Some legal stuff about images of buildings

I'd like to draw your attention to the following links. Please feel free to pass these on to others who might be interested:

Wikipedia note

Signpost Article

..in the Telegraph;

..in the Guardian;

It concerns a potential (and even likely) change to EU law as regards use of photographs which feature buildings and public art. All of us are interested in the architecture of Chester and in one possible form this law would appear to severely restrict what could be shown in various media. This is of particular relevance to business and tourism related websites. The proposed law is still at an early stage - with the MEP's rather than the Commission - but now is the time to write to MEP's and get it stopped.

In the worst case under the proposed new law, if a "public realm" image of a "modern" building (or sculpture) is shown on a "commercial" web-page then a licence fee may have to be paid to the architect (or other owner of the copyright) as this is a "derivative work" (that is similar to the current, and frequently flouted, law in Italy, for example). I picked this up on Wikipedia, who appear quite concerned that it may mean that they will have to remove "thousands" of images.

It appears that the proposed law does not apply to "non-commercial use", but the legal definition of "non-commercial" is not that clear. For example, is a site promoting tourism commercial? I consider my own pages to be "non-commercial" at least to the extent that Wikpedia is, but there are many "commercial" websites about Chester that feature images of "modern" buildings. But what if you enter a photography competition with a cash prize - or upload your image to "Wordpress", "Blogger", "Facebook" or "Geograph"?

As a reminder, the term of copyright in the UK is:


 * if the author is unknown, the copyright period ends 70 years after the making of the work; or, if during that period the work is communicated to the public, 70 years after that date.
 * if the author of the work is identifiable, copyright in the work expires 70 years after the death of the author.

To give an example, Maxwell Ayrton, who designed St Werbergh's Row around 1935, died in 1960, so his copyright as regards "derivative works" expires in 2030. So, if you want to show a pretty picture of Maxwell's building to attract business, including tourism, (or show how one of the pillars is sinking into an old sand-pit) then you might need to get permission and acknowledge the copyright owner - who might want a fee. I believe in the worst case, this law would be bad for many business interests, especially in such an attractive a place as Chester.

I can see its fair and reasonable to stop someone from photographing modern art and selling prints without paying the artist a penny, but stopping people photographing Charles Greenwood's Dee Suspension Bridge (1923) is a bridge too far. In fact, it seems he did live long enough - in 1945 he proposed knocking down the old market hall. Even if he died on the spot that would mean for at least part of 2015 the copyright would not have the "Section 62" exemption. Just imagine the complications of having to find out who owns any subsisting copyright in Greenwood's Bridge before publishing a photograph.

There are exceptions in the current law (current law): at present news reporting is "fair use" and does not infringe copyright in any work (provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has been made available to the public). Think how much more difficult a press photographer's life would be if he didn't have the benefit of the "Freedom of Panorama" and had to go and track down the architect/copyright owner of every building/sculpture in the background which seems less than about 150 years old (or take his shots from weird angles)! This law will make news reporting slow and difficult.

The EU proposal comes from a wish to harmonise laws. In France, it is illegal to publish a photograph of the Eiffel Tower by night since the tower’s illuminations added in 2003 retain copyright, even though the copyright for the structure itself, built in 1889, has long since expired. Daytime photographs are acceptable, but prior permission must be obtained from operating company (Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE)), which owns the rights, for lit-up images. Belgian law is similar - Wikipedia's page for the Atomium building in Belgium, for example, is illustrated by a silhouetted shot of the building, due to copyright restrictions.

I am not anti-copyright or anti-IP, but these things need a resonable balance*.

Obviously, this is merely a notification and should not be considered, or relied upon, as legal advice in any way.

Regards

Peter


 * for example, there are some who would restrict use of copyright works to a format - and make it illegal to upload your old record/tape collection onto an iPod.