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.'"

Comments

First Henge

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by the aliens who built it.

Re:First Henge

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they get news of this outrage they may well come and take it back leaving English Heritage unhenged in addition to unhinged.

Re:First Henge

[icannotthinkofaname]

And they built it for good reason, too. Have you seen what they put under that place-marker? There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe.

Er, so said the British TV show, anyway.

Re:First Henge

[ocdscouter]

And, to allude to another bit of British culture, I'm sure the containment measures for said prison are 'perfectly safe'.

Re:First Henge

[BrokenHalo]

In fact, they're asking for all money made from such photos...

Ha. Well, asking isn't getting. I still have a number of really good photos I took back in the '60s, before they put up all those barriers to stop anyone getting near the stones. These guys weren't even a gleam in a bureaucrat's eye then, so they would have a hard time defending a claim on my work.

Re:First Henge

[wmac]

I am going to build my own Stonehenge in my yard and take photos of it.

Re:First Henge

[gtall]

"There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe."

I hardly think we need to bring Jimmy Carter into this.

Re:First Henge

[TaoPhoenix]

(Sonorous British Professor Says)

"According to a study of over 4,000 stories, threads with a legitimately insightful First Henge/item have a much reduced rate of low grade troll posts throughout the thread.

Therefore a new habit to be encouraged is clever first posts for the good of the social welfare, which will increase ad revenue to provide tangible benefits."

Re:First Henge

[EvilBudMan]

nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Re:First Henge

[GameboyRMH]

There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe.

...but after the decline of the druids, the prison went unattended and unguarded, and the creature grew strong feeding on the malevolence of man. Eventually it grew strong enough to break free. Upon its escape it gave birth to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and sent its hellspawned children to seek vengeance and lay waste to the earth...

Re:First Henge

[QuantumBeep]

Be sure to get the punctuation marks right in the plans.

Re:First Henge

[Aeros]

I thought Chevy Chase knocked this thing down in European Vacation?

Re:First Henge

[GameboyRMH]

Very true. That's why I try to quickly post something funny whenever I run across a FP opportunity. Even if it's a lame joke it's better than a troll post and it keeps the discussion from being catastrophically derailed, like what happened to today's Microsoft story.

Re:First Henge

[my $anity 0]

Whooosh.

If the Doctor spawned Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I sincerely think they would have turned out better.

Re:First Henge

[Obfuscant]

Doctor who?

Re:First Henge

[TheoMurpse]

This would be a funnier joke if there were even a single person in the world afraid of Jimmy Carter.

Re:First Henge

[Tharsman]

And they built it for good reason, too. Have you seen what they put under that place-marker? There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe.

Er, so said the British TV show, anyway.

I saw that documentary too!!! Very educative!

Re:First Henge

[mldi]

And they built it for good reason, too. Have you seen what they put under that place-marker? There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe.

Er, so said the British TV show, anyway.

In related news, that new assistant is easily the hottest one yet.

Can't wait for Christmas.

Simple:

[Fluffeh]

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!!!

Re:Simple:

[Fluffeh]

Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.

Re:Simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Step Five: Take it to the logical limit. They didn't make Stonehenge, but they can control the copyright, correct? So, following that logic, if I don't make a song, but I downloaded it and therefore now possess a copy of the song, do I now have say as to the copyright of the song? Because, as the copyright holder, I can't be sued for breaking copyright, right? 'I can't be breaking copyright if I have a copy!' should be a legal defense if this holds up.

Re:Simple:

[russ1337]

^^ +5 insightful,

they also better sue Microsoft for that picture of Stonehenge they distributed with their OS.

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.

While for RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims (copyright law, in various incarnations), it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:

• on the photo, because the photo (which is the form of expression of "artistic creation") is not theirs, is the photographer's
• on the Stonehenge itself - because:
  1. it is ... shall I say?... a building, not at "form of expression"
  2. even if a building would be a "form of expression", it is not theirs (being listed as world heritage)
  3. even if it would be theirs and classified as a "form of artistical expression", the creation act trancedes any current temporal limit for "protection under the copyright law" (that is, unless in UK the copyright protection was extended beyond 5000 years!)

  Head explodes!

Re:Simple:

[rhizome]

Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.

Not only that, but if you rotate the view, you'll see some kind of constable guy standing right next to the GoogleCam. Even da popo be cockblockin' royalties from the Herr'tage wallet.

Re:Simple:

[clarkkent09]

I think this is all a conspiracy to cover up the strange government experiments that are going on there. For example I see a headless body of a cop and another one apparently still alive but with no legs.

Re:Simple:

[JavaBear]

Did you get that list from "How to lose your public goodwill for dummies"?

I know RIAA et.al. did. :)

Re:Simple:

[troon]

Try to walk through the middle now, and you get "This image is no longer available". The English Heritage black helicopters have paid a visit...

