What's Behind The Attack On EU's Outdoor Photography? The Usual Copyright Maximalism And Anti-Americanism

from the civilization-in-peril dept

Thu, Jul 2nd 2015 1:16am — Glyn Moody

Last week, Tim Cushing explained that one of the bad outcomes of the recent European Parliament committee vote on Julia Reda's copyright reform report was that it recommended limiting freedom of panorama -- the ability to take pictures and make videos of public objects -- to non-commercial use. As Techdirt readers know, in the digital age, it is very hard to draw a clear distinction between commercial and non-commercial contexts online, which makes any kind of limitation to non-commercial use problematic. The person responsible for introducing the amendment to Reda's report, Jean-Marie Cavada, has written a blog post about the freedom of panorama issue (original in French), and it gives us some interesting insights into his thinking here:

The fight which is being led today by Ms. Reda, in the guise of defending free access to the works that are in the public domain [public objects] on behalf of users, is actually one conducted above all to allow US monopolies such as Facebook, or Wikimedia, to avoid the payment of fees to the creators.

Yes, it's all about those evil American companies again, refusing to pay when somebody dares to post a holiday picture on their Facebook page. Because, as the copyright maximalists keep on reminding us, every single use of every single owned object must be licensed every single time, otherwise civilization -- specifically European civilization -- will come crashing down.

But whatever people might think about Facebook, it's hard to see Wikipedia/Wikimedia as a "US monopoly" avoiding payment, as Cavada calls it. Indeed, Cavada goes on to contradict himself, writing:

this structure is well aware that the use of works on Wikimedia pages is not questioned by the authors, even in countries where there is no [freedom of] panorama exception.

Well, if it's not questioned, why is he using Wikipedia as an example of an evil "US monopoly" that wants to avoid paying licensing fees? Or does he mean that authors don't have a problem with Wikipedia using photos of landscapes with their works visible provided they are paid? Which of course ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a company, and can't afford to pay licensing fees. Or, there again, is he perhaps advocating that Wikipedia just ignore the law, and use the pictures anyway?

Altogether, this confused post is a perfect demonstration of why people who don't understand a technology should not be allowed to make laws about it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-americanism, copyright, eu, france, freedom of panorama, jean-marie cavada, julia reda, outdoors, photography
Companies: facebook, wikipedia

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:40am

is actually one conducted above all to allow US monopolies such as Facebook, or Wikimedia, to avoid the payment of fees to the creators.

But, but but... I thought architects were paid to design buildings, and artists were paid to produce public sculptures, and murals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:52am

This is what happens when you bruteforce the idea of an "IP-intensive economy" and export it all over the world.

And for the usual idiots who would like to insist this is another anomaly, the fact that your politicians are regularly escalating their efforts is a sign that "anomalies" like these have already become the norm - a norm of complete, utter IP stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nomad of Norad, 2 Jul 2015 @ 2:10am

Ugh,,,,,
The unfortunate thing is, apparently, too many people in positions of power seem to think that the primary purpose behind copyright is to monetize everything. This is why you get damnfool policies like this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:21am

Re:
But, but but... I thought architects were paid to design buildings, and artists were paid to produce public sculptures, and murals.

Who is talking about the "artists"? They won't get to see a dime here. To be paid, they would need to be under contract with some publishing association, and those hand out only exclusive contracts prohibiting the "artists" from making any deals themselves: they just get their share after "expenses and processing" have been skimmed off.

So the copyright mob will usually cash in on such stuff and use it for bonuses for their managers and contracted slaves.

The "artist" does not have a reasonable chance to get any of that unless he bows to their conditions and lets them have a share of everything he produces.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:54am

The artist is paid when they create. An architect is paid when they create. And architect/artist does not get residual income from viewings of what they created unless they have complete control over the creation (art gallery owned by artist.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:55am

Re: Re:
You are missing the point entirely. Architects are paid to create designs, and artists are funded to produce public works of art. There has never been any expectation of royalties on these paid for works.
The EU is trying to create a new right with no clear idea of who will benefit or how 'royalties' will be collected. If this goes through they are effectively banning photography because the next thing will be demand for royalties for carpets, curtains, wallpaper, images and product captured in photographs taken on and in private premises.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Pooh, 2 Jul 2015 @ 4:09am

Next thing we will have gorillas claiming copyright for selfies..
The EU is insane
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 4:53am

Re: Ugh,,,,,
That. Eventually they will be replaced by saner people. I hope. But really, if we want to see the IP system being derailed it's just a matter of applying the strict letter of the law with no mercy. The damages will be so great that people will sit down to discuss actually fixing the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 5:01am

Anti-Americanism
Seriously? Terrorists are not enough, now you think Europeans hate your Freedoms too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Klaus, 2 Jul 2015 @ 5:24am

Jean-Marie Cavada
He looks like someone who kicks puppies. Browse his name on Google.co.uk and you get the following:

"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more..."

