Clarify: does this impact fashion, as in clothing, hair and so on? The Fashion industry treats their work as art. Can this be used to block fashion critics from using imagery in the criticism of an outfit, shoe, hair or makeup design?
UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
91–100 of 138 posts
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#92How do you determine whether an object you own requires a license to photograph? It sounds to me like you'd want every object you buy to come with an automatic license to make photos of it.
And of course you need to store all those licenses somewhere. What an awful overhead.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#93What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws are cooked. They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would be helpful.
The UK is bringing some copyright law in line with the EU, eg they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright, unlike what some museums like to tell you. This might be related, certainly design is more protected in eg France than in the UK, not sure though.
[citation-needed] - I have yet to see such abomination as mandated by EU. (OTOH, there's always the convenient excuse of "we don't like this either, but the Evil Union is forcing us to do this, we have no choice!!!")
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's coincidence then that Beats started appearing all over the place in movies and videoclips right around the time when Apple bought them (I remember searching for them when I became aware of their ubiquity and learning that Apple had just acquired them). Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
I've seen a few iMacs with the Apple logo covered in TV shows as well.
Most likely a case of "so, Apple, you don't want to pay the TV just a little bit of money for product placement? Oh well, out come the stickers." Follow the money.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#95No more photos of celebrities in designer clothing then. It would get too expensive for the rags to do it.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do pay, but they pay in hardware. They have dedicated staff to promote product placement and according to a Hollywood movie maker, "Apple won’t pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads, and iPhones". It is actually a very unethical practice if you think about it in monetary terms. Rather than paying the film company above the table like…
That's not any more unethical than Bacardi showing up at a bar and handing out Bacardi shirts for the staff and free rum to the patrons.
sure it is. the macbook thing would be more analogous to a bar where only one or two drinks were available to customers, and the owners of the bar delegate the decision of which drinks to their bartenders, and bacardi promises tons of perks to the bartenders if bacardi rum is the only beverage available.
I don't think it's actually a bad thing, but your analogy was weak. In your scenario, Apple gets much, much more of a benefit than bacardi would, and the bartenders get much less of a perk than the set dressers would.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive copyright extensions. Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
But when you can request a copy of a cctv video, does that not become publishing? Seems very wooly to me.
I would imagine not, any more than showing your family photos to a neighbor would count as publishing them.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive copyright extensions. Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
But when you can request a copy of a cctv video, does that not become publishing? Seems very wooly to me.
Presumably any sort of judicial order or action overrides copyright. You can't get out of a mug shot if you're arrested because you happen to be wearing an Armani shirt.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#99There was a recent HN thread on the world's highest-grossing photographer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889. Would this impact Prince's business model?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#100Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?