Re:Simple:

[jedi58]

It's not just Stonehenge - the National Trust do it for most of their properties too, but they don't actively police people selling the photos Apparently as it's their property, any photos taken on their property (if it's taken from public land it's okay) are owned by them under terms and conditions that don't seem to be visible anywhere and by taking photos you're agreeing to them. :(

Re:Simple:

[Sulphur]

Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.

Do I see the aligned object on the right days of the year?

Re:Simple:

[rilister]

If you want an even more amazing view of Stonehenge, here's a visiting tip that doesn't seem to be that well known - if you plan ahead and fill out this form:
http://bit.ly/bYertb ...you can get inside the ropes and get within touching distance of the stones at sunrise. You get the place pretty much to yourself *and* the major road running right by the site is completely empty. It's a genuinely humbling experience and you can get views like this.
http://bit.ly/dxPWXE
Yeah, go ahead and write me, English Heritage.
(although I still feel bad about the moment I found I was accidentally standing on a halfburied lintel.)

Re:Simple:

[ocdscouter]

Apparently as it's their property, any photos taken on their property (if it's taken from public land it's okay) are owned by them under terms and conditions that don't seem to be visible anywhere and by taking photos you're agreeing to them. :(

You mean like some kind of IPLA? (Incognizant Photographer License Agreement)

Re:Simple:

[Dunbal]

My ancestors moved, hewed and placed those rocks,

Er not really. The druids were pretty much all killed off by the Romans, so in reality none of "us" built stonehenge...

Re:Simple:

[xaxa]

If people climbed all over the stones they'd end up getting damaged. Especially the busloads of antipodean tourists.

There are many other, less touristy sites that are free and unsecured. But let's keep all the tour groups at Stonehenge ;-)

Re:Simple:

[ledow]

Or you could just drive past.

Without fail, every single foreigner I've ever asked about Stonehenge finds it to be extremely uninspiring and a wasted journey / stop. And £14.95 an adult... are ya kidding me? You can get entry to any number of places for that. Hell, Tintagel Castle of something is infinitely more useful, pretty and interesting (and far cheaper) and that's just a pile of crumbling rocks falling into the sea.

Apart from there being virtually nothing at Stonehenge but some generic worn rocks in a vague circle, if you DO get past the barriers, there's much better stone circles elsewhere that are free. The "mystery" of how "they" made it isn't really a mystery for anyone who dabbles in such archaeology, or even that surprising - unusual at best.

One American friend had an organised day trip to Stonehenge from London when they visited (all the British people are now in fits of laughter). How/why I have no idea, but they were rather disappointed to say the least.

It's nice to see once, the best view now completely ruined by silly fences and borders and being from several hundred yards away as you drive down the hill to the East of it. But that's precisely what you do - see it once. I don't know of a single person that's seen it and *deliberately* gone back to stop there again (rather than passing by) - maybe I just don't know enough hippies.

Considering it's on quite a major road that many thousands of people drive down every summer to get to Devon/Cornwall, and that it's only a few hundred yards from said road (on one of the most dangerous turnoffs in the world because everyone is goggling at the stones rather than driving and not noticing the *one* guy miles in front who's stopping to turn to actually go TO them), the number of people you ever see inside the barriers is pretty pitiful. Unless, of course, you're there on the solstice when you REALLY don't want to be using that road at all unless you fancy day-long queues and not being able to get within a mile of the damn thing.

Stonehenge really is the most over-hyped, unimpressive place in Britain that I know. Keep driving, get to Cornwall and go look at dozens of standing stone sites for free (or much cheaper under the National Trust) or, even better, go look at something vaguely interesting like Tintagel, St Michael's Mount, or something vaguely recognisable.

Re:Simple:

[Angostura]

That's the point though, isn't it? English Heritage isn't attempting to stop anyone taking photos or displaying photos, they are attempting to stop people selling the images for profit.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised this has been going on for years and isn't limited to the Henge, try using photos of the Eiffel Tower for commercial gain and see where it gets you.

Re:Simple:

[turbidostato]

"try using photos of the Eiffel Tower for commercial gain and see where it gets you."

I don't think there's any problem making commercial gain from Eiffer Tower. It's the night lights what could get you in troubles.

Re:Simple:

[ScrewMaster]

While for the RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims

I think what you mean is that the RIAA has a clear legal basis for their actions. And, the answer to that is: not always. They've been caught more than once suing over material for which they do not have the rights. Whether that's due to Incompetence or sleaziness, I couldn't say. The point being that the RIAA is hardly an improvement over this English Heritage outfit.

Re:Simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Er not really. The druids were pretty much all killed off by the Romans, so in reality none of "us" built stonehenge...

There is no evidence whatsoever connecting Stonehenge to druids. Modern druids like to think it's a druidic monument, but wishful thinking don't make it so. (Besides, modern druids also have no connection to ancient druids; modern druidry is based on 19th-century romantic fantasies, not history or archaeology.)

Re:Simple:

[thoth]

Or you could just drive past.

