Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-23-2012, 07:53 PM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,387
Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...

Interesting perspective....


02-23-2012, 08:07 PM   #2
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
Man, this gets tedious.
02-23-2012, 08:09 PM   #3
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,423
I'm an architect - our work appears either in the background or as the subject of photos all the time without getting a commission. I say to chair designers: 'get over it'.
A photo of a chair isn't a copy of the chair because it's 2D. Unless the chair is a flat piece of paper, that is.
02-23-2012, 08:09 PM - 1 Like   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,110
Merde!

02-23-2012, 09:06 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Bob from Aus's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,091
Copyright in Australia has no restrictions on photographing anything three dimensional. That is you can photograph and publish a photo of a statue but not a painting as a painting and a photograph are both 2 dimensional.
02-23-2012, 09:49 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 364
But if your photograph is moving, it once again becomes three-dimensional.
02-23-2012, 10:28 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
soon we will all be snapping away with cameras that have no film or cards
02-23-2012, 10:32 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 813
Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuoteQuote:
The tower and its representations have long been in the public domain. However, a French court ruled, in June 1990, that a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary, was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992.[39] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[40] As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries.
The imposition of copyright has been controversial. The Director of Documentation for what was then the Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SNTE), Stéphane Dieu, commented in January 2005, "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve." However, it also potentially has the effect of prohibiting tourist photographs of the tower at night from being published,[41] as well as hindering non-profit and semi-commercial publication of images of the tower. Besides, French doctrine and jurisprudence traditionally allow pictures incorporating a copyrighted work as long as their presence is incidental or accessory to the main represented subject,[42] a reasoning akin to the De minimis rule. Thus, SETE could not claim copyright on photographs or panoramas of Paris incorporating the lit tower.


02-24-2012, 05:45 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,110
Apparently the Court that just ruled on the chair case does not view "French doctrine" in the same way as the writer of the Wiki article:
"French doctrine and jurisprudence traditionally allow pictures incorporating a copyrighted work as long as their presence is incidental or accessory to the main represented subject,[42] a reasoning akin to the De minimis rule. Thus, SETE could not claim copyright on photographs or panoramas of Paris incorporating the lit tower."

42 ="La représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité"; Cass. 1re civ. 4 juillet 1995. Christophe Caron, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins, Litec, 2006, §365.
02-24-2012, 06:42 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,951
This will put a chill of commercial photography in France. Even wedding photography will be problematic. Securing permission from the designer of the dress, the shoes, any jewelry, the designer of the tuxedo, wrist watches, etc, will all be required, since the wedding photographer is publishing his photos by selling them to the client.
02-24-2012, 07:30 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,759
God has a on everything so we are done.
02-24-2012, 07:30 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,415
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
I'm an architect - our work appears either in the background or as the subject of photos all the time without getting a commission. I say to chair designers: 'get over it'.
A photo of a chair isn't a copy of the chair because it's 2D. Unless the chair is a flat piece of paper, that is.
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob from Aus Quote
Copyright in Australia has no restrictions on photographing anything three dimensional. That is you can photograph and publish a photo of a statue but not a painting as a painting and a photograph are both 2 dimensional.

Two very valid slightly differing points of view. Either one of which makes a lot more sense. This whole issue isn't going away and it is all about greed.
02-24-2012, 05:16 PM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigDave's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,759
QuoteOriginally posted by ofer4 Quote
But if your photograph is moving, it once again becomes three-dimensional.
Wrong, a moving object when photographed is still two dimensional, there is no physical depth to the image, only height and width. It does not even include the fourth dimension, time, unless it is part of a motion image (movie or TV). Even then, the "photograph" is not moving as we know they are all separate still images linked together to give the appearance of movement!

Regards,
02-24-2012, 05:23 PM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigDave's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,759
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Interesting, so if you actually purchased the chair, outright owned it, you do not have the rights to photograph it? A song can be played and duplicated via recordings over and over again, but a physical object is not reproducible, only individual copies of it can be made (each of which is slightly different in some way).

Everyone wants residuals. So they will find that they will no longer get something that propelled them to popularity in the first place, public exposure! And the Eiffel Tower will become a rusting hulk, as the rest of the world will not care if it exists (if I do not see it, it does not exist).

What short sightedness and stupidity. The French society keeps spinning into insignificance, and they do nothing to stop it!

Bon Chance!
02-28-2012, 01:07 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
This will put a chill of commercial photography in France. Even wedding photography will be problematic. Securing permission from the designer of the dress, the shoes, any jewelry, the designer of the tuxedo, wrist watches, etc, will all be required, since the wedding photographer is publishing his photos by selling them to the client.
Nude weddings for the win!!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, chair, permission, photo, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photo used by someone, without my permission jpzk Photographic Industry and Professionals 49 12-07-2010 06:18 AM
Error No permission when accessing feedback profile of any user yusuf Site Suggestions and Help 2 08-19-2010 01:42 AM
Declic Photo France Review benjikan Pentax News and Rumors 3 03-24-2008 01:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top