I wonder what he's been up to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 5:39am

Re: Re: Re:
It is usually illegal to take pictures on museums. This is a stretch from that idea. And I mean a serious stretch.

Looking at sir Cavadas position it seems clear that he is very heavily into some of the non-sense part of the anti-american rhetorics among the lobbyists. These lobbyists seems to be able to subdue a computer-illiterate french "liberal in name only".

I am amazed that he doesn't see the logical stretches he is making here. They are terrifying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank Black, 2 Jul 2015 @ 5:58am

The EU has a fascism problem.. again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:09am

Feud
There has been a long running feud between Wikipedia and the EU. Wikipedia refuses to license works that are not subject to copyright in the US. But because the works are subject to copyright and license in the EU, the EU thinks Wikipedia must pay for them. This is just another shot in the bigger battle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zem, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:15am

Pro tip to the EU, from an architect. we LOVE IT when people take pictures of our buildings and share them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Architects are paid royalties for their designs. A friend found out the hard way. His custom-built home turned out to be a minor variation on an existing design. He was sued over it and had to pay a royalty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:24am

Oh the irony of "blaming anti-americanism" while pointing out that America is the worst offender of "people who don't understand a technology should not be allowed to make laws about it".

Hilarious article.

Cue namecalling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Edward Teach, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:45am

Don't be an idiot.
It is usually illegal to take pictures on museums.

No. Not in the USA. That's the exception, rather than the rule. Some places don't allow flash pictures, because they believe that the intense light causes art to fade, but other than that, you're wrong, especially in art museums.

I have noticed copyright exceptions in some other museums, but that's usually the text or video or whatever surrounding the exhibit, not the dinosaur skeletons or whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:48am

Unintended consequence
Tourbooks are going to go under, since they are going to get killed in 'license fees' for all the points of interest they display and suggest people go visit.

Someone needs to publish a 'tour book' of all the famous places, and photoshop out the key monuments, and show them what the world they want would look like.

Paris without the Eiffel Tower. Rome without the Colluseum. Piza without the Leaning Tower. There are thousands of others which could be virtually erased from knowledge within a generation, absolutely killing tourism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 7:12am

Translate
Usual Steal-Everything maximalism, and interestinly that insanity came from U.S.A. You must pay if You see, hear or feel anything...
Thanks a lot=(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 7:56am

Re:
Oh the irony of "blaming anti-americanism" while pointing out that America is the worst offender of "people who don't understand a technology should not be allowed to make laws about it".

That makes no sense. What does one have to do with the other? You're saying we should only mention anti-Americanism if the US doesn't also do another unrelated thing that the anti-Americanists are doing? Totally illogical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:09am

Re:
Hmm, what's the problem with that? One point doesn't invalidate another. And let's consider that while IP maximalism has its greatest drivers in the US media the tech companies mentioned are actually calling for a more balanced system. Besides, there's no EU equivalent to these companies. If Youtube was European would they be hammering it that hard? I'd point that it's more IP maximalism than anti-americanism and it's just a "successful companies must pay me because reasons" that happens to have American companies at its focus right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:11am

Re: Unintended consequence
That's what I hope. For panoramas to stop 'existing'. In a few years we'd see how good this copyright insanity is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chrislaarman (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:53am

lawmakers
"Altogether, this confused post is a perfect demonstration of why people who don't understand a technology should not be allowed to make laws about it."

It's up to the voters to elect lawmakers. It's up to the lawmakers to familiarize themselves with the topics that happen to be assigned to them in their fraction. Fractions in the European Parliament are based on ideology, not on nationality.

Here is Mr. Cavada:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28206/JEAN-MARIE_CAVADA_home.html

(Yes, notice the capitals in the URL.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:53am

Re: Re:
...I'd point that it's more IP maximalism than anti-americanism and it's just a "successful companies must pay me because reasons" that happens to have American companies at its focus right now...

I want to vote this insightful but NoScript has started blocking all the buttons. It never did that until the last update a few days ago. Guess I'll have to play with the settings to see what service these buttons are on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: Re:
I want to vote this insightful but NoScript has started blocking all the buttons.