I had a chance to visit the UK a few years ago, and took the train out to Salisbury to see Stonehenge. I enjoyed it, since it is a famous landmark, but what blew me away that day was wandering the cathedral in Salisbury. The medieval clock on display, working since 1200 or whatever, was really cool, at least to me. And there was an original Magna Carta on display, one of the few (four?) surviving copies, fairly legible too. All in all I went out planning to see Stonehenge but wound up pleasantly surprised with unplanned discoveries at the nearby town.

Re:Simple:

[bigbird]

Yes, it's an impressive cathedral, and the Magna Carta is definitely worth a look. Old Sarum, the original Salisbury, is an interesting place too. It's very close by.

Re:Simple:

[Grizzley9]

What? I just walked right through the middle of it in Google Maps. Pretty cool, now I don't have to visit. Take that English Heritage society!!

Re:Simple:

[anonymous cupboard]

I went there with my school when I was young and many years ago before EH took over. There was no boundary, and I even ended up sitting on one of the fallen stones (not forbidden in those days). What was more interesting were some of the nearby complexes such as Avebury which had a proper museum.

Re:Simple:

[anonymous cupboard]

it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.

# even if a building would be a "form of expression", it is not theirs (being listed as world heritage [unesco.org])

The term "world heritage" is only a special designation which may give access to grants. It does not "belong" to UNESCO, it is theoretically under the 'ownership' of English Heritage.

Re:Simple:

[ydrol]

From Darl McBride's new book "How to fail and win"

Re:Simple:

[DavidTC]

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.

This is what is, frankly, nonsense.

There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:

One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. This is clearly a stupid rational for something outside, and I would assume almost all photographs of Stonehenge are taken without a flash anyway.

Two is if there are things still copyright. Which is an even stupider reason for this.

I went to the Museum of Modern Art , and could take non-flash photography of all works except, strangely, a single one, because it was on loan and still under copyright. (It was some sort of shark in a case.)

This group might have some legal basis for restricting photography, you can indeed stop people from taking pictures on your 'property', but at that point Stonehenge needs to be taken away from their management and given to someone else. They don't actually 'own' Stonehenge, they're just running the property on behave of the British government, and if they're going to act like this, they should be removed from that.

This is, incidentally, different than restricting someone from using it as a trademark, which the British government could do if they wanted.

Re:Simple:

[mark72005]

This is actually better than their policy at places like Westminster Abbey, where they won't let you take any photos at all.

Re:Simple:

[Bertie]

The most impressive thing about Salisbury Cathedral is that that whacking great building, with its 400-foot steeple, has foundations that are four feet deep. And it's built on a water meadow. It essentially floats. How's that for engineering?

Re:Simple:

[Jim_Maryland]

I had the opportunity to visit Stonehenge a few years ago while on a business trip to the UK. Not entirely sure what I expected from my visit to Stonehenge, but I was fairly disappointed with the content of the audio tour. The implementation wasn't bad with the multi-language support via numeric codes at the points along the walk paths, but I don't feel the content offered all that much on the site. I guess I'm glad to have seen it, but I know that I wouldn't have a reason to go back to it. I'd get just as much value out of a virtual visit along with a historical book.

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property.

Are you sure that the photos were shot after they enforced the "no photos on my property" rule (and in breach of this rule)? Somehow, I don't think the rule has been always in place, as I don't think they investigated when the photos they want down (or paid for) were actually shot. Somehow, looks like they are hungry for the money; probably explainable now that UK govt wants to cut 1/3 of the public service, but not necessary right.

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.

This is what is, frankly, nonsense.

There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:

One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. [...]

Two is if there are things still copyright. [...]

I can imagine another dummy reason a museum can invoke: "don't take photos, I don't want my security setting to be photographed; and good luck trying to avoid it, I took the pain of making it unavoidable".

But, somehow... I don't know why... I can imagine this being invokable for the Stonehenge... not by a rational person anyway.

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

The term "world heritage" is only a special designation which may give access to grants. It does not "belong" to UNESCO, it is theoretically under the 'ownership' of English Heritage.

Grants in what form? I don't think the term grants them the right to impose unreasonable restrictions or to assert copyright over images that don't belong to them.
If grants in the form of funding: just from what sources these funds come from? (could it be that they are actually from taxes paid, among others, by the very photographers affected?)

Re:Simple:

[Neoprofin]

Yes, fabulous sites that are both older and larger. The only thing special about Stonehenge is the horizontal stones.

Re:Simple:

[Rob the Bold]

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!!!

You also inadvertently described the Walt Disney Company.

Re:Simple:

[david_thornley]

When I visited it, we weren't allowed to go inside the ropes, so no walking through the middle. What annoyed me is that we weren't allowed to walk all the way around it, as the ropes ran into a highway. It was sunset shortly after the winter solstice, and I wanted to see how close the stones came to lining up with the sun.

Re:Simple:

[Littleman_TAMU]

This guide is not by a lawyer, but it seems to have a good general overview of the law regarding photography (warning: pdf link). Basically there are four aspects to photography as far as the law is concerned. This is US law.

