Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

Phototoxin

I read this

6.Taking photos in private spaces

That new ten-megapixel camera fits right into your pocket - it’s perfect for those unforeseeable moments at lunch, in the pub or out and about. But wait, you’ll have to keep that camera shackled. When you are in a ‘public space’ - and that means shopping centres, restaurants, cafes or bars - you are not allowed to take photographs without permission from the building’s owner. Alas, the burly security guard who ‘‘doesn’t like the look of you’’ is right on this one.

What about the street ? Its a 'public space' ! How does that effect street photographers ?

whyulittle

But sure you've said it yourself. The difference is between private and public spaces. He didn't say you can't take photos on the street.

DaireQuinlan

2. Posting pictures on Flickr

Suppose you’re out and about and see a child frolicking in a fountain. Or perhaps a homeless man painting a mural. Or even a newly-married couple kissing. It is against data protection law to upload those images to your Flickr, Facebook or blog accounts. Those images are the personal data property of the subjects involved and explicit permission must be attained prior to uploading them.

??!? This is, afaik, completely untrue. Not only can I upload them to flickr, I can do off a bunch of prints, hold an exhibition, and even SELL the things without once even INFORMING the people involved that they're involved, let alone granting them rights with regard to the work. Or is my understanding completely skewed in this regard ????!?

Phototoxin

But what how is the street different from a shopping centre? What about taking photographs from the street of a 'public space' ?

DaireQuinlan

Phototoxin wrote: »

I read this

What about the street ? Its a 'public space' ! How does that effect street photographers ?

They're (perhaps deliberately) confusing the terms here. There's a lot of private property thats currently being sort of re-branded as 'public space' by gentle and caring developers and corporations. The 'Square' in the new 'Dundrum town centre' for example is a case in point. Its been given all the trappings of a 'town centre', and some effort has been made to appropriate the terminology (I actually cringe when I hear it refered to as 'dundrum town centre' on the Luas) in order to try and grab all those warm homely associations that we all have. Most decidedly a private space though, try demonstrating there, or taking pictures after someone in authority tells you to stop.

Fajitas!

Feics sake, that's all kinds of wrong. It's arse-ery like that that gives do-gooders and power tripping security guards the idea that they can stop you taking a photo. A public space is a space such as a street, park, etc. Private property is indeed a shopping centre, cafe, and so on. Secondly, take photos until you're told to stop. Deliberate sensationalism tbh.

You can upload whatever you want to Flickr - As Daire said, you can do what you want, hell, call it art and you don't even have to tell those involved - As long as you've got an argument between art and commercial usage. Permission my arse. If you can see them from a public space, go for it. Just don't sell the images to Vodafone for their next advertisment campaign.

trishw78

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

??!? This is, afaik, completely untrue. Not only can I upload them to flickr, I can do off a bunch of prints, hold an exhibition, and even SELL the things without once even INFORMING the people involved that they're involved, let alone granting them rights with regard to the work. Or is my understanding completely skewed in this regard ????!?

Afaik if your doing it for documenting proposes and/or artist purposes it's ok, but if your using the image in a commercial sense i.e. to sell something. then you need your model release forms to be signed

andrewh5

trishw78 wrote: »

Afaik if your doing it for documenting proposes and/or artist purposes it's ok, but if your using the image in a commercial sense i.e. to sell something. then you need your model release forms to be signed

Not completely correct. If you are commissioned to take a portrait or wedding shoot then the copyright belongs to you as the photographer or the photographic studio you work for if you are employed by one. If that studio then decides to use a shot to advertise their work they are completely within their rights to do so.

superflyninja

earleir i nthe year I lived in the IFSc and was walking home from a shoot one evening (not taking photos) and a security guard advised me not to take any photos. Even though I was in the open air(near georges dock).and to be fair the guard was nice about it but I hadnt realised open public places were not fair game. Ive been told not to take photos in the illac shopping centre because of"security issues"....

