Taking an artsy selfie in Stockholm? You might need to pay royalities The Supreme Court of Sweden has ruled the local Wikimedia chapter must have explicit consent from artists, some of whom may choose to be anonymous, as part of its project to take photographs showcasing the country's public street art. Sweden-based artist copyright organisation the Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige filed a …
What absolute insanity. If you place something in a public space, it is public. That should be the end of that debate. Otherwise the act of displaying an artwork actually erodes the use of public space.
If this decision sticks, I would suggest to all public bodies in Sweden that there should be a waiver agreed with artists before their artworks are displayed in public.
you really think it is correct that a newspaper or image or book on a news stand is no longer protected because it's in a public place? or a painting or photo that the artist has displayed in public? or source code?
the creator owns the rights, congratulations to the court for upholding those rights
minor/partial inclusion of a work visible in public is not the same as deliberate duplication for the sole purpose of distributing it for gain (of any kind), which is what wikimedia wants to do
wikimedia being non-profit does not mean it has the right to strip creator's of their rights in their own works
Harry the Bastard claimed
"you really think it is correct that a newspaper or image or book on a news stand is no longer protected because it's in a public place? or a painting or photo that the artist has displayed in public? or source code?"
Charlie Clark claimed:
"When photographing people in public you have to consider both their moral right to their own image as well as any potential copyright issues.... Personally, on the rare occasion that I have photographed any street performers I've always given them money and I'm a skinflint."
TFA stated
"a permanent public place"
--------
Charlie Clark also said, which actually involved the article's content:
"Similar considerations apply to objects which is why in most countries photoshoots or filming require permission from the local authorities: the Eiffel Tower is perhaps the most famous example."
I think in these cases local authorities restrict permission for commercial filming (realistically because they can charge for it, and to protect the city's image), but non-commercial filming is a free-for-all, more or less. Or is every one of the selfies in front of the Eiffel Tower on Facebook a copyright infringement?
I think in these cases local authorities restrict permission for commercial filming (realistically because they can charge for it, and to protect the city's image)
No, at least in the UK, they are acting "for the public": they are they default copyright holders. Other countries see this differently.
but non-commercial filming is a free-for-all, more or less. Or is every one of the selfies in front of the Eiffel Tower on Facebook a copyright infringement?
The photographers probably aren't but the society that protects the rights of the Eiffel Tower is notorious for searching for and charging for images of the Tower and I would expect any such photo that gained notoriety to be followed by a demand for royalties. It's happened before.
Not sure what happens to all the pictures out of copyright in the various museums and art galleries but I think there are similar rules.
>No, at least in the UK, they are acting "for the public": they are they default copyright holders.
Poppycock. They aren't passing on anything to any artists. They're copping the money because they can (it would be a pity if a policeman interrupted your photoshoot and required you to move on.)
"but non-commercial filming is a free-for-all, more or less. Or is every one of the selfies in front of the Eiffel Tower on Facebook a copyright infringement?"
Wikipedia doesn't use 'non-commerical' copyright though - all (or most) images there are "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike". They won't accept 'not for commerical use' restrictions on their images as they sometimes do charge for their content (ie DVDs etc).
So by extention any company could use images from their site for commerical purposes as long as they give attribution - Virgin Mobile Australia used Flickr CC images on bus adverts a few years ago - which is why so far I've resisted requests to use my photos in articles.
"The photographers probably aren't but the society that protects the rights of the Eiffel Tower is notorious for searching for and charging for images of the Tower and I would expect any such photo that gained notoriety to be followed by a demand for royalties. It's happened before."
I wonder what IP they are protecting and who owns it? The Tower is over 100 years old and Eiffel died in 1923. Surely there can't be a copyright in any image taken of it even by modern super-long copyright durations.
"Not sure what happens to all the pictures out of copyright in the various museums and art galleries but I think there are similar rules."
They are out of copyright and free to reproduce. Getting access to them in private or publicly owned institutions who can implement their own rules on photography is another matter though.
>you really think it is correct that a newspaper or image or book on a news stand is no longer protected because it's in a public place?