1) Whether you have a right to take a photograph (e.g. there are laws that restrict you from taking pictures of some military bases whether you can see them from a public place or not)
2) Whether you have a right to be in the place where you're taking the photograph (e.g. with Stonehenge I presume it's private property so you if you run on without paying their admission fee you'd be trespassing)
3) Whether you have a right to publish the photograph (e.g. you can't legally publish an image of a copyrighted work as your MoMA visit indicates though surely fair use would apply to parody or the like)
4) Whether you have a right to make money off the publication of a photograph (e.g. you can't sell a photo you took of Brett Farve without his permission, but there has to be more to it than that because the paparazzi are always selling celebrity photos)

In general, those four rights are unrelated. That is, you can be trespassing, but still be able to take a photograph and publish it, you just might be arrested for trespassing. As for British law, I have no idea what your rights would be. The government has video cameras watching you on the streets in London, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I learned it was illegal for a the general public to take pictures of those same cameras.

Re:Simple:

[mcgrew]

Whether that's due to Incompetence or sleaziness, I couldn't say.

It can't be both?

Re:Simple:

[currently_awake]

the copywrite clock started at date of creation/first public display. I think it's expired.

Re:Simple:

[DavidTC]

To clear up #4, people have 'likeness rights'. You can't use a photograph of them to sell something.

They have to be recognizable, it has to be specifically of them, and it has to imply, in some manner, that they're endorsing something. It's what licensed sports game have to pay for, in addition to the team names and logos.

Which is why the paparazzi aren't covered...they're taking pictures of him to sell as pictures of him, not to use in some adverting campaign he didn't agree to.

There's also a 'privacy right' that's in the same general thing...but that's more anti-harrassment. You do not have permission to follow non-public people and take pictures of them specifically. This doesn't apply to public people, somehow, and only applies if you're publishing the photos publicly. (As opposed to private investigators, for example.)

I suspect what these people are is trying to is something pretty close to 'Likeness rights' for Stonehenge, but there are no likeness rights for anything but people.

Re:Simple:

[owlstead]

Wow, I knew these stones are big, but I never thought you could drive through it.

Re:Simple:

[Any Web Loco]

This. Salisbury, and the Cathedral, really are the business - impressive visually, extremely impressive historically. Do make the time to go check it out and do take the time to see it properly. The Magna Carta, really is something.

Re:Simple:

[Obfuscant]

The reason a national heritage person gave me for the ban in one of the old houses we visited, right after I had taken a picture, was that they were trying to prevent criminals from making up photo catalogs of the knick-knacks. They said that there had been blokes making up figurative "wish lists" of piccys, so less-than-scrupulous collectors could say "I'd like one of those and two of those" and hire someone to break in to steal it.

Re:Simple:

[DavidTC]

That's just total nonsense. It doesn't even bear a response, it's so idiotic.

Re:Simple:

[TheoMurpse]

I can't speak for English copyright law, but I feel like spouting off a bit about American copyright law for fun. For all these points, assume Stonehenge is in the US instead of England.

1. Architectural works can be copyrighted.
2. I wonder if the merger doctrine would prevent any copyright claim on Stonehenge (ignoring the expiration of the copyright) since the entirety of the work was (if I'm not mistaken) for calendrical purposes.
3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

1. Architectural works can be copyrighted.

What is protected? Does the protection extends to the building itself or only to the plans/drafts/etc?

3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.

In this case, the curators/owners would be entitled to ask for a penalty to be paid by the person in breach of the contract, meaning that:

• going for the sellers of stock-photos is wrong. The person that breached the agreement terms is the person that took the shot and sold the rights (thus triggering the "no commercial photo" clause)
• it is still not legal to invoke the copyright ownership as a reason for asking money. It was the agreement that was broken.

Re:Simple:

[TheoMurpse]

What is protected? Does the protection extends to the building itself or only to the plans/drafts/etc?

All of them. According to 17 USC 102, you get copyright protection for an architectural work provided you meet these requirements:

1. fixed in any tangible medium of expression
2. from which [the work] can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated
3. either directly or with the aid of a device

A building itself is fixed in a tangible medium (of brick, e.g.), and can be perceived, usually directly. Note that if the building is not visible from a public space, then the rules are different, I think.

Now, the scope of copyright in an architectural work is not as broad as, say, the copyright in a musical work. Namely, based on 17 USC 120, "[t]he copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."

Which is why you can take a picture of the exterior of any number of buildings designed in the past few decades without permission from the copyright holder.

In this case, the curators/owners would be entitled to ask for a penalty to be paid by the person in breach of the contract, meaning that:

That's actually a really, really insightful argument, and I'm surprised someone on Slashdot was able to articulate that distinction. (I'm assuming you're not a lawyer based on your ignorance of the law pertaining to copyright of architectural works.)