Fajitas!

The IFCS is all private property as far as I know, and the Illac centre would be too.

Not completely correct. If you are commissioned to take a portrait or wedding shoot then the copyright belongs to you as the photographer or the photographic studio you work for if you are employed by one. If that studio then decides to use a shot to advertise their work they are completely within their rights to do so.

Indeed!

andrewh5

superflyninja wrote: »

earleir i nthe year I lived in the IFSc and was walking home from a shoot one evening (not taking photos) and a security guard advised me not to take any photos. Even though I was in the open air(near georges dock).and to be fair the guard was nice about it but I hadnt realised open public places were not fair game. Ive been told not to take photos in the illac shopping centre because of"security issues"....

He can stop you taking pics of the building he guards but he cannot stop you taking other pics. I would have asked him what authority he had to stop you in a public place and then carried on.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

The IFCS is all private property as far as I know, and the Illac centre would be too.



Indeed!

fair enough the illac centre. but the entire ifsc is?

Fajitas!

As far as I know, yep. They bought the whole area - That said, feel free to stand on the footpath outside and shoot away, just don't be suprised if the Gardai are called. A friend of mine was moved from there for sketching. Something to do with terrorism. I lol'd.

nilhg

It all comes down to the difference between "open public space" and "space open to the public" and knowing exactly where you are before you stand up for your rights.

IIRC there was a thread a while ago about Lough Dan which teased out this subject quite well.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

As far as I know, yep. They bought the whole area - That said, feel free to stand on the footpath outside and shoot away, just don't be suprised if the Gardai are called. A friend of mine was moved from there for sketching. Something to do with terrorism. I lol'd.

jeepers.....that is insane.there are more interesting places to tak photos anyway...the amount of places off limits though did surprise me though.

Phototoxin

As far as I know, yep. They bought the whole area - That said, feel free to stand on the footpath outside and shoot away, just don't be suprised if the Gardai are called. A friend of mine was moved from there for sketching. Something to do with terrorism. I lol'd.

Those sketchpads can be deadly weapons in the hands of a trained jyhadist..

sheesh

they are not off limits just you might be asked to stop taking pics jesus every night people go out to party they bring a camera either a compact digital one or on their phone and they are clicking away.

My top tip dress like you a little mentally unhinged and will throw some sort of emotional fit if security interact with you in any way everyone hates to make a grown man cry well apart of a few women I could mention:(.

there were a couple of things that were incorrect in that list and a couple of things that just would not happen.
I know for a fact that you do not have copyright over your own image.
that its is legal to copy music onto your ipod. Except in Australia where it is specifically stated in legislation that you cannot make any copies.


'In my opinion' that is crap journalism

DaireQuinlan

sheesh wrote: »

that its is legal to copy music onto your ipod.

Oddly enough, that one is actually true. There's no such thing as 'fair use' in this country, so it is in fact, legally, a breach of copyright to rip CDs to MP3 or whatever. The UK IIRC is different. They have that 'fair use' enshrined in their common law, so you can make backups, copy to different devices, etc etc.

asdasd

They have that 'fair use' enshrined in their common law, so you can make backups, copy to different devices, etc etc.

If they have it in common law why dont we?

Fajitas!

We have a Fair Use law, but it's quite different from the UK, afaik.

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

We have a Fair Use law, but it's quite different from the UK, afaik.

Yeah thats true, academic use of images/copyrighted text, excerpts from books for reviews and the like. I think thats what you mean right ? Nothing like the above (cd -> ipod ) usage though.

Fajitas!

Yep, that'd be it.

The educational fair use element (along with a critical review element hidden someplace else) is quite interesting.

Fionn

i dont understand these security people at all - it's just an ego trip for most.
heres a good essay on the whole subject and how ridiciluous it is

melekalikimaka

i think it becomes a grey area, when you share or publish an image dipicting a person, recognisable, ie face showing in a way that defames his character or such no?

