Adobe Stock Photos

[David_Riecks]

Paul:

How is RM standarization a "figleaf, and a small withered one at that"?

What would you propose as an alternative to standardization of licensing terms?

David

[Peter_Galbavy]

[ QUOTE ]

c) Increasing use of copyright to protect objects and buildings by property owners preventing said objects from being photographed without payment of fees. (Selfridges department store in Birmingham, Eiffel Tower lighting in Paris)

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you got a reference to this ? I would be interested how this would fit into the CDPA (and updates)... My understanding was that there is no copyright restriction when photographing a building, only when trying to rebuild it.

I would look, but my cat has me pinned to the sofa and the book (with the consolidated Acts) is 15' away. Really.

[HerbertGibson]

Peter,

If the cat ever releases you, try a Google search on 'eiffel tower lighting copyright'. You'll be surprised. I'd post a few extracts, but I've got to walk the dog.

[MathewLodge]

Bruce Fraser wrote:
When Microsoft decided to give away its font library, a bunch of people claimed that it would be the death of typography. It became apparent pretty quickly that Ariel wouldn't cut it for a major ad campaign, and people continue to produce new high-quality typefaces. I suspect (and, frankly, hope) that once the dust has settled, pretty much the same thing will happen with RF.

The analogy with fonts is an interesting one. When has it ever been necessary to negotiate with the author of a font for a usage fee based on the media in which the font will be used, the size of the font, whether the font is used on the cover (for editorial) and the print run? Oh, and if you like that font, don't even think about using it again unless you want to re-negotiate another fee...

And Photographers wonder why RF is so popular?

Mathew

[MichaelMartin]

[ QUOTE ]

Increasing use of copyright to protect objects and buildings by property owners preventing said objects from being photographed without payment of fees. (Selfridges department store in Birmingham, Eiffel Tower lighting in Paris)

[/ QUOTE ]

Selfridges and the Eiffel Tower eh? How about another "Corporation" called The Catholic Church. This lot's been fighting off occasional photographers for decades and charging those who so much as show the leg of a tripod so they can keep a hold on their postcard business.

[Peter_Galbavy]

[ QUOTE ]
If the cat ever releases you, try a Google search on 'eiffel tower lighting copyright'.


[/ QUOTE ]

I should have edited the quote better - I was interested in the UK reference to Birmingham. I am aware that the Paris scaffolding has a restriction on the reproduction on the lights - but not the unlit tower.

PS The cat moved. Eventually.

[Charles_Matter]

Yeah..that's pretty amazing, isn't it. SNTE will ultimately lose this stance..but all the unnecessary hassle??!!
I once had a conversation with a backdrop maker while looking for a painted white fluffy clouds in a blue sky backdrop. The guy was a jerk..I didn't like his price..mentioned that I could paint my own..he went into overdrive , warned me sternly that he had the copyright for clouds in the sky registered under his name; and he'd sue me if I painted one for myself (presumably even if I took a photo of one??) Good Grief!!