Why Your Holiday Photos And Videos Of The Restored Notre Dame Cathedral Could Be Blocked By The EU's Upload Filters
from the blame-it-on-the-EU-Copyright-Directive dept
Although the terrible fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris destroyed the roof and spire, the main structure escaped relatively unscathed. Thoughts now are on repairing the damage, and rebuilding the missing parts. France has announced that it will hold an international competition to redesign the roofline. As the Guardian points out, the roof was ancient, but the spire was not:
Notre Dame was built over a period of nearly 200 years, starting in the middle of the 12th century, but the lead-covered spire, which reached a height of 93 metres from the ground, was only added in the mid-19th century, during a major restoration project completed by the architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc.
That fact has stimulated a lively debate about whether the roof should be restored to how it was, using Viollet-le-Duc's design for the spire, or rebuilt with a completely new, contemporary appearance. The French Prime Minister, Édouard Philippe, acknowledged this issue when he announced the competition:
"The international competition will allow us to ask the question of whether we should even recreate the spire as it was conceived by Viollet-le-Duc," Philippe told reporters after a cabinet meeting dedicated to the fire.
"Or, as is often the case in the evolution of heritage, whether we should endow Notre Dame with a new spire. This is obviously a huge challenge, a historic responsibility."
Techdirt readers may be interested in what might otherwise seem a rather rarefied architectural discussion because of how French law implements EU copyright exceptions. The site copyrightexceptions.eu explains:
In the European Copyright framework the rights of users and public interest organisations are codified as exceptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of authors and other rightsholders. As such, they form one side of the balance between the rights of creators to exercise control of their works and the rights of the public to access culture and information. While the exclusive rights of creators and other rightsholders have been largely harmonised across the 28 member states of the European Union, exceptions and limitations are far from harmonised. Article 5 of the 2001 Copyright in the Information Society (InfoSoc) Directive (2001/29/EC) contains a list of 20 optional and one harmonised exceptions. In 2012 the Orphan Works Directive (2012/28/EU EC) added another mandatory exception. This has created a situation where user rights across Europe are a patchwork.
One of the optional copyright exceptions in EU law is whether to protect works of architecture, and sculptures in public places, or to allow "freedom of panorama". France chose the latter, but imposed a key condition:
The implemented exception authorises "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places (voie publique), and created by natural persons, with the exception of any usage of a commercial character"
This is why pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night taken for commercial purposes require a license: although the copyright of the tower itself has expired, the copyright on the lights that were installed in 1989 has not. And it's not just about the Eiffel Tower. As the credits at the end of this time-lapse video show (at 2 minutes 10 seconds) other famous Parisian landmarks that require copyright permission to film them include the Louvre's Pyramid and the Grande Arche in the French capital's business district.
It is not clear whether taking photos or videos of these landmarks and then posting them online counts as commercial use. They may be for personal use, and thus exempt in themselves, but they are generally being posted to commercial Internet services like Facebook, which might require a license. That lack of clarity is just the sort of thing that is likely to cause the EU Copyright Directive's upload filters to block images of modern buildings in France -- including the re-built spire of Notre Dame cathedral, if it is a new design.
A key proposal that the Pirate MEP Julia Reda put forward in her copyright evaluation report, which fed into the Copyright Directive, was to implement a full freedom of panorama right across the EU. The European Parliament backed the idea, as did all the EU nations except one -- France, as Politico later revealed -- so the idea was dropped. That lack of an EU-wide freedom of panorama is yet another example of how the Copyright Directive failed to throw even a tiny crumb to citizens, while handing out even more power for the copyright industry to use and abuse. So if one day your holiday pictures and videos of the re-built Notre Dame cathedral get blocked in the EU, you will know who to blame.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
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: architecture, article 13, copyright, france, freedom of panorama, notre dame, photos
Reader Comments
The First Word
“If you don't want people to see it and take pictures of it
...don't put it in a public place.
How hard is that to understand, really?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Any upload filters should have boxes the user can check for fair use, public domain, parody, etc. that cause it to be reviewed manually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice idea, but it will never work as the sheer amount of work which will then be generated will be impossible to do for any company with any volume of traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and then the words fair use, public domain, parody, etc would lose their meaning because everything would be one of those things ...sorta like the word natural or organic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
The uploader's declaration exempts that upload from
mass censorship, forces all complainants to acknowledge
the uploader's declaration on that upload and then must
negotiate directly, leaving the website entirely shielded.
That saves a website both automatic and manual effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
...and is entirely pointless given the existence of section 230, and would likely not be enforceable if that section were revoked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
EU is like a histerical cat lady. This latest idea has dementia written all over it.They have no historical juristdiction over the public plain view of photographical monuments and events that are public. Maybe their hutspa is admireable enough. You have to petition the scotus to get them off their duffs to rule on critical case points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which I'm sure would be treated just as seriously as 'Check to confirm you are X years old' boxes are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public pays taxs, the government builds a building,
it should be automatically free of any limits on copyright.When britain is outside the eu,
Will websites move to britain just to avoid all the new eu laws on copyright .someone uploads pic s of their holiday which have buildings in the background ,
to facebook.
they do not get paid .
Most facebook photos can only be seen by friends ,
people who you accept as as facebook friend.
they are not ads or sponsored images .
At least images posted by ordinary users are not really shown to the public
.
i, understand many companys have a facebook page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once again, I have to laugh at the naiveté of people who think that Britain leaving the EU would make laws less restrictive, especially with Tories in power. Some people need to learn a little bit of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Obviously, because the UK is the Land of the Free where there will never be porn filters.