Paulw

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think it becomes a grey area, when you share or publish an image dipicting a person, recognisable, ie face showing in a way that defames his character or such no?

Any image taken in a public place is usable. There are no privacy laws for people in public, in Ireland.

In general, stock sites and such want a model release, but from all I've read and seen, they are not needed, unless you want to use the image commercially.

However, if you use an image in a way that defames someone, then they can claim defamation of character. This is separate to privacy and copyright issues, and applies to everything. I'm not sure how you could defame someone, unless you alter the image.

Thirdfox

Defamation is quite possible - guy walks by a porn shop and you snap a photo of him walking by... turns out the guy is a local priest in charge of children etc. etc. that photo would certainly convey a false image of actuality... or in the Irish Times defamation case - you take a photo of someone holding a sign defaming someone else e.g. "Brian Cowan is a paedophile" - you can be sued as a joint party for publishing the defamation. Though everyone knows that photographers are poor so you probably won't be sued

Thirdfox

I do wonder though at Fajitas' comment about taking photos until you are told to stop - I assume that you had no constructive knowledge of the illegality of your actions or are you saying to break the law until you are caught? e.g. a shopping centre has a sign saying "no photography allowed" but you deciding to snap away until a guard stops you...

In that instance I think they may be within their rights to ask you to delete the photos taken (since they were taken illegally) or at the extreme end (if you don't comply) seek a court injunction to get it done (unlikely I suppose but I feel it's better to stay within the confines of the law or lobby for change if you feel the law is unjust). If I knew a place was likely to forbid photography I certainly wouldn't snap away until someone in charge tells me to stop.

Ignorance of the law is no defence!

As for surprise that many places are protected - well that's what copyright/privacy law is all about. I remember that guards from a certain college told me no tripods were allowed in the university (I was shooting photos for the student union so they relented) but most of the buildings in that campus were copyrighted and of course I was on private grounds too. Before anyone labels me a hypocrit for taking photos on private grounds - I had already asked for permission from the authorities before taking the photos :P

As for work for hire copyright e.g. photo-studio/wedding photographer - this is the US law but I'm guessing Irish law isn't too different:

The definitional section of the Copyright Act defines a "work-made-for-hire" as (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audio-visual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a "work-made-for-hire."

So the photo studio employee doesn't have copyright over his/her photos that they take while working for the studio (and our professor warns that even photos taken in spare time could potentially be owned by the employer - he gave the example of a scriptwriter writing scripts during out of office hours but the film company taking those rights) and the wedding photographer is the second scenario where s/he is commissioned to do a piece of work and copyright vests in him/her unless contracted out... and even in that case with the licensing of the copyright of the images the moral rights of the original author have to be taken into account (unless contractually waived).

:P a little copyright 101 for you guys (guess what law subject I'm taking right now )

Fajitas!

Thirdfox wrote: »

I do wonder though at Fajitas' comment about taking photos until you are told to stop - I assume that you had no constructive knowledge of the illegality of your actions or are you saying to break the law until you are caught? e.g. a shopping centre has a sign saying "no photography allowed" but you deciding to snap away until a guard stops you...

If there's a sign outside, then obviously, it's a different story. Tbh, I've not seen any signs in any Irish shopping centres restricting photography.

In that instance I think they may be within their rights to ask you to delete the photos taken (since they were taken illegally) or at the extreme end (if you don't comply) seek a court injunction to get it done (unlikely I suppose but I feel it's better to stay within the confines of the law or lobby for change if you feel the law is unjust). If I knew a place was likely to forbid photography I certainly wouldn't snap away until someone in charge tells me to stop.

No, the images are yours. You own them. Their rights do not cover the destruction of your property. If they want to go to court over it, then go for it.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

I've not seen any signs in any Irish shopping centres restricting photography.

ditto for me not seen any signs.
in jervis though Ive seen lots of people with dslrs taking photos of the christmas decorations and not a word said to them. I evne brought my camera(complete with big lense and hood) and nobody told me stop. a security guard was just 3 feet form me and i didnt get a second look.

