So if a celebrity wears a designer hat or jewelry and they own the copyright to it, they can sue the gossip magazines for publishing unauthorized photos taken in a public place (which would normally be fair game)? Could be fun to watch how that plays out in court!
UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
41–50 of 138 posts
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#42I think they're trying to curb websites like voga.com. The UK now is in a weird position in terms of copyright law of designer objects: basically a physical copy of say a designer chair is considered the same as a photo of it and so it can be mass produced without paying royalties to the designer's estate if they've been dead for more than 25 years (as opposed to 70).
Wouldn't it be better to rephrase the law making a distinction between unique (or small batch) works of art and works of design that are going to be mass produced?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#43Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time just to show it in the UK.
If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there.
While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#44Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time just to show it in the UK.
If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
That's the case for hollywood blockbusters. Not for the 80% of movies out there, especially pre-00s European and American cinema.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#45I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
How is this different from not being allowed to photograph the Eiffel tower at night, or having to abide by the terms of games, music or films you have purchased?
The reason being that it's a European directive (formulated 15 years ago) and member states are free to implement it. France, Belgium and Italy choose not to implement it.
That is why you see not that much pictures of the Atomium in Brussels online or on postcards. But I was under the impression that Belgium will implement it in the future as the situation is clearly ridiculous.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#46So if a celebrity wears a designer hat or jewelry and they own the copyright to it, they can sue the gossip magazines for publishing unauthorized photos taken in a public place (which would normally be fair game)? Could be fun to watch how that plays out in court!
In fact, any celebrity could design their own piece of jewellery, a badge even, then sue anyone who publishes it.
The mags would have to photoshop all their photos, I guess. Already do. But then I guess they might be sued for misrepresenting a person by photoshopping them without their permission? Check-mate?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic). The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of your Hirst.
So if I posted a picture on Facebook of my son playing with a Fisher Price telephone, then Fisher Price could contact me and order me to take it down? I'm assuming they couldn't sue for 'loss of earnings'? And if I run an unofficial Apple blog on which I do teardowns of Apple equipment then they could order me to remove any photos?
Yes, that's the spirit.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#48OK, seems like a storm in a teacup. The items covered by this ruling ('industrially exploited artistic works') are artistic items that have been reproduced more than 50 times. They are already under copyright for 25 years, but due to a judicial review based on EU law, that section has been repealed so they are now covered by the same copyright as 2D artistic works (such as paintings).
Therefore, it's not everything that I own, but only items that a court would consider to be a work of art. Since Apple would have a hard time convincing a court that their laptops are first and foremost works of art, this will have no effect on my ability to run a blog featuring photos of Apple laptops. However, if I wanted to sell a book featuring photos of Busk and Hertzog chairs, I would now need to wait for 70 years instead of 25.
IANAL, but I really don't think this is a big issue.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#49I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP. EDIT: Seems this is actually to align EU and UK law: > The repeal of s. 52 was brought in by statute - by section 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The rationale for the repeal was that UK law was incompatible with the EU following the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision in Flos v Semer…
>Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP.
I thought this ("writing to my congressman/MP") was an American thing.
In real life, does anybody actually expect them to pay attention, and not directly toss all these mails in the dustbin (or e-dustbin)?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.