolith that is the EU parliament doth proceed wondrous slow...
It seems tae me the there was/is a vested interest, trying tae usurp this motion, which supported "freedom of panorama" (see link).
It's well-known that France and Italy, especially, have been relentless in their attempts to "strengthen" privacy and related copyright laws in the EU, tae fall in line with their own country's laws.
Looks like this was a first step in trying tae re-direct legislation. Hopefully, there are enogh votes tae defeat this amendment; whilst not becoming law (at this stage) it leaves a door open for possible future legislation. Although, the monolith that is the EU parliament doth proceed wondrous slow...
Sonny Boy Havidson
Established
Being French and living in France, I had to read this thread to discover such a thing!
Turtle
Veteran
Its not drivel if it scares people into behaving differently and thus losing out. The link provided elsewhere provides some interesting additional reading.
It is also not irrelevant if it were to cause cautious photo agencies/stock agencies etc to require photographers to provide buildings releases when when one may not realistically be required. I think most of us would rather not have this issue nagging on our minds, because the fear of being caught up in a nasty law suit is not something many want to live with.
If one looks at who Jean-Marie Cavada's desired targets are, it is clear that photos of works of art and buildings are precisely what he is trying to restrict commercial use of (and that would presumably therefore scare someone who make a living out of selling shots of the London skyline, including the London Eye etc).
According to Julia Redas Blog "Jean-Marie Cavada, the person responsible for all of this, clarified his intent while digging in his heels: Users weren’t in his aim, he professed on his blog – but internet platforms must certainly pay up. Which internet platforms? Well, for example Wikipedia, who he called “a US monopoly” and described as acting “to the detriment of the entire European cultural sector”
While he states he is not after the user (but the platforms instead), as I understand it (and as Julia states), the legislation proposed makes no such distinction.
Whatever the legal details, it seems this initiative would be 'far from positive' for photographers and slippery slopes are best avoided altogether in my view.
It is also not irrelevant if it were to cause cautious photo agencies/stock agencies etc to require photographers to provide buildings releases when when one may not realistically be required. I think most of us would rather not have this issue nagging on our minds, because the fear of being caught up in a nasty law suit is not something many want to live with.
If one looks at who Jean-Marie Cavada's desired targets are, it is clear that photos of works of art and buildings are precisely what he is trying to restrict commercial use of (and that would presumably therefore scare someone who make a living out of selling shots of the London skyline, including the London Eye etc).
According to Julia Redas Blog "Jean-Marie Cavada, the person responsible for all of this, clarified his intent while digging in his heels: Users weren’t in his aim, he professed on his blog – but internet platforms must certainly pay up. Which internet platforms? Well, for example Wikipedia, who he called “a US monopoly” and described as acting “to the detriment of the entire European cultural sector”
While he states he is not after the user (but the platforms instead), as I understand it (and as Julia states), the legislation proposed makes no such distinction.
Whatever the legal details, it seems this initiative would be 'far from positive' for photographers and slippery slopes are best avoided altogether in my view.
robert blu
quiet photographer
mani
Well-known
This sort of misplaced nationalistic finger-wagging is so typically Swedish. There are plenty of places in Sweden where it’s forbidden to photograph: everything from ‘military’ installations (including very boring buildings occupied by the Swedish Secret Service) to power stations to tourist attractions.
The foremost example of the latter is the very photogenic Haga Slott (Palace) in Hagaparken, Stockholm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haga_Palace).
When the Swedish State gifted it to Princess Victoria, together with a large slice of the public park surrounding it as a cute wedding present, a tall fence was erected all around, with surveillance cameras placed every ten meters or so, and prominent signs every few meters declaring it unlawful to photograph, draw, measure or in any other way record the view through the railings. Imagine if such a prohibition was placed outside Buckingham Palace!
People would do well to first turn their indignation on their own country’s injustices and shortcomings, rather than reflexively wagging a finger of smug disapproval at ‘foreigners’.