Fajitas!

I think that's the most infuriating thing. Especially people with P&S's not having any problems.

If there's a rule for the space, put a sign up, and enforce it equally.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think that's the most infuriating thing. Especially people with P&S's not having any problems.

If there's a rule for the space, put a sign up, and enforce it equally.

yup people with p&s cameras get away with murder.......maybe people with dslrs are seen as taking commercial shots.....

enda1

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think that's the most infuriating thing. Especially people with P&S's not having any problems.

If there's a rule for the space, put a sign up, and enforce it equally.

You can't put a sign up for every rule. Its pretty obvious that the private company upon who's land you are can ask you not to do certain actions such as cycle, bring dogs, take photos etc.

I'm not a photographer but I bloody hate people taking photos in public places when they make no attempt at not taking photos of you/deliberately take photos of you - I think its very rude. So I can well understand security being told to stop people from doing this as it may "upset" their customers for one thing plus there really is a security issue - taking photos of the security system, placement of cameras, people taking money out of atm's etc. etc.

Fajitas!

Funnily enough, I've seen signs up in shopping centres telling you not to bring in dogs, and not to cycle through.

I bloody hate people taking photos in public places when they make no attempt at not taking photos of you/deliberately take photos of you

So, does that mean you hate people taking photos whether they're of you or not?

Just because you hate people taking photographs of people in public, dosn't mean that others mind it. Tbh, if you have a problem with being caught on camera you should refrain from going into the public domain. Black out your windows too.

Also, just having a camera dosn't make you a criminal - I'm pretty sure a photographer with €7,000+ of gear blatently hanging off his neck is less likely to be trying to rob a shopping centre, than someone with a small camera sneakily taking photographs without being seen.

DaireQuinlan

I'm not a photographer but I bloody hate people taking photos in public places when they make no attempt at not taking photos of you/deliberately take photos of you - I think its very rude.

Well, you know, tough **** !
Simple answer for you here. Just don't go out in public. There you go, problem solved. Going out in 'public' involves, surprise surprise, interacting with people. Some of these people might be interested or involved in things that you might not agree with. And you know something, so long as those things don't affect or damage you in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER then you just have to suck it up. Merely FEELING offended is going to get you pretty short shrift. Loads of people feel offended all the time :rolleyes:

So I can well understand security being told to stop people from doing this as it may "upset" their customers for one thing plus there really is a security issue - taking photos of the security system, placement of cameras, people taking money out of atm's etc. etc.

blah blah blah. Care to be any more alarmist ? I'm surprised you didn't manage to bring kids into it aswell, filthy perverts taking photographs of kids ! It ought to be banned ! Terrorists and depraved criminals the lot of them ! With their "SLRs" !!

enda1

Wow chill people. Why react so strongly?

There are plenty of things that happen on the streets that are perfectly legal but some people may find obnoxious/rude. I've no problems with anyone taking photos of things/people from a distance but don't like being the subject of a random person's photograph!

Why mention children and peodophiiles? Why must every internet conversation end up like that?

As regards the big €7000 camera v small one - really do you think they shold have a special rule because you spent a lot of money on a camera?? If a place has a policy as regards cameras, obviously a security guard isn't going to make decisions based on the quality of your gear!

By the way it's not such a crazy concept that you could expect people to respect your privacy, just because there is no law against an act doesn't mean people don't take offence.

robinph

I thought that the fact shopping centers are private property was irrelavent as far as being able to take pictures of people or the centre itself whilst there during opening hours. It's private property, but a public space where nobody has any expectation of personal privacy whilst there.

Anyway, the you cannot take pictures due to "terroism" theory is a load of crap anyway. There are already more than enough pictures and information out there for any bad person to not need to risk going around with their own camera and getting spotted prior to wanting to do something bad. Couple of quick examples of the IFSC and a shopping centre.