Since no copyright was violated, yes, no penalty would be owed due to copyright violation. Rather, a license was broken, and some sort of liquidated damages clause, actual damages, or injunctive relief (preventing further sale of the stock photographs) would be proper, I think.

Probably, you'd go after the photographer to have him tell the stock photo vendor he can't sell the photo anymore. If he sold the copyright, he'd have to pay damages or something. I'm not really sure. Since I'm still a young lawyer, my knowledge of the actual remedies in such a case are purely theoretical ;)

Re:Simple:

[c0lo]

What is protected? Does the protection extends to the building itself or only to the plans/drafts/etc?

All of them. According to 17 USC 102

Mods: +1 Informative, please (yes, I know the chances a slim given how long TFA was pushed on /.). Anyway, thanks for the link.

That's actually a really, really insightful argument, and I'm surprised someone on Slashdot was able to articulate that distinction.

It doesn't take long to focus on what is the subject of the breach, especially if the "building" is millennia old. I'm rather surprised that very few perceived the flaw

(a custodian is just a steward/manager, not the owner. Unless there is an owner and the owner passes the rights to the custodian... but for an item on the world's heritage list, I assume that the "world" is the owner - inheriting the item...
The photographers, which do have part of the ownership, are restricted in what they can do with images of the object of their ownership. It is like the "property manager" forbidding the owner to take photos of their property, just because they entered in a "property management contract").

Re:Simple:

[Lanteran]

I'm thinking the last point is what allows them to do this...

Re:Simple:

[Macgrrl]

Somehow I can't see someone breaking in and walking off with Stonehenge in the night...

Maybe they could paint it pink and erect a simple SEP field...

Re:Simple:

[KingAlanI]

Neither link resolves to Goatse, but the first does resolve to a PDF.
The first does have "PDF" in the real URL.
For that and other reasons I like the http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/40582 greasemonkey script.

Re:Simple:

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, step 4 is getting a government to go along with your scheme, and threaten violence if they don't hand over the money you demand.

Then you can move on to Step Five: Profit.

Without this revised Step Four, everybody says, "what are you fucking kidding me? Go away." Threaten to steal their property or put them in a rapecage, and suddenly you get peoples' attention.

Re:Simple:

[Lord Kestrel]

I just visited 6 weeks ago or so. You're correct that the normal tour doesn't allow you to get anywhere near, but they also have a tour option that allows you to go around the ropes and wander around the stones themselves. It's limited to sunrise/sunset, and they only allow 26 people per tour. You need to sign up for it a few months in advance, but it's well worth the hassle and small expense.

Re:Simple:

[ikeman32]

Step Five: Ignore all moronic claims of ownership. Step Six: Optain emails of said morons ans sign up for every pornographic and garbage sites you can find and fill their inbox with useless junk and phishing eamil scams. Stepr Seven: Net Loss

From the original email:

[rickzor]

'We are sending you an email regarding images of Stonehenge in your [website]. Please be aware that any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any commercial interest, all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.'

It appears that from this email even website advertising would be "violating their rights"

Re:From the original email:

[WidgetGuy]

Well... when they say "we're sending you an email" in the email.. that usually means some goniff in the basement had a brainwave and acted on it before anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could stop him..

Geeze. I mean even Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan haven't sunk to dunning the paparazzi (or the cops) for taking and, then, publishing (for monetary gain) some truly awful, no-panties, pictures of them. You didn't create Stonehenge. Where do you get off claiming copyright?. It's sitting out there on public land. In plain view. Indeed, since tourism makes up a good chunk of GB's GDP, one would think you'd be paying professional photographers to take and publish pictures of Stonehenge. Not the other way around. What are you going to claim next? Pictures of Big Ben taken by non-English Heritage photographers and used for profit? Parliament? Prince Charles (well, actually, I'm kinda with you on that one).

If you don't want people taking pictures of Stonehenge, drape a big, black tarp over the whole damn thing and charge photographers to remove it. Yeah, that's it. Reduce Stonehenge to a peepshow.

We promise not to use photographs of Stonehenge taken by you or someone you hired. But, that's all you get. And you'll like it.

Now, please be a darling and FUCK OFF!

Cheers

Re:From the original email:

[hedwards]

Good luck trying to enforce that against Americans in America. Copyright over here doesn't extend that far. Photos of historic landmarks fall way within the boundaries of fair use. Especially since Stonehenge itself wouldn't qualify for copyright protection even under the extremely relaxed definition that we've been working with for the last few years.

Re:From the original email:

[BitZtream]

We are sending you an email regarding your use of [website] in letters regarding copyright issues. Our license agreement (which you agreed to by sending us an email) states that when anyone uses our website name, URL or any other reference for any reason, all commercial interests, not limited in any way to [website] are property of [website].

There for, just turn your bank account over to us now and shut the fuck up.

Greed vs Common Sense

[ejecta]

Sadly another case of greed over-ruling common sense.

Re:Greed vs Common Sense

[xaxa]

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.

Carhenge

[tag]

Fine. I'll use pictures of Carhenge instead.