Swedish law has an explicit exemption for postcard and guidebook printers. They don't need to pay a fee to artists, or ask for permission.
So the only difference here is that the information is in a digital catalogue on a website.
You might have a point if the law was consistent, but in this case it's simply unfairly prejudiced against not-for-profit Internet content.
Swedish law has an explicit exemption for postcard and guidebook printers. They don't need to pay a fee to artists, or ask for permission.
So, all Wikimedia have to do is to claim that their collection of images provides the same service as a guidebook?
I know a lot of people use Wikipedia/media to research holiday destinations, so it's not entirely unreasonable.
So, all Wikimedia have to do is to claim that their collection of images provides the same service as a guidebook?
I know a lot of people use Wikipedia/media to research holiday destinations, so it's not entirely unreasonable.
I think you've touched on the big problem with all this. If no photographs of a given town or area that is dependent on tourism are permitted (with or with out a fee), then tourism will dry up. This seems to be more about revenue generation than licensing and compensating the artists.
You are so wrong that I'll bother replying 5 hours later.
you really think it is correct that a newspaper or image or book on a news stand is no longer protected because it's in a public place?
Those things may be made available in a public place, but that doesn't constitute a public display or performance of their contents. If you were to blow up all the pages of those magazines to poster size, and display them in public, then you might be in comparable territory.
the creator owns the rights, congratulations to the court for upholding those rights
This is simply not automatically the case. What rights you have to something you create depends on what you do with it, and what the relevant laws are. For example, if you give a public presentation on an invention, or publish a paper on it in a journal, then in most countries you forfeit the right to patent that invention (I believe in the USA you have a limited time window after public disclosure before you forfeit your right to file a patent), and anyone can use what you published to build and sell their own version of your invention.
In this case, where you have artworks displayed in public, where passers-by basically can't avoid seeing them, and people taking photos in the area will likely catch them in shot whether they want to or not, it is very hard to argue that the artists should be paid for photos taken in those places, unless you want to also argue that passers-by should pay royalties for walking past the artworks and enjoying the ambience. If you want to be paid for displaying your artwork, put it in a gallery and charge admission. I suspect this ruling will be overturned sooner or later.
What absolute insanity. If you place something in a public space, it is public.
Nonsense. This is the same kind of tautology that turns "something the public is interested in" into "the public interest".
When photographing people in public you have to consider both their moral right to their own image as well as any potential copyright issues. Similar considerations apply to objects which is why in most countries photoshoots or filming require permission from the local authorities: the Eiffel Tower is perhaps the most famous example.
Personally, on the rare occasion that I have photographed any street performers I've always given them money and I'm a skinflint.
>Similar considerations apply to objects which is why in most countries photoshoots or filming require permission from the local authorities
This has got absolutely nothing to do with copyright (in the UK, at least). Local authorities charge because they can - on the pretext of providing policing. No-one owns the beam of light that bounces off a piece of public art. If I can capture it in a camera, it's mine.
(I speak as a one-time location manager, who negotiated many photoshoots.)
"If this decision sticks, I would suggest to all public bodies in Sweden that there should be a waiver agreed with artists before their artworks are displayed in public."
Naturally, because it is the inescapable obligation of every democracy to immediately amend their laws and behaviour whenever some whiny foreigner finds them inconvenient, regardless of whether their citizens are happy with the status quo.
Alternatively, everyone who isn't a Swedish voter and/or taxpayer could f**k right off and find something useful to agitate about, but how likely is that to happen?
This post has been deleted by its author
Oh dear, misrepresenting the story in the subhead agin.
If we believe all the other news organisations reported, what the court said was that copying a whole load of works on display to the public into a large collection and then making that collection free for unlimited reuse wasn't allowed.
Nothing about a one-off selfie for personal use.
*"...Have an upvote..."*
...and one from me too.
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling –I don't. But the headline is pure click-bait.
The ruling stated that, taken as a whole, the database of the public artworks had commercial value, therefore royaltiies were due to the creators of said artworks.