Fajitas!

enda1 wrote: »

Why mention children and peodophiiles? Why must every internet conversation end up like that?

As regards the big €7000 camera v small one - really do you think they shold have a special rule because you spent a lot of money on a camera?? If a place has a policy as regards cameras, obviously a security guard isn't going to make decisions based on the quality of your gear!

The same reason you bring up people robbing a shopping centre. Sensationalism! Though I think Daire's point was moreso suprised that you didn't bring it up

I'm not saying there should be any special rules. I'm pointing out that if the general rule is in place to stop criminals documenting the area, they're still going to take the photos, and most likely not with a DSLR hanging off their neck.

Do you mind being recorded on CCTV on these areas, btw?

Thirdfox

Fajitas! wrote: »

No, the images are yours. You own them. Their rights do not cover the destruction of your property. If they want to go to court over it, then go for it.

With all due respect I have to disagree - if you knowingly broke the law and became a criminal trespasser on their land then I'm pretty sure the law is not on your side when it comes to infringement of IP rights.

They can't assault you to get the photos deleted but technically could seek court action (depending on how important the images are to them I suppose).

Same applies for item scavengers - you found the priceless relic, but if you criminally trespassed to obtain this "property" then you have no legal right to it.

Unless of course, you're a journalist whose pictures are for the public interest, in which case you have more freedoms to take photos and publish them.

And that's what infuriates me about some photographers who knowingly break the law to get the shot that they want - there are proper channels to go through normally and people normally give permission so why go the backdoor method? To me it gives photographers a bad name.

DaireQuinlan

enda1 wrote: »

Wow chill people. Why react so strongly?

Why react so strongly ? Because it's attitudes like yours that are responsible for slowly eroding peoples rights with respect to public photography. It gives rise to alarmist knee-jerk reactions to photographers shooting in public, including instances of photographers getting harassed by the police after being reported by "concerned members of the public" for taking pictures.

There are plenty of things that happen on the streets that are perfectly legal but some people may find obnoxious/rude. I've no problems with anyone taking photos of things/people from a distance but don't like being the subject of a random person's photograph!

Well thats okay. If you could possibly wear some sort of highly visible sign, maybe a large hat with prominent writing on it, or a billboard or something, informing the public at large that you would consider it 'rude' if you have your picture taken, then I'll be sure to wait a couple of seconds for you to go on your way before taking a picture. OTOH this could backfire dreadfully. Alternatively you could stick with plan A above, and just not leave your house.

As regards the big €7000 camera v small one - really do you think they shold have a special rule because you spent a lot of money on a camera?? If a place has a policy as regards cameras, obviously a security guard isn't going to make decisions based on the quality of your gear!

This issue (taking photographs on private property) is a completely different issue. Security guards actually DO the above though. People with compacts and phones are ignored. People with SLRs are requested to refrain. I thin there's actually probably a couple of reasons for this. Visibility being one, some perception that SLR users are taking pictures for commercial reasons or whatever. Its tangential though, And no-one is denying that they're within their rights to do this on private property anyway.

By the way it's not such a crazy concept that you could expect people to respect your privacy, just because there is no law against an act doesn't mean people don't take offence.

And again, I don't care ! As I said above, people take offence ALL THE TIME for reasons even more irrelevent than your feeling that its 'rude' if some photographer takes a picture with you in it. Solutions are above.

robinph

Thirdfox wrote: »

With all due respect I have to disagree - if you knowingly broke the law and became a criminal trespasser on their land then I'm pretty sure the law is not on your side when it comes to infringement of IP rights.

They can't assault you to get the photos deleted but technically could seek court action (depending on how important the images are to them I suppose).

Not certain on the IP rights for pictures of buildings in Ireland but I suspect that there is no such thing. I admittedly am only assuming this from a vaguely unrelated issue though.

