List of copyrighted places | Hacker News Reader

List of copyrighted places

istockphoto.com

98 pointshippich34 comments

This is an unfair title. Some of the prohibitions discussed (brands, U.S political party logos) are about copyright, but others (St Paul's Cathedral) seem to be about public disruption, and others (The US National Arboretum) apply only to commerical photography.

This is a list of places/things where photography (commercial photography in general) is prohibited, but it's not necessarily about copyright.

You're correct about the title being misleading, but I think that most people don't much care about why they can't take a picture of something, only the fact that they can't do it.

No, what it is says is they can't resell a photo, royalty-free, for commercial gain.

Some of those are because photography is, in fact, completely forbidden. The first item on the page being a prime example.

There are also plenty of examples where commercial use isn't the issue, like with the trademarks, where things like "tarnishment" can come into play.

The reason there's no photography permitted in the first item:

"In the past St Paul's has, as an experiment, relaxed the photography rule. However, the combination of camera flashes and groups queuing up to pose for photographs under the dome led to the conclusion that allowing photography would greatly detract from the spiritual life of the Cathedral."

More specifically, this is a list of things that iStockPhoto could get in trouble for if they tried to sell photos of them. Many of these are fine for photographing for personal use, others are fine if you get permission. Some are only a problem if you try to use them in certain jurisdictions.

And it's entirely possible that some of these subjects are completely legal to photograph and use for any purpose, except that there is some loud/litigious party that objects, and iStockPhoto doesn't care to contest their claims.

I was surprised to see the National Arboretum on this list since most works created by the US Government are not protected by copyright (which is a great situation not enjoyed by people in most countries).

Turns out they have a special law about collecting fees for using the arboretum: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title07/7-6.1.2.1.1.html#7:6.1.2.1... -- however I wouldn't call this a copyright restriction per se.

I was also surprised to see that they included an example image for most images that require royalties. :-)

"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content."

In other words, if you want to release an image of the Queen under a royalty-free license, you must also remove the royalty.

So, if you remove the queen and license the resulting image under a royalty-free license, you have an image that's royalty-free in two senses!

Yeah, I was also under the impression that Versailles has been royalty-free for many years now.

That must be a British thing; she's not my queen, she's an old lady in a funny hat.

Really! I'm not British; I don't recognize Royalty any more than I recognize magic or spells or holistic medicine. Other than of course as "a funny little belief held by weak-minded persons"

Royalty is a real as the law or countries. I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you choose to recognise it or not, it still exists. Whether it should is a different question altogether.

Laws enforcing priviledge for some genetic line exist. The 'fact' of royalty is a myth. Magical thinking. The very word is cognitive nonsense.

Like I said "Royalty is a real as the law or countries.". Claiming it doesn't exist is nonsensical.

But lets examine your "magical thinking" hypothesis.

Are some people more able to govern effectively as dictators? Is it possible that this governing ability can be effected both by a highly tailored up-bringing and genetics? If both these points are true then a hypothesis that says that an ability to rule effectively follows a particularly family/group of families who have ruled over generations and established a specific training regimen for offspring could find high validity.

As I've aged the idea of benevolent dictatorship has grown to be attractive. It seems all forms of [choosing] government are flawed and finding the least flawed is rather difficult.

One only has to examine the current crop of miserable selfish "royal" offspring to discount that theory.

Anyway, if you Want talented dictators there are a dozen obvious ways to find them, the very lamest (ineffective) of which is "choose from the same inbred line for centuries".

I'm Canada, and in Canada, the Queen is the head of state. All bills require royal assent before being passed into law, a task normally done by her representative in Canada, the Governor General.

A lot of these are simply private places that prohibit photography -- it doesn't make sense to say the place itself is copyrighted since the term copyright refers to the right to make a reproduction a work, not a physical location.

Additionally this really seems like a list of places or things that iStockPhoto won't allow as sources for royalty free images, which is even more narrow.

In the US it's legal to take photos anywhere in public, even federal buildings, and there have been several cases establishing this right:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/see-officer-i-can-t...

I don't think I saw any private places on the front page, excluding the one which was a large region of land, possibly containing homes. All the others were open to the public and many of them. such as the cathedral, actively seek visitors.

Private in this context doesn't mean "not open". Private means not owned by the state/public. A cinema is still a "private[ly owned] place" despite its raison d'etre being to attract and welcome the public.

Private land usually means that the owner can control some of the activity on that land, such as photography.

Under the universal-fraternity-of-common-sense law, shouldn't I be able to sell any picture I take no matter what or who?

Can an artist make a painting of the interior of the church, or the french valley, with just his memory of the sighting? And then sell it? What if the artist was so realistic it was pixel perfect like a picture? And mass produced? And uploaded to the webs?

Laws, lawyers and hell. So many jokes it's not funny anymore.

"Any image of Queen Elizabeth II is unacceptable for Royalty-Free content."

I lol'd.

Where does this odd idea come from? I read the iStock page, but I have no idea what legal basis this might have.

It's a joke "royalty free" is a double entendre, it means both without paying a royalty charge OR without a member of the royalty present.

That said recognisable public figures who trade on their personal image have protection under trademark law for commercial use of their image (note that commercial has a broad definition wider than just "financial gain").

I think this list is greatly erring on the side of caution. Some of the descriptions are incorrect, for example:

Aspirin (Bayers) is trademarked in several countries around the world, including Canada and the United States. The word Aspirin cannot appear on any imagery submitted to the RF collection.

Bayer famously lost its trademark for Aspirin in the United States after WWI as part of war reparations. It is still trademarked in Canada and many other countries, so possibly should be avoided in photos that are being used globally.

All photos of the Eifel Tower taken at night are copyright of French government. I have no idea how the French can assert that but it's written in their law.

(http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw)

How does the French government assert these rights outside of France?

Most countries signed the WIPO treaty.

It's the light show that causes the current copyright claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_cl...

Aren't most works-for-hire for by US Government employees immediately released into the public domain? In that case, then, how and why is it that the National Arboretum is a "copyrighted place"? Also, does anyone know a good primer on copyrighted places in general? My understanding of copyright law is hazy at best, but that seems unreasonable.

As mentioned above, there is a special law just for this particular place.

Ah governments. For the people, by the people, sold back to the people.

I think the site would benefit from a chart of place vs. type of restriction (total, commercial, fees, etc.)

you are addicted to infographics.

(or: how to know when to yell "fuck the police" after uploading images to the global nexus of free communication known as the internet)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com