MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: End of travel commercial photography in Europe?  (Read 10212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2015, 16:42 »
+4
Without the pressure from strict EU standards, a lot of local governments would continue or multiply their corrupt wrongdoings
For some countries, the EU membership and the rules that came along, is the best thing that happened in their recent history.

On the other hand, the EU and some of the most powerful parties of the most powerful countries kept funding corrupt parties and corrupt governments to keep them in power since it's allways useful to have lackeys at hand.

The people running the EU are voted into office by the people of the countries. The EU doesnt put local governments in power either. Dont blame the EU then, blame the people who voted.
How does that work when the people choose the people in power? The EU is not a separate being.



Not true at all


StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2015, 17:01 »
+2
@ Semmick Photo

As a complement to my previous post I'll repeat what Pinto de Balsemo, publicly stated about the elections in Portugal:

"Electing the President of the Republic is like selling a shampoo"

Balsemo is, among other things:

- a former deputy on the mock parliament of the fascist regime,
- one of the founders of PSD - the fake Social-Democrat Party - that have been in half of the governments of Portugal for the past 40 years,
- a former Prime-Minister himself,
- owner of one of the two private TV stations in open-channel, and major newspapers including tabloids and pink press,
- a permanent Bilderberg member,

And you can multiply the people with this profile by the tenths in Portugal. Former government members with permanent presence in the TV as commentators, analysts, etc.

Apart the people from the two parties in the government, I don't think anyone with alternative point of views have a regular place in the TV to express other ideas and are constantly demonized.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 17:05 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2015, 02:31 »
+2
um, not that I want to interrupt the discussion about the presidents of the US, the civil war and history of wars and US an Russian intervention in Europe. 

Does this mean I can't sell editorial or commercial stock photos taken in Europe ?

« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2015, 02:44 »
+5
um, not that I want to interrupt the discussion about the presidents of the US, the civil war and history of wars and US an Russian intervention in Europe. 

Does this mean I can't sell editorial or commercial stock photos taken in Europe ?

Still you can. But no one knows how the bureaucrats in Brussels decide. Europe is developing into a great Soviet Union!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2015, 02:48 »
0
Without the pressure from strict EU standards, a lot of local governments would continue or multiply their corrupt wrongdoings
For some countries, the EU membership and the rules that came along, is the best thing that happened in their recent history.

On the other hand, the EU and some of the most powerful parties of the most powerful countries kept funding corrupt parties and corrupt governments to keep them in power since it's allways useful to have lackeys at hand.

The people running the EU are voted into office by the people of the countries. The EU doesnt put local governments in power either. Dont blame the EU then, blame the people who voted.
How does that work when the people choose the people in power? The EU is not a separate being.



Not true at all
oh

« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2015, 04:58 »
+8
Back to the OP:
You'll just have to be careful what you photograph.

If you aim you a camera at a government building or a bridge, you'll be accused of being a terrorist
if you photograph a female, you are a stalker and exploiter of women
if you photograph children, you are definitely a pedophile
if you photograph a homeless person, you are an insensitive clod
if you take a selfie, you must be a narcissist

best, stick to shooting butterflies and birds





« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2015, 09:51 »
+1
The next step will be that the EU introduces the light-tax for all fotographs!

KB

« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2015, 12:09 »
0
Back to the OP:
You'll just have to be careful what you photograph.

If you aim you a camera at a government building or a bridge, you'll be accused of being a terrorist
if you photograph a female, you are a stalker and exploiter of women
if you photograph children, you are definitely a pedophile
if you photograph a homeless person, you are an insensitive clod
if you take a selfie, you must be a narcissist

best, stick to shooting butterflies and birds
This is just as true in the US as in the EU.  :(

« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2015, 04:42 »
+1
positions are inherited from their family members from the past that have started the project in the first place.

same for US presidents ... Bill Clinton and now  Hillary Clinton, the Bush Sr and Junior and now Jeb Bush, the Kennedy dinasty, etc etc

Even if they are related, the positions aren't inherited. They still have to get elected. And it's nothing new. Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, both presidents, and FDR was a nephew of Theodore Roosevelt, with lots of different presidents in-between. They all still have to get elected on their own merits.

In fact, Jeb probably should have been the only other Bush to get elected instead of W.

sure they have to be elected but they don't start from zero like anyone else, they start from having already a family "brand" and all their political links not to mention these families tend to be billionaires so money is never an issue and you definitely need to be rich to afford a presidential campaign .. outsiders like Obama are just the exception to the rule.




« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2015, 04:50 »
+4
Maybe not everybody realizes that mr Putin loves to divide and conquer.


if this was true the scenario would be very different especially in eastern europe.

sure, now they're ready to bail out greece but that's the only realistic exception i can remember in the last 20 yrs, russia hasn't been directly involved too much in EU politics apart for oil/gas contracts and other import/export deals.

in particular there's no widespread political support for russia among the major political parties in europe, only the european right wing is vaguely pro-russian but just out of desperation and anti-americanism.

historically it's always been the UK doing their best to divide and boycott the continental powers.



ShadySue

« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2015, 07:57 »
+3
Is there any way to split this thread into the OP's point, in General Stock Discussion, and the politics in Ranting: Off Topic?
I'd like to follow the original photography discussion, but it's getting lost in the other pontifications, interesting as they may (or may not) be.

« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2015, 09:03 »
0
Maybe not everybody realizes that mr Putin loves to divide and conquer.


if this was true the scenario would be very different especially in eastern europe.

sure, now they're ready to bail out greece but that's the only realistic exception i can remember in the last 20 yrs, russia hasn't been directly involved too much in EU politics apart for oil/gas contracts and other import/export deals.

in particular there's no widespread political support for russia among the major political parties in europe, only the european right wing is vaguely pro-russian but just out of desperation and anti-americanism.

historically it's always been the UK doing their best to divide and boycott the continental powers.

-1

« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2015, 15:59 »
+3
Here's a sane and rational article about this potential legislation and what Europeans can do to help change it:

https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65

ShadySue

« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2015, 17:40 »
0
Here's a sane and rational article about this potential legislation and what Europeans can do to help change it:

https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65

Thanks for that.
However, the author doesn't seem to make any distinction between 'open' use of files and 'editorial' use.
For example, he says, "It is illegal to publish photographs of the Atomium until the copyright expires on 1 January 2076.", yet there are plenty of photos available for editorial use on iS and SS (and no doubt everywhere else which sells editorial).
Rather peculiarly, Getty/iS's Technical Wiki writer on the Atomium doesn't seem to know the difference between RM/RF and open/editorial only use, as it says:
"Located in Brussels and built for the 1958 Brussels World Fair (Expo 58) the Atomium monument is a representation of a unit of iron crystal.
Imagery of the Atomium is not suitable for royalty-free collections
The Atomium may be suitable within rights-managed collections."

When they clearly meant open use vs editorial.

Someone needs to edit the Technical Wiki.
The linked article says:
"Copyright on the Eiffel Tower has expired. Since a 1990 court case, however, its lighting displays are considered original visual creations, thus this image is censored due to French FoP laws."
Again there are many images of the ET lit up at night available as editorial on iS, SS and no doubt the others, even though Getty/iS technical wiki says:
"The Eiffel Tower is an iconic landmark situated in the heart of Paris, with the lighting set up being subject to copyright protection within France.
The Eiffel tower (by day) is acceptable within Royalty-free imagery as main focus, or as part of a cityscape; imagery taken at twilight when the lights are NOT lit may also be acceptable. Imagery taken at night when the lights are aglow are not suitable for Royalty-free.
Images of the tower by day, as main focus, or as part of a cityscape may be acceptable as Royalty-free Editorial content.

Yet iS has 16,845 'creative' images tagged Eiffel Tower.

Furthermore, images taken at night-time where the tower is part of a city scene, and not the main focus of the images, may also be acceptable. Imagery taken at night when the lights are aglow, and where the Eiffel tower is the main focus, are not suitable as Royalty-free Editorial content.
Imagery of the tower by day, or by night, may be acceptable as Rights-managed content.

But RM can be for commercial use, so how does that work?

No wonder everyone is confused.

« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2015, 02:27 »
0
No wonder everyone is confused.

of course.
these laws are unenforceable unless both the publisher and the photographer live and work in France and their photos end up in a high profile case.

if that matters in many countries it's even illegal to shoot photos inside train stations and airports and yet how many people have been fined or arrested for that ? zero, i guess ...

nothing is going to change until the major powers find a common agreeement on a sort of international "internet police", a kind of Interpol focused on online crimes.

at the moment we're de facto in a Wild West situation that can only get worse, 80-90% of Youtube's content is openly illegal and nobody is moving a finger, even the legitimate copyright holders and their publishers.

it's just too expensive and cumbersome to sue someone in a foreign country for having "shared" stolen material, all the odds are stacked against you, even the major hollywood firms had to fight Youtube for years, if they can't win .. who will ?




« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2015, 02:49 »
0
And what about Google street view? Is that considered as publishing the photos?

« Reply #66 on: June 26, 2015, 02:56 »
+2
I think yes. And they provide commercial services from their site.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #67 on: June 29, 2015, 19:25 »
0
Has anyone been able to fined the actual proposal? Almost 50,000 people have signed a petition without ever reading the document? Amazing!

Please someone provide a link, so I can see what this is all about and what's behind it.

I see someone else saying that what happened is the committee didn't include protection, not that they are changing the laws and revoking it? Is that right? That's very different from adding a new law or regulation.

« Reply #68 on: July 02, 2015, 02:09 »
0
Link to the online petition against the current EU proposals to require permission to publish images of public buildings:

newbielink:https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography-savefop-europarl-en [nonactive]

And information that's on the EU site:

newbielink:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150615IPR66497/html/EU-copyright-reform-must-balance-rightholders%E2%80%99-and-users%E2%80%99-interests-say-MEPs [nonactive]

If this get's through then looks like I'll be staying at home to photograph tomatoes on white instead of touring Europe.

« Reply #69 on: July 03, 2015, 02:02 »
0
One of biggest problems is to give definitions for commercial and editorial use. There are so many if not a majority of cases when pure commercial is close of mixed with editorial in the same publication, article, edition, book, show, site etc etc etc. And question of privileges and corruption for receiving of any kind of permission.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1968 Views
Last post January 14, 2008, 12:19
by zorki
16 Replies
7856 Views
Last post May 09, 2009, 05:44
by psd photography
0 Replies
2606 Views
Last post October 19, 2010, 21:52
by ecphoto
115 Replies
15040 Views
Last post November 03, 2014, 12:52
by cascoly
0 Replies
1052 Views
Last post February 26, 2019, 01:00
by FiledIMAGE

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results