Various console car racing games are set with you being able to drive around various real world cities. Paris has not been used as a location for these games though because of a peculiarity with their IP law where the building owner does actually own the rights to all images of it, the rest of the world this does not apply once it is a public area any photo you take is owned by you so the computer modelling of a city such as Paris is far too much hassle to bother with for such things. Unless Irish law has suddenly been mostly derived from the French system rather than the British one without us noticing.

Phototoxin

I think that's the most infuriating thing. Especially people with P&S's not having any problems.

I agree , my fuji f5600 was almost taken off me in the NIA birmingham in 2006. I was trying to explain that it wasn't an SLR as they tried to take the lens off. I had to inform them that it wasn't an SLR and that it was only 5 megapixels (baffle them with science ) and that they let other people in with 10mpx compacts. I was told they might be journalists. All of them ? Even the ones in monks robes ? Eventually they got the oraniser down, some chilled old who didn't care at all!!!

If there's a rule for the space, put a sign up, and enforce it equally.

but they dont enforce it equally, in the abbey theatre there is a sign 'no flash photography' I emailed them to ask is non flash photography allowed and they said NO photography was allowed but the sign was old from the days when you needed flash indoors and so they would change it

Also, just having a camera dosn't make you a criminal - I'm pretty sure a photographer with €7,000+ of gear blatently hanging off his neck is less likely to be trying to rob a shopping centre, than someone with a small camera sneakily taking photographs without being seen.

You'd be surprised, hiding in plain sight !

Fajitas!

Thirdfox wrote: »

With all due respect I have to disagree - if you knowingly broke the law and became a criminal trespasser on their land then I'm pretty sure the law is not on your side when it comes to infringement of IP rights.

They can't assault you to get the photos deleted but technically could seek court action (depending on how important the images are to them I suppose).

A) Who said knowingly anything. I'm still under the assumption that the big bad security guard came over and told me/you/one that photography is prohibited.

You don't have to delete the images, they don't belong to the shopping centre, they belong to you. The Gardai don't have the right to delete them either. If it goes to court, then the images may be deleted. As I said before, if they want to go to court, go for it.
Same applies for item scavengers - you found the priceless relic, but if you criminally trespassed to obtain this "property" then you have no legal right to it.

Unless of course, you're a journalist whose pictures are for the public interest, in which case you have more freedoms to take photos and publish them.

This is where loophole creep in. One dosn't need to do a journalism course to be a journalist. Public interest is debatable. Which part of the public.

And if someone really wanted to be a bitch about it... They'd bring in the 'A' word.

Fajitas!

Or indeed, be so blatent about robbing the place!

sheesh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Or indeed, be so blatent about robbing the place!

sorry fajitas I deleted the post thought is was a bit 'sneery'

democrates

I think we should be very careful about kicking up a ruckus over rights because we may come out on the losing side in resultant legislation.

How hard would it be to stir up a popular backlash against being photographed in public by private individuals with powerful slr's? We already see the distinction is being made against slr's versus more tolerance for camera phones and p&s, and it's popular opinion that will win the day, we're an easy target.

Two recent anecdotes:

Two men without uniforms in an unmarked car pulled up to ask what I was up to one night in Stillorgan. It was about 3am, I'd the 70-200mm canon + 2x extender on a tripod, situated just off the public path on the property of Esmond Motors shooting up the steep hill beside the Stillorgan Orchard.

"What are you up to?" the guy asked
"Hi, are you the branch?"
"Something like that"
"Oh right, well I'm just doing a bit of night photography"
"Are you a professional?"
"No, but if I can get good at it you never know, the other business took a bit of a nosedive with the economy and that"
"Right so" and they started to move off
"All the best"

My assumption from this was that if I had been doing it commercially there might have been a problem, what exactly I still don't know. If I'd pushed the issue and gotten into a debate on my rights where would that get me? Probably into a worse situation, and frankly the photo opp isn't worth it. By keeping it friendly and non-confrontational I got all the shots I wanted.