Re:Carhenge

[Anonymous Coward]

does this qualify as a car analogy?

Re:Carhenge

[dominious]

there exists a Carhenge?! I can see this 1000 years later:

tourist 1: hmm, they must have been using this wheel to calculate the time of sunrise or something...
tourist 2: indeed, amazing technology they had. I wonder what these numbers show in front of the "main" seat. Must be some kind of a galactic compass!
tourist 1: woah...

Re:Carhenge

[Abstrackt]

It's like a car analogy.

Re:Carhenge

[mcgrew]

Or Woodhenge

Dear English Heritage,

[MarioMax]

Dear English Heritage,

Go fuck yourselves.

Signed,

Everyone else

Re:Dear English Heritage,

[Dynedain]

Exactly. My photos of Stonehenge are mine. I shot them, and my admission ticket had nothing on it restricting the terms of my photographing it.

These are my fucking property. I created them, I own the copyright, not this organization, and I'll sell them if I please.

Now, if they want to try to trademark Stonehenge, go right ahead, but I don't see it holding up.

Re:Dear English Heritage,

[acedotcom]

Dear Everyone Else,

Although we do find your language offensive, we would like to extend somewhat of an olive branch.That is, of course, what we might say if we weren't money hungry control freaks. We need to buy money for our families.

We are sorry to hear about your lack of respect for our "rights", but we all here hope your mothers are buggered by syphilitic bears.

Cordial Yours,

English Heritage

Re:Dear English Heritage,

[Kanasta]

I duno, in Sydney pictures of the harbour bridge and opera house have the same restrictions.

Of course

[VincenzoRomano]

All photos of the Colosseo, St. Peter's dome, Ponte Vecchio and Ponte di Rialto belong to ... Berlusconi.

Re:Of course

[VincenzoRomano]

You are wrong.100% of people doesn't care for 100% of laws.

Re:Of course

[Dunbal]

100% of people doesn't care for 100% of laws.

You realize that with this statement you are saying that lawyers are not people. Well done!

Re:Of course

[delinear]

If you mean St. Peter's Basilica, since it's in the independent city state of the Vatican, all photography belongs to the Pope (or, possibly, to God). Interestingly, while on the subject of the Vatican and restricted photography, taking photographs of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is stricly forbidden, the rights now being owned by the Japanese company that restored it, but when I was there pretty much everyone ignored the rule (some guy even had a full tripod setup in the middle of the floor with a remote control and a freind to help create a space around the camera). The guards seemed to shout occasionally that photography was forbidden, but they did very little to actually prevent it even though most people were blatant about it.

Re:Of course

[Dekker3D]

And neither are the lawmakers. I like!

Re:Of course

[drinkypoo]

You realize that with this statement you are saying that lawyers are not people. Well done!

I likes mine raw.

Re:Of course

[ScrewMaster]

You realize that with this statement you are saying that lawyers are not people. Well done!

I likes mine raw.

Just drag them behind your horse for a few miles.

Re:Of course

[CptNerd]

I'd prefer them to be rare. Endangered, even.

Re:Of course

[corbettw]

I've been to ancient buildings where flash photography was strictly forbidden, on the grounds that the excess photons from all those flashing lights could damage the delicate pigments used in the paint, but I've never seen anything forbidding photography outright. Are you sure you remember the rule at the Sistine Chapel correctly?

Re:Of course

[molo]

No, it is only flash photography that is forbidden at the chapel.

-molo

Ruining photography

[proxima]

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.

Re:Ruining photography

[Sylak]

As a Theatre Lighting Designer, i ask how i too can claim copyright on a lighting design and defeat a longstanding tradition which says i am unable to copyright anything but my paperwork.

Re:Ruining photography

[lulalala]

Apparently this happened to Taipei 101 too. Its public relations section claims any advertisement using the building's iconic image need to pay a fee for it. Post card publisher and different real state agencies were sent legal notices in the past.

Re:Ruining photography

[hcs_$reboot]

This sort of crap has the potential to make photographer's lives really annoying

Not sure about that. Nowadays everyone takes photographs of anything, and in an instant it becomes available to the world.
At least the photographs of this particular English protected Stonehenge will deserve to have some value, the photographs we'll be proud to show. The ones that won't end hidden under the stack of terabytes of digital images. Yes, a new challenge for photographers.

