Copyright Aid Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in   Main siteC A Main Site 

Photography and Cinematography Rules

 
   Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:39 pm    Post subject: Photography and Cinematography Rules Reply with quote

Is photography and cinematography of the interior parts and waiting areas in railway station, bus station and airport allowed in Europe and Asia?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1561

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,

The short answer is I have no idea.

The slightly longer answer is that you would need to look at each country, airport by airport, bus station by bus station etc, to get the answer. Many of these places will be privately owned, even though they may be accessible by the public, and so local rules may well apply based on the whims of the owners. Also many such places will have special rules in place to prevent terrorist attacks. which may well include no photography rules. But of course, none of that is the result of copyright laws.

The only copyright aspect to your question is how works of architecture are protected in the various jurisdictions. This is sometimes referred to as the Freedom of Panorama, which I touched on in another thread recently. If you wanted to take photographs or video footage for purely personal use (as a memento of a holiday, for instance) that would be fine even in countries with relatively tight rules on the copyright in architecture. But anything which was intended for commercial use would require permission in those countries such as France and Italy were there is no Freedom of Panorama. Check the map in the thread I linked to above. Of course the copyright protection of architecture would only apply to buildings where the architect was either still alive or had only died within the last 69 years. Perhaps some nineteenth century railway stations might fall outside this category.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the clarification.

One more question. Is "incidental inclusion" recognized in every country? If I shoot a wide angle photograph or footage with no art works as the motif but just small parts, will this be OK? United Arab Emirates have no freedom of panorama, while stock footage recording its architectures is selling on various websites( e.g. http://bit.ly/1pAzFtu ). Is this kind of footage published under the claim of "incidental inclusion"? I'm having problem understanding the applied range of these two terms, "incidental inclusion" and "freedom of panorama".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1561

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,

Incidental inclusion is not a widely held concept. It can be found in the laws of countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India (to name just some) whose copyright law has historically been derived from British law.

Countries of the European Union may adopt it as one of the exceptions permitted under the Information Society Directive*, and the USA embodies the general idea within its Fair Use doctrine.

But none of the major international treaties such as the Berne Convention or the World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, include anything about the subject.

And of course, even where such a concept is embodied within the law of a country, there will be variations in how much or how little incidental inclusion is permissible. For example in the UK, there was a notable case some years ago involving photographs of football players which were taken for use on collectable stickers to be bought by fans, where it was held that copyright in the logo of the Football Association on the players' shirts had been infringed and was not covered by the incidental inclusion exception. The court took the view that, since the purpose of the stickers was to record the players as members of their respective teams (as opposed to as individuals who happened to play football for a living), inclusion of the FA badge was necessary, and thus could not be 'incidental'.




* see Article 5(3)(i) of the Directive
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

If I bought a footage that includes the architecture or art work of a country that neither have FOP nor accept incidental inclusion, and incorporate the footage into a video published on online, will there be bad results?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1561

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's difficult to answer such a broad question. Subjects like incidental inclusion, and indeed the wider topic of fair dealing, are generally judged on the specific facts of the case.

However if you intended to publish your video which contained scenes obtained from another source in the UK, you could rely on the provisions of the UK law, rather than that of the country were the footage was shot.

If this is to be a serious commercial venture, you should really get proper legal advice based on the actual material and how you want to use it.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

Thank you again for the advice and guidance. I'm so grateful for your help. This field is alien to me. I've read some materials and copyright laws, but fail to connect and understand them fully. Your replies make my mind clearer.

But there's still one thing I'm unsure about that is the three-dimensional depiction of buildings. I noticed some countries' copyright laws have explicit restrictions on three-dimensional use of the reproduction of architecture, while many countries haven't mention about this. Say, I photographed a copyrighted building in a country that provide FOP, can I put the building in three-dimensional depiction?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1561

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,

The Freedom of Panorama doctrine is intended to deal with the practical problem of, say, making a film in a city where it is inevitable that the architecture will be 'copied' on film, but where it just isn't practical to obtain permission for every single building. It is acknowledging that a building effectively becomes an inseparable part of the landscape.

However making a three dimensional copy, say in the form of a model, of a building is entirely different. That is then deliberately copying for the sake of copying, not because it is impossible to avoid copying as would be the case with taking a photograph or making a film.

So on that basis, making a three dimensional copy of a building which was protected as a copyright work, without permission, would infringe that copyright, unless one of the fair dealing exceptions (private study, research, criticism or review, news reporting, quotation or parody) could be used as a justification.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

The answer is clear and easy to understand as always, thank you again Smile !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
 

You must be logged in to post  Log inLog in
Want to join in? New members are always welcome  RegisterRegister & join the discussion

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group