Another time I went right into the grounds of Cabinteely house past signs indicating it was not open to public access. Set up the tripod and took plenty of wide shots of the outside of the house. When staff coming and going looked over with curiosity I'd give a friendly smile and nod, then get back to work like I was supposed to be there. Had I been asked to leave I've no problem with that. So far any shots I've taken are not for commercial use so taken in the round my view is no harm no foul.

If there is a big issue made of this it will focus more attention. Even in the absense of new law the risk management hawks will get to work introducing policies and having them enforced, what flexibility and tolerance we had could vanish. Given the penchant for ultra-conservative political correctness in this country I'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.

Thirdfox

robinph wrote: »

Not certain on the IP rights for pictures of buildings in Ireland but I suspect that there is no such thing. I admittedly am only assuming this from a vaguely unrelated issue though.

Various console car racing games are set with you being able to drive around various real world cities. Paris has not been used as a location for these games though because of a peculiarity with their IP law where the building owner does actually own the rights to all images of it, the rest of the world this does not apply once it is a public area any photo you take is owned by you so the computer modelling of a city such as Paris is far too much hassle to bother with for such things. Unless Irish law has suddenly been mostly derived from the French system rather than the British one without us noticing.

There is the international Berne Convention which covers these things - my American professor is quite annoyed at us Europeans for bringing building copyright and moral rights into the equation (something that prior to Berne wasn't protected in the US).
http://www.patentim.com/forum_articles.asp?Fnumber=20&ArticleID=230
so yes, in one way we have similar laws to Paris, but so does the UK as we are all parties to the overriding international treaty.

In fact, Trinity College sued Lucas Arts for it's copyright infringement of the Old Library as part of the Jedi library in one of the star wars films.

I am not saying that all buildings are copyrighted presumptively, but that buildings (as well as the blueprints to buildings) can be copyrighted if applied for.

monument

Here's a link to a blog post by the Sunday Business Post journalist who wrote the article, where he says: "I had a chat with [the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner] to confirm it, too, in case there was any misunderstanding. (They've already taken action against people uploading videos to YouTube without getting consent from those identifiable in it.)"...

http://www.yourtechstuff.com/techwire/2008/11/why-uploading-photos-to-flickr-is-against-the-law.html

Cabaal

Phototoxin wrote: »

But what how is the street different from a shopping centre? What about taking photographs from the street of a 'public space' ?

a shopping center is private property, its not a public space, want to test it....try get into a shopping center at 2am when its closed?

magicbastarder

Thirdfox wrote: »

In fact, Trinity College sued Lucas Arts for it's copyright infringement of the Old Library as part of the Jedi library in one of the star wars films.

i don't think they did - they investigated the possibility, but i don't think any action was ever taken.

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Well thats okay. If you could possibly wear some sort of highly visible sign, maybe a large hat with prominent writing on it, or a billboard or something, informing the public at large that you would consider it 'rude' if you have your picture taken, then I'll be sure to wait a couple of seconds for you to go on your way before taking a picture. OTOH this could backfire dreadfully. Alternatively you could stick with plan A above, and just not leave your house.

eh, he just said he hated having his photo taken in public. your right to take photos in public is matched by his right not to like it, and your reaction is surprisingly defensive.

just because you have a right to do something does not disqualify others from having an issue with you exercising those rights.

Paulw

monument wrote: »

Here's a link to a blog post by the Sunday Business Post journalist who wrote the article, where he says: "I had a chat with [the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner] to confirm it, too, in case there was any misunderstanding. (They've already taken action against people uploading videos to YouTube without getting consent from those identifiable in it.)"...

http://www.yourtechstuff.com/techwire/2008/11/why-uploading-photos-to-flickr-is-against-the-law.html

Is there any case law, where the DPC has actually taken legal action against someone? I'd love to see details on that.