You have to allow techdirt.com for the buttons to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 2 Jul 2015 @ 9:03am

Re:
But this time, the U.S. started it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Mouse, 2 Jul 2015 @ 9:32am

You took two letters from the article and formulated your entire response around them. Anti-Americanism? Gimme a break.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 10:05am

Re: lawmakers
But it's NOT up to voters. The parties make damn good and sure that our choices are between someone who'll make things worse, and someone who'll make things even MORE worse. In places where there are more candidates, then your other choices are someone who's so bad they make the major candidates look good. Seriously, your choices are between two corporate douchebags and a neo-nazi who promises WW3 if he's voted in. Just look at the choices and tell me it's the VOTERS' fault!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isabel Gancedo, 2 Jul 2015 @ 10:25am

Re: lawmakers
Sorry, I'm not a fan of Mr Cavada, but he is not the one responsible for having his name in capitals in the URL. It is just the normal method for constructing the links to the pages of all MEPs on the European Parliament's site.

Even Pirate Reda has her name all in capitals http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124816/JULIA_REDA_home.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 10:41am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 5:01am
It's pretty obvious that a lot of people in Europe get butt hurt over the US for a variety of reasons.

In this case, it's a complete lack of common sense, being justified by playing into popular anti-US sentiment.

And if you really think it's not a Freedom issue to ban pictures of large, open public spaces, then you're taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: lawmakers
Then everyone needs to vote for Mickey Mouse. Eventually someone will figure out there is a problem when the "winner" only gets a few percent of the vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:37pm

Re: Don't be an idiot.
"they believe that the intense light causes art to fade"

There are beliefs, and then there is science:
http://conservationresearch.blogspot.com/2010/04/article-measurement-of-light.html

Not the thrust of your argument, I know. I'm just clarifying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:39pm

Re:
It's also important to point fingers.

The country MOST responsible for pushing IP maximalism in trade treaties is no other than the USA.

Does it ever come back to haunt us? Yes, this is a case in point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
"it's just a "successful companies must pay me because reasons" that happens to have American companies at its focus right now."

Your right about the cash grab on the successful companies, but you're wrong that it's not anti-American.

EU leaders are tired of US companies winning so many markets. They want more local winners, and impeding the foreign players is a move from the same old playbook that brought us tariffs, quotas, or other trade barriers.

Even if it's not done out of a negative feeling towards the USA, its certainly the case that EU leaders are unlikely to suffer a political price for "taxing" big US companies. This is like a city's government raising "occupancy taxes" on hotel rooms -- it's easy to screw the people who can't vote you out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Fudge. Did the "Your" wrong. Doesn't singer Midge Ure own the rights to that word anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Don't be an idiot.
"they believe that the intense light causes art to fade"

There are beliefs, and then there is science:

I didn't read the study but to be fair that's definitely a better safe than sorry situation as there's little harm in banning flashes but if they do cause damage it could be irreparable damage to irreplaceable artifacts. I imagine restrictions will continue until it's clearly demonstrated there is no risk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re: lawmakers
Two problems with that: 1 - most modern electronic voting booths don't have a provision for write ins (in fact, many states don't allow write ins of any sort no matter how you vote), and 2 - a winner with 2% of the vote will claim a "landslide victory giving him a mandate" because he had (let's say) 60% of the votes cast for someone on the ballot.

I voted third party the last 20 years just as a form of "none of the above", and it just doesn't work. Given that even third parties are becoming rare, I've just given up voting altogether. I don't vote, and encourage others not to as well until such time as real choices are presented. You all vote for crap, don't come crying to me about being crapped on. I didn't vote for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:39pm

Re:
Moody is not American, he's British. Nice try; also nice demonstration of your own anti-Americanism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2015 @ 12:00pm

'Cause terrorism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2015 @ 7:11am

Re: Re: Re:
It is their version of Obama's, You didn't build that. Just another attempt to redistribute the wealth, par for the course in Europe. Coming to America soon if we don't get rid of the Democratic control of the WH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BobC, 8 Jul 2015 @ 10:55am

Re: Unintended consequence
Who owns a copyright on the Eiffel Tower, the Leaning Tower if Pisa, or the Roman Colosseum, etc.? Even under the draconian US copyright law (where a copyright can exist for over 100 years), all these monuments would no longer be under copyright protection.

On the other hand, if I wanted to sell a particular good photo of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, that might be a bit more clear cut - although I would have to check whether the museum holds the copyright or the architect (Frank Gehry) still does. In the US the copyright on a work-for-hire generally is held by the party that contracted for the work. So if Mr. Gehry was paid for the design, his contract probably assigned the copyright to the museum. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with the copyright law in the EU and Spain, or the specific contract with Mr. Gehry, so there could be other wrinkles.

What puzzles me the most about the proposed scheme is what happens to a cityscape or aerial photo. For instance, such a photo of Paris might include the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triumph, the Louvre, etc. Would they all require licences and payment? Whom would I have to contact? What if one of them was partially visible: is that a partial payment or is it exempt if some distinguishing characteristic is not show (e.g. it is unrecognizable). What happens if the photo includes artwork in a park? From a practical point of view, it's a nightmare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]