Re:Ruining photography

[Anonymous Coward]

As a theatrical lighting designer, I dislike people like you. I don't want to copy your design for your last play. Firstly, it doesn't match the play I'm working on (even if it's the same script). If i did use it, it would look like crap and I wouldn't be hired again. Are you afraid of me copying a specific thing you did with a light? Guess what, borrowing little bits from others is how you grow in the arts. It's not just about each little idea, it's also about how you combine them. Think collage. And if you create the iconic version that runs on broadway and that every director asks to be repeated, well fucking awesome. Also, no other lighting designer is ever going to have the same equipment or space again, so even if they do recreate your look, it's less like copying and more like making a crayon version of the Mona Lisa. An homage. So please, get over yourself. This isn't like downloading music, where instead of coming to see your play they're looking at pictures they pirated or they went out and created a perfect working replica. At worst, someone several years down the line will make they're lights look kinda like what they're (crappy) camera remembers them like, only with different equipment in a different space. And people will say "those lights don't work for this production" and they will be out of work. Also, you don't mention copywriting your programming. Which you can. Also you're instructions to the board op and SM. Which, again, are useless unless everything is a perfect match. Which it won't be. Sorry for being so ranty. But worrying about someone copying one of my lighting designs is like worrying about someone copying the way an actor acts. Yes, with enough work someone could do it...but only sorta, and it would v&e meaningless to someone watching, and anyone in the biz making hiring decisions is gonna call them out on it...

Re:Ruining photography

[_Sprocket_]

Just make sure that your Stonehenge monument isn't in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. And consider turning your f-stop up to 11.

Re:Ruining photography

[xnpu]

Interpreting a play into light is art? Since when? By association?

Re:Ruining photography

[CrashandDie]

Well, it's already a big mess.

In France for example, you can take the picture of someone on the street, but you're not allowed to publish it. You need to have a signed waiver from the person, or the legal guardian. Even furniture and houses benefit from this.

What it basically means, is that I can't use the picture of a specific house to try and sell the house I'm currently building. It also means that I could get in trouble for putting a picture of myself on Flickr if there happens to be an identifiable stranger in the background. I also can't publish a picture of a (for the sake of example) chest-drawer in the middle of a public street, or sell it, or show it during an art expo and gain material benefits from it, unless the owner of the chest drawer signed a waiver.

However, I can take a picture of a bunch of people who are demonstrating (quite common for the past weeks in France), provided that I'm photographing "a group of people demonstrating", not "a person". Though, when you think about the 18+ megapixel cameras any sufficiently committed amateur photographer can get their hands on, I wonder where the line is drawn. Can I crop?

I'm quite an avid photographer; the UK/Australia/US rules on this were an absolute godsend (rough lines: don't breach the "expectation of privacy" and you're good to go). Well, that was in the days before Stonehenge was built.

Re:Ruining photography

[Grapplebeam]

It's simply capitalism over artistic endeavor and appreciation. After all, if people enjoy your art for free, you won't have gained any money.

Re:Ruining photography

[jernejk]

As a hobbyist photographer I must say producing the lighting of the Eiffel Tower is a hell of a job, while pressing the shutter button is... well.. pressing the shutter button. There is alot creativity in photography, but taking photos of other's people work it aint.

Re:Ruining photography

[Sylak]

I was trying to be funny because i find this ridiculous. The point that was trying to be made was that copyrighting a light display is in every other sense not feasible, and to use it to limit photograph is a gross misinterpretation. I'm very sorry you took that seriously, but I'm very firmly in a camp against copyrighting light displays not only for the reasons you mentioned, but simply because copyrighting it is putting a stifle on a lot creativity, because i and other LDs i know copy each other when they see an element they life and want to reuse.

Re:Ruining photography

[Sylak]

It always has been, especially when it's tied closer to scenography and is used as an active element in the set and costume design.

Re:Ruining photography

[DerekLyons]

It's easy for an amateur to make a little cash from the best of their photos.

In by "little cash" you mean "over the course of a year earning enough for a fast food burger, working out to a salary of about .0001 cents/hour" sure.

While we're making unenforcable claims...

[mykos]

"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.

Any UK legal folk around?

[starseeker]

This seems like an inconceivably broad interpretation of any copyright law I am familiar with, but IANAL so perhaps there are some legal loopholes in UK law that allow this?

I would have thought copyright of a photograph would rest with the photographer (unless it's one of those cases where a building's design is considered copyrighted, but surely Stonehenge is beyond any conceivable copyright claims from the creators...)

I suppose there might be some kind of restrictions due to tricks (nighttime Eiffel tower is one example, I believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims)

IIRC the UK allows copyright claims based on effort rather than creativity, so perhaps the effort to "maintain" Stonehenge in good condition allows some kind of copyright claim? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#The_.22sweat_of_the_brow.22_doctrine) Seems unlikely to me, but it's not my field...

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[T Murphy]

My guess is Stonehenge told these guys that it is offended by people taking pictures, given how broad British libel laws are.

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[headLITE]

I'm not UK legal folk, but there is this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[headLITE]

The EU actually has a non-idiotic /recommendation/ for this, it's just not binding, i.e. member states don't have to implement it. The EU recommendation is similar to the actual UK legislation that basically allows taking pictures of anything that's directly visible from a public location. I.e. buildings on a road, even sculptures. Now I don't know the status of Stonehenge, maybe it's not considered a public location for some reason?

But I doubt it is really covered by /copyright/ of all things, since it's not an original work of the would-be copyright owner.