And before anyone says *"Ah. But Wikipedia made it freely available, so was of no commercial value"*, I refer you to several previous El Reg articles on how much money the Wikipedia Foundation has in its coffers, and also present as Exhibit B, Jimmy Wales's regular collection tin rattling appearances on said site.
Again, to re-iterate, I disagree with the decision. I think it's ludicrous. But it's still ludicrous, even without the added click-bait!
"copying a whole load of works on display to the public into a large collection and then making that collection free"
What actual difference does that make. If I am an artist who has sold "statue of peas" to the local government to display in the street and lots of people take a picture of it or even put it on tourist websites or local hotel websites - why is that fine, but someone who bundles it with other artwork with which I am not associated is not fine?
As a single artist (who owns the copyright) why is the latter case worse?
The council, being a *public* body, just like any public body acts on behalf of, is funded by and exists solely at the behest of 'the people'.
Commercial use therefore is charged generally on the basis that a private business entity should not profit unfairly from the effort of the people expended for the benefit of the collective people.
Non-commercial use, of which the copyright laws generally cover with something equivalent to public domain categorisation, is normally given freely and by default because it is in a public space, i.e. a space belonging to the public - belonging to the people. If an artist has seen fit to have his work permanently placed within the public space, the space for the public, then that is exactly what they have - artwork in public for the public.
How many people that walk by the installation everyday see the work for free? Where is the difference when seeing it online? It is still seen for free in the public space, by the public.
Take an example: A man lives in a building beside a public square. As was puzzlingly popular sometime ago this fellow takes a picture of the same view out of his window every day and adds the still image to a video which is posted to, for example, YouTube (in this scenario the video never generates revenue). After sometime an artist paints one of the walls of the square that is within view of the photographers window. The man has not changed his actions he is still taking a picture of a publicly accessible, owned and funded space. The artist has imposed their art into the space either based on their artistic opinion or at the behest of a public body.
If the photographer continues without change who is at fault that the artwork is now in his YouTube video? The artist, the photographer, the public body or the public? If it is any of the latter three then if the photographer is charged it will effectively be the public charging the public to use a space already paid for by the public - which sounds pretty silly to me. If the fault lies with the former then would we have the artist remunerate the photographer? That would sound equally silly!
Corollary: This would only apply to fully public and permanent works and depend on the country's legal definition of 'non-commercial'
How many people that walk by the installation everyday see the work for free? Where is the difference when seeing it online? It is still seen for free in the public space, by the public.
Big difference: first of all definitions of non-commercial are specific to each country. Wikimedia is a US not-for-profit but this definition applies solely within the US.
A better example would be a lot simpler: something appears on television or in a newspaper article. Journalists normally have an exemption from royalties. Otherwise, you can expect to pay.
By that logic (database storing etc.) if I happened to be a keen photographer and took lots of pictures of Swedish public artworks....
If I then published them (e.g. Image host sites such as Flickr, etc) with appropriate creative commons licences, tagged / described them in some way so easy to search then, I would have essentially created a searchable database (of my snapshots) of public arts free to reuse, so could fall foul of the same dubious interpretation.
Well, actually it is a bit ...
Try the Sons of the Desert, they are organised in tents.
Google, via their iniquitous Street View service, have published pictures of the front of my house and garden for all the world to see. My choice of curtains and their arrangement, the angle at which I park my car on the drive, the shape into which I prune the small tree, my choice of which weeds to kill and which to allow to grow - my entire artistic creation published with no thought to my intellectual and artistic property rights.
If this carries on, I shall cover the entire front of my property in tarpaulin and only allow people in to see it if they pay me a dodecaquid, or perhaps a thrup'ny bit; I need to consider the pricing model.
This post has been deleted by its author
" If this carries on, I shall cover the entire front of my property in tarpaulin and only
allow people in to see it if they pay me a dodecaquid, or perhaps a thrup'ny bit; I
need to consider the pricing model. "
Surely you would want to go for a nicely shaped chunk of money, so wouldn't a dodecahexaquid be the regular choice?
So what happens if somebody draws a picture of a artwork and publishes it?
For that matter, photographs of an artwork are the creation of the photographers... so what if they sue the owners of the original artworks that sued them for violating their copyrights?
