Slashdot Mirror
All Your Stonehenge Photos Are Belong To England
An anonymous reader writes "English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge, has apparently sent letters to various photo sharing and stock photo sites claiming that any photo of Stonehenge that is being sold violates its rights, and only English Heritage can get commercial benefit from such photos. In fact, they're asking for all money made from such photos, stating: 'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.' As one recipient noted, this seems odd, given that English Heritage has only managed Stonehenge 'for 27 of the monument's 4,500 year old history.'"
Step One: Study RIAA methods and business practice.
Step Two: Find some old stuff alying around that people seem to like.
Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.
Step Four: PROFIT!!!
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Dear English Heritage,
Go fuck yourselves.
Signed,
Everyone else
All photos of the Colosseo, St. Peter's dome, Ponte Vecchio and Ponte di Rialto belong to ... Berlusconi.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
This sort of crap has the potential to make photographer's lives really annoying. And this comes just as more and more people are active amateur photographers.
The lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted? Museums claim rights over photographic reproductions of century-old paintings? Where do we draw the line?
On the one hand, we have the physical equivalent of contracts: agreements made as a requirement for entrance; this allows zoos, museums, etc. to restrict the use of commercial photography. But photos taken from public streets? From the air?
The fact that these institutions go after commercial users isn't much comfort; the line between non-commercial amateur and commercial-but-still-amateur photography. Have ads up on a blog? Submit your photo to a local art show? Sell your photo to a stock photo site? It's easy for an amateur to make a little cash from the best of their photos.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
"We own the light you collected which was reflected from this object that predates our country by millennia "? I am hoping deep down that they're just kidding and it's just a practical joke on the world. There are so many adjectives applicable to this idiocy, but I am getting sleepy and don't have time to list them.
I would think that, in this instance, as in all things, they would be True Neutral.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Dear English Heritage,
We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Signed,
Everyone else
However.... exploiting any intellectual property says nothing about "making something intellectual property" that was not intellectual property before.
And doesn't say anything about giving the commission the exclusive right to exploit any intellectual property.
The most obvious definition of 'exploit intellectual property' is.... they can sell post cards with a picture of the historic place featured, even if someone else took the picture, and didn't give them permission.
It says nothing about "seizing any intellectual property" or "denying other people the right to exploit their own intellectual property, if relating to the monument", or "creating intellectual property rights from thin air", and enforcing them retroactively
That being said, why doesn't it make sense that they want to control the commercial exploitation of their properties? The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?
Because what's being "exploited" are photos, which are in no way, shape, or form their property.
I mean, I pay a fair bit to maintain my car as well, but that doesn't give me any control over the "exploitation" of third-party photos of it.
Personally, I don't see why English taxpayers should have to pay for the upkeep of Sonehenge and then let anyone else make money off the site.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sadly another case of greed over-ruling common sense.
Blame the current government (or the previous government for spending all the money, if you prefer).
All NDPBs (non-departmental public bodies / quangos), as well as government departments, have been told to cut costs and find new ways to make money. The one I work for is trying to sell it's scientific data (yet it's also supposed to go on data.gov.uk and be available to the taxpayers who paid for it).
Anyone sufficiently annoyed with English Heritage should write to their MP. I imagine it will fix the issue very quickly.
I could understand if English Heritage wanted to instate a new policy that required permits for commercial photography. They really want to improve the tourist facilities at the site, and have had trouble getting the money to do so. I think they'd have a very hard time of it, since Stonehenge is clearly visible from public roads and the air. So unless they want to build a giant dome over it, they really couldn't control access.
But trying to retroactively apply that policy to photos taken before the policy was in place is stupid.
Because you paid an entrance fee to visit this site, and you're also paying to maintain the site via taxes, so why should you pay even more? Will I now have to pay the government every time I take a picture of a road? I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
The very idea of an admission ticket to some of humanities very roots is in itself ridiculous. While we acknowledge that maintenance does cost real money, how does that extend to the very property rights, the images, the very photons, that reflect from the property?
This is thievery; the worst of sorts.
Me, too. Once you preview, you have to click another buttong to fix any typos, and then preview again before posting.
What's worse is that moderation selections take effect immediately. I used to be able to moderate as I read through the comments, and if I really needed to moderate something near the bottom I could go back up and remove the moderation from an earlier comment and then submit them all at the same time. Now I hesitate to moderate anything because I know the choice is unrevokable once selected. Bad design.