Oh, wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until the current copyright battle got underway, I was with you. Now though, I think they might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, I grew up during the video nasties era, was there when David Alton tried pushing through a bill that would essentially ban anything rated more than a PG and have watched time and time again as the Tories have tried pushing through draconian tripe that only got blocked because it would contravene EU law.
However bad you think the EU is, those idiots are worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Confirmed correct. UK resident here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Until the current copyright battle got underway, I was with you. Now though, I think they might have a point."
People forget so quickly. Go read a few of Cameron's old speeches and legislation attempts. Or, for that matter, that of any british PM since Churchill.
The truth is that although I believe that the EU is a dumpster fire everyone will eventually run away from, the UK's native political system isn't better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want people to see it and take pictures of it
...don't put it in a public place.
How hard is that to understand, really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want people to see it and take pictures of it
This is driven by get paid to design and build it, and then as a bonus charge people for photographing it, because you own the design. This is due to the insanity of classifying intellectual endeavours as property, with an attached rent for people to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you don't want people to see it and take pictures of
Especially when the thing was funded by taxation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the nutters go
Make France have their own network, until they come to their senses. See ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is full of FUD and is demonstrably ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, it's always nice to have such a thorough rebuttal to show them the error of their ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So when are you planning on providing that demonstration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet you offer no demonstration just like those before you. You know what your problem i John? Your like the rest who passed this. They are just trying to get a few more hours before everyone else gets a turn. They are selfish and they know it. And the thing that bothers them the most is knowing that one day..it’s going to be someone else
That must kill you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This article is full of FUD and is demonstrably ridiculous."
...and you making that claim while failing to provide even one half-assed argument as to why is on the level of a five-year old throwing a tantrum.
Feel free to tell us what part of this is FUD given that the night view of the Eiffel Tower already has the very same legal prohibition the article refers to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I jokingly told Tim that this could happen.
That they would put out the call for all photos people had so they could assemble a giant gigapanorama to make sure they had the best reference shots to work from... and the upload filters would kill it or one of the rights societies would claim ownership of the images killing the entire project.
While it would be a horrible outcome one has to wonder if it would take something this stupid for them to look at the laws they've been pushing forward & finally admitting it has problems.
Historic Landmark left half destroyed because all photos must be mailed with releases form the picture taker and the rights owner allowing them to be used to save it, then having to scan each photo & make sure it bears all of the rights information...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine, we can play their game...
Visitors to Paris now should take pictures of slums, garbage filled alleys, etc. Then post with "These are the best pictures of Paris that I can show here." and send a link to the to their tourism bureau.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, we can play their game...
They also need to make sure that no graffiti is visible, less the artist sue them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, we can play their game...
Should photograph all those No Go Zones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, we can play their game...
Perhaps take the photos and then turn it into a painting of some kind, but use different colors so that the dang software can distinguish between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More of your predictive FUD.
Of a future in which at worst you can't put specific images on teh internets. What horror.
If this ever looms large for you to notice outside of Techdirt's "sky is falling" hysteria here, then you are a complete idiot and have an incredibly soft life too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More of your predictive FUD.
The way governments are trying to control the Internet, it is likely that the day will come when I want to mock you online, but won't be able to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More of your predictive FUD.
Yeah who cares right?
Just a drop in the bucket of oppression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More of your predictive FUD.
" Of a future in which at worst you can't put specific images on teh internets. What horror. If this ever looms large for you to notice outside of Techdirt's "sky is falling" hysteria here..."
A tourist taking pictures at night in Paris is already forbidden from including the Eiffel Tower in their panorama.
Include enough landmarks and you end up with Paris becoming a morass of no-photograph zones much like the old Soviet Union was.
There's no "sky is falling" hysteria here. There's just sensible people commenting that it's lunacy to prohibit tourists from taking holiday pictures which include parts or wholes of historical landmarks...
...and then, of course, there's you, Baghdad Bob, as usual trying to use polemics to turn black into white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
French tourism board: your image is in violation of copyright law.
Me: did you just say you own a church? That’s pretty messed up man.
French:!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
That’ll probably put a foot in their mouth. Emphasis on probably but more like likely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“commercial Internet services ... might require a license”
Strange. Weren’t you trying to argue completely the opposite a little while back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The connection is - shockingly -m he was too ignorant to understand either article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “commercial Internet services ... might require a lice
Get this: France is not the US! Gasps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “commercial Internet services ... might require a license
No. If you don't understand the very different issues discussed in those two posts, you might want to try reading them both again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France In A Nutshell
France & EU: “Oh dear! I can’t look bad in front of my fanbase. I know! Let’s forget this fire even happened”
Rest of the World: ”What are you? An idiot or a mouse”
France & EU: ”SILENCE”
...
Granny telling the story to her grandson: ”And THAT, Little Ricky, is how our government works”
Little Ricky: ”So basically our government is a Cirque due Solieil”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: France In A Nutshell
France and EU:SILENCE!
-France and Europe April 30
A viral twitter campaign was launched exposing past controversies of European politicians afterwards.
France immediately surrendered. Europe shortly after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: France In A Nutshell
Yeah, I can see that.
Also I’d like to point out my spelling mistake. I accidentally put Cirque due Soliel instead of:
Cirque du Soliel
I apologize for this. My fat fingers and my brain were not working together at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: France In A Nutshell
"Little Ricky: ”So basically our government is a Cirque due Solieil”"
Cirque du soleil isn't always a clown act.
France's government is more like a medieval mystery play which leaves everyone watching it feeling confused and uncomfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]