EU MEPs accept lonely Pirate's copyright report – and water it down The European Parliament’s legal committee on Tuesday approved a non-legislative and non-binding report by Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda by a majority of 23-2 - albeit with several substantial amendments. Reda's report examines the EU’s current copyright law, the so-called Infosec Directive from 2001. A new draft directive is …
"... photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them."
So if I make a film in London which includes aerial footage of well known buildings or shows a statue or another public work of art in the background, I have to get "prior authorisation" from the "author or any proxy" working for *every single one* of them? And, presumably, if I don't, they can then sue for breach of copyright when my film is distributed?
Wow, what a great fucking stupid idea!
I seem to recall there is an iconic set of steps with a railing down the centre somewhere in Paris that is forever appearing in films/adverts etc...and then there are all the images of the Love Lock Bridge....has anyone asked permission for this?
Was anyone aware they needed to?
I believe that anywhere in the UK, if you're doing commercial filming, you have to get the necessary permissions, etc. potentially agree security/police for filming, etc. depending on the size and inconvenience of your projectl and that includes commercial stills photography; legally; to the best of my limited knowledge.
> ... in the UK, if you're doing commercial filming, you have to get the necessary permissions ...
That's an entirely different and unrelated set of permissions - and the same is true in most places I expect. I've heard that in New York they actually have a whole local government department dedicated to dealing with film makers etc - ie dealing with the paperwork, arranging road closures, and so on (they see it as an important positive thing to have films and stuff made there). I suspect that in London they have a range of departments, none of them dedicated, but all of them doing their upmost to get in the way ! But I digress.
The difference is, if you want to (say) film along Oxford St, you need permits for that, permission to close the road, security, and so on. What you don't need is copyright permission from every shop with a frontage along there. The rule as written would mean that any single shop could refuse to allow you to include any image of their frontage - and sue you for copyright infringement if you did include an image.
As pointed out, an aerial shot of London would include one heck of a lot of landmarks - and you'd need permission from the owner of every one of them.
It would make things like this completely impractical regardless fo budget
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/21/bt_tower_360_panorama_london/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
