Photography and Cinematography Rules
Photography and Cinematography Rules
Is photography and cinematography of the interior parts and waiting areas in railway station, bus station and airport allowed in Europe and Asia?
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.
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
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".
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".
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
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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
!