This could just keep getting sillier and sillier.
*"...So what happens if somebody draws a picture of a artwork and publishes it?..."*
Interestingly, I ran into this only a couple of day ago. I submitted, to one of those print-on-demand sites, a T-shirt design which featured some cartoon minis inside a circle of stars [it was meant to be an "hilarious" visual pun on The Italian Job and Brexiters wanting to "escape" from Europe!].
The POD company in question banned the designs on the grounds of Trademark Violaion.
When I pursued it with their "Legal Department" I was told that I was violating BMW's trademark on "Likenesses of the Mini" even though, as I pointed out to Spreadshirt [for, lo. T'was they] the design did not feature any Mini branding or logos and that, in any case, this kind of derivative 'parody / pastiche' artwork is protected under EU Law:
http://copyrightuser.org/topics/parody-and-pastiche
So, yes. It does seem that, according to some [alleged!] legal experts, you are breaking the law, even by drawing a picture of something that someone else has created.
It's probably best if, in future, artists out there just stick to bowls of fruit and landscapes. Just to be on the safe side.
Incidentally, aforementioned design is here. If you want to marvel t the flagrant abuse of BMW's trademark:
*"...I like the t-shirt design, btw..."*
Thanks! Still available on CafePress. Although, they don't do quite the right shade of blue –and I've heard their print quality is sometimes not the best.
*"...I wouldn't be surprised (can't be bothered to check) if you found that reproduction of the EU stars logo was prohibited too!.."*
AFAIK* you can't trademark or copyright a national [or in this case pan-national] flag.
*[Of course, as with most people my "As far as I know" thoughts are formed from a mixture of half-remembered things I've read, combined with a vague assumption that laws are based in logic. As I am increasingly coming to realise, it is the second of those notions which is the weaker, here].
Does google pay the fee for streetview images?
I'm sorry but if you put something in public for public display then some copyright company (as the article states some artists are anonymous so they probably don't pay them all) tries to extort money then they should be told to <insert expletive> right off. Having said that if they do represent some of the artists and photo's are taken of the art and displayed in a gallery where customers are charged to view them then payment is due.
Let's not confuse this with something copyrighted shown in a public space, if these public displays are to be classed as copyright then by all means that is fine and they should be forced to add a plague stating this to avoid any confusion.
I think the determining factor should be one of exploitation.
If you're a tourist and take snapshot which happens to include a statue that's ok - even if you post it to Facebook etc.
But if someone takes a photo which is then uploaded for use by a web-site that uses that image for their own gain (such as on the wiki site) - even if there is no monetary gain - then that's exploiting someone else's work and that's not ok without their express permission.
"that's ok - even if you post it to Facebook etc. But if someone takes a photo which is then uploaded for use by a web-site that uses that image for their own gain - even if there is no monetary gain - then that's exploiting someone else's work and that's not ok without their express permission."
Maybe you should have given this some more thought.
Firstly, what's the difference between posting to Facebook and uploading to a wiki? Where does a blog come in this hierarchy? Or Pinterest?
Secondly if we followed your wiki argument then it becomes possible to block photography of any scene by putting something that might be considered an artwork in it. This is made even more problematic on two grounds. One is that any building will be copyright of its architect originally - although that might have been assigned to the owner. The other is, buildings aside, how do you identify an artwork? Is that pallet of bricks plonked there for for the builders or was it intended as an artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_VIII ?
As the world gets smaller through the sharing of information, there are those who seek to take us back to medieval times where what you learned was either from your local cleric ( who usually only learned what he'd been taught in the seminary ) or word of mouth, "My brother, knew a bloke, who knew a women, who knew a bloke, who's uncle say he thinks he once saw a 4 headed, 2 bodied horse!!!".
So no more photos of public art from Sweden, which loony government wants to put up another law designed to stop us learning anything about other cultures and locations?
> which loony government wants to put up another law designed to stop us learning anything about other cultures and locations? <
Erm, that one in the Middle East that doesn't like Art very much?
Banning public artwork /would/ seem to be the logical conclusion after all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
