I agree with you that the moment I am on a street I am public. But be aware of the effects recent technologies can have seen that couple in that cafe I referered to above.
Furthermore this thread is about found film or rather those images in those found films.
Recently at fleamarket I found a stack of Polaroids of a couple photographing themselves whilst having sex. I doubt those people would like those photos being around. One could say those people should care about their photographs. But who knows how they got there? Furthermore I just could have bought them. Or I could have bought them to put on the net.
Furthermore we are facing a generation totally unaware of copyright and right-on-ones-image issues but used to getting all for free, which here in Germany even lead to a political movement.
Seen this I consider a discussion of legal matters quite usefull.
This does not neccessarily mean that I take the view that laws are something cast in gold to stay forever.
Last edited by AgX; 02-16-2013 at 04:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.
If the neighbouring country is France and the world-known building is the Eiffel tower, as far as I know the "copyright on nocturne pictures" it's just a delusional and possibly less-than-honest pretension by the entity managing the building.
Originally Posted by AgX
In their web site they say that they own rights to the publishing of the building at night, because they hold the copyright of the lighting scheme. IIRC they don't even mention commercial use, they just claim money for any kind of publication.
I wrote to them twice (once in English, once in French) stating that I am a professional photographer, that I do sell images of the Eiffel tower at night, that I have no intention to recognize any rights whatsoever to them unless they state the norms which would support their claims, and I received no answer in both cases.
If you are prepared to pay, they do take the money. If you ask why should you pay, they don't answer. I do encourage everybody to ask similar questions to them.
It's urban myth that you cannot take pictures of certain buildings because they are "copyrighted" (the Sidney Opera Theatre etc.). Yes you cannot use the picture commercially because the image of the building is tied to the organization linked to it, but that's true also for the theatre in Bayreuth or the Teatro dell'Opera di Roma or La Scala in Milan or whatever other Opera building or whatever other organization the image of which is tied to the building.
The last image I sold portrays the headquarter of the Food and Agriculture Organization, which is in Rome. That building says "FAO" even when the FAO flag is not visible, and certainly cannot be used by anybody to promote anything without the consent of FAO. But that's not because the building is "copyrighted" (every building on Earth is copyrighted, just like any picture) but because it is linked to the image of the owner. The owner would object to the commercial use of the building as it would imply an endorsement by the organization to the product. That applies to the Moulin Rouge, to Michael Jackson's mansion etc.
The well-known agency Alamy (http://www.alamy.com) has 4822 images of the Eiffel tower at night (just search for Eiffel tower night)
Some organizations (such as the Moulin Rouge or the Eiffel Tower) apply scare tactics to photographic agencies and some agencies are so "timid" to actually withdraw the images without standing their ground as they should. One of these agencies is Alamy, which withdrew all their images of the Moulin Rouge some time ago, without informing the photographers. I had to re-upload my ones. I'm not the only one there are already some hundreds newly available.
I agree. If they didn't want people to see or photograph it at night, they shouldn't have illuminated it!
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
You can only infringe the copyright of a lighting scheme (if it exists) with a very similar lighting scheme, not a photograph. I would consider the lighting to be part of the building and the Berne convention is very clear in that it does not consider a photograph to be an infringement of a building's copyright.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
What are the odds that someone would stumble over the scans you've published? And if that for some quantum mechanics reason happens, they probably instead will become curious on how the images showed up like that from nowhere. Publish, and put a disclaimer with "If you are one of the persons in these pictures, please contact me!", and if someone contacts you, you tell them the story and offer them a free print etc.
Originally Posted by cepwin
The thing is I think too many people have no common sense (my favorite teacher used to say common sense is not that common). You do't publish naked pictures. I do not need a law for that, come on.
If people or objects are not allowed to be photography why are they in the public domain.
People with a photographic memory should all be sued and thrown in prison, those thieves.
Finding old photos and showing them to the world brighten up our lives. They can be shown, and who knows maybe the grandchildren find some old photos of their long lost grand parents.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here’s a brief survey of photography laws in the UK, US, and a few other countries.
Thank for for the additional discussion. The wiki was also helpful/clear. Since these images are clearly of the "safe for work" variety (family outing) I tend to agree with Felinik....if my some stroke of luck the people involved saw it I think they would likely be pleasantly surprised. I'm trying to think how I'd feel if an image of my Brother and I out with one of our Grandma's growing up just popped up on-line .... I'd probably think it was cool and want to forward it to my Folks. Had they been something that would be of great embarrassment to those involved (such as the case AgX described) it would be another story entirely.
Last edited by cepwin; 02-16-2013 at 09:53 AM. Click to view previous post history.
As an experiment in 'six degrees of separation', it would be very interesting to see if the subjects find the pictures on Facebook. It's a novel way of connecting with strangers, that's for sure.
But the question you have to ask yourself is "what is my motivation?" Some people just don't understand the explanation "because it's interesting". Some photographers learn this today, unfortunately, by photographing in public spaces and getting arrested.
So is this a humanitarian exercise or just naive curiosity? If the latter, you'll probably find yourself in uncomfortable territory somewhere down the line. Times we live in unfortunately. If you have some kind of quasi-conceptual drive, you could present them together with (and importantly) other found images. Then you've created a context for the images to exist and a way to justify, creatively, as author, your presentation of the pictures. Lots of photographers experiment in appropriating found images, some quite risqué, but they only get away with it as artists. It could get into 'One Hour Photo' territory if you don't have a creative excuse!
There are only two types of photographers today, in the eyes of others - sex offenders and artists.
Last edited by batwister; 02-16-2013 at 01:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Wow ... Deep thinking...I Just thought it would be good if the people could be reunited with their memories although it would be interesting to here the story behind them.
In the last sentence it sounds like you're referring to risqué images. If they were risqué I wouldn't want them in my house let alone scan them into my computer. (although I understand there are legitimate photographers working in "artistic nudes" and have been throughout.)
Unfortunately, I suspect batwister may be referring to the sort of attitudes that mean I keep my cameras out of sight when there are children of strangers around ... but that discussion is off at a tangent from the "found images" discussion ...