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[gowen]

That applies to things that are actually copyright already -- so if I make a NEW henge on public display somewhere, I get to restrict images of it, because its my artistic work.. But Stonehenge's design is out of copyright now.

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[stupid_is]

I think the premise is that English Heritage own the site and issue tickets to folks to visit it, so they control the rights you gain on entering their property. As part of the T&C's (although these aren't visible on their website) it will no doubt state that you may not take pictures of the monument for commercial gain. I've not been, so don't have a copy of a ticket to verify this, though.

This is a widespread practice in museums and art galleries as it protects their cottage industry of selling prints.

I wonder whether they might exert the same claims on someone who took a picture from off their property with a long lens?

Re:Any UK legal folk around?

[srmalloy]

However, that's only with regard to a violation of copyright. Although you can argue that Stonehenge is a work of 'artistic craftsmanship', given the number of millenia since its creation, the copyright on it has long since expired (even Disney hasn't managed to lobby an extension of copyright to that degree), which would render any issue of copyright under that clause nugatory.

seems to misconstrue the nature of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

This just seems bizarre.

Prima facie (*in Australia at least*) the people who have exclusive rights with respect to a photo (and hence the ability to derive a commercial benefit there-from) is the photographer (subject to statutory exceptions such as work done in the course of employment etc), unless there is an agreement to the contrary, a license, or he/she/it has assigned their IP rights as an author to another party.

obligatory disclaimer:- this is different for every jurisdiction - if you have a specific copyright issue or are facing any other sort of claim go see a lawyer!

Re:seems to misconstrue the nature of copyright

[jeffrey.endres]

Seems to be a trend. Parks Victoria is attempting to charge photographers for taking photos of state parks. I wonder if you could counter with a fraud charge?

Re:seems to misconstrue the nature of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of, if in Australia, if you face a threat of an action for copyright infringement by an entity which is not the copyright holder or an exclusive licensee, you can go to Court and get an injunction preventing them from continuing to make the said threats and you can get damages (Copyright Act s202).

I imagine this would be horrendously expensive, and if the other party thought they had a legit claim it would make them commence their proceeding against you by way of a counter-claim.

"charges" is not the correct term to use in this context.

I don't know of any particular exceptions, powers or rights which Parks Vic has that may change the prima facie situation, and it's really for them to establish their case...but anything is possible in the legal world.

Image rights and trademark

[williamhb]

I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is

The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.

Various case law in some jurisdictions (eg, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile Productions 1998 in the US) seem to allow companies to protect their building's images as trademarks even though the building is visible from public land. So I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss English Heritage's claim as "unthinkable and ridiculous". (Or at least, it might be "ridiculous" to us on Slashdot, but they might still win.) It'll be interesting to watch anyway.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[cappp]

The Act seems to apply to this case exactly. I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent. I would imagine they're trying to facilitate English Heritage becoming more financially independent - 2008 they received 132mil from the government which was 2/3 of their operating budget. I suppose todays announcement that Culture, Media and Sport is taking a 24% cut over the next few years has them rather spooked.

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? As long as they aren't charging then it seems English Heritage doesn't mind - seems fair.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[williamhb]

The Stonehenge claim is more in line with European public law than Anglo-Saxon tradition (the irony is thick here).

Not quite as thick... Stonehenge predates the Angle and Saxon arrival in Britain too by a few thousand years!

Re:Image rights and trademark

[not_surt]

Surely being given rights to exploit a thing isn't the same as taking the right to prevent others from exploiting it?

Re:Image rights and trademark

[c0lo]

I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is

The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.

May I argue that, before exploiting any intellectual property, they need to prove that they are the owner of that property? Then, they need to prove that the said property pertains to "intellectual property"?

(I'd continue by arguing that it would be needed a proof they actually have/manifest even a rudimentary level of intellect to be allowed to have ownership over an "intellectual property", but this would be at the same level of craziness as the very concept of "intellectual property").

Re:Image rights and trademark

[mysidia]

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 they took photographs a long time ago, maybe long before the current 'owners' of the property were involved, and don't need the public's investment? e.g. The public's investment has nothing to do with it

They are 5000 years old. You think the public needs to continuously invest anything in them, to keep them existing? All the public has to do is not destroy them.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[mysidia]

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

Re:Image rights and trademark

[ishobo]

Hall of Fame v. Gentile was vacated by the 6th and it went no further. It did not establish any case law regarding the trademark of a structure. If you are going to throw around examples, I recommend the 6th's White Tower v. White Castle (1937) and Ferrari v. Roberts (1991), Also, the SCOTUS opinion in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992). Finally, the Lanham Act of 1946 had a narrow scope protecting marks likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers as to the source of goods or services. In 1967, the statute was ammended, eliminating the wording of purchasers, broading the scope.

Finally, one key detail that is often overlooked in the Hall of Fame case is both parties sold posters of the museum, hence they were competitors.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[c0lo]

My interpretation would be that exploit in this context means something more akin to "manage".

Even so, to manage (or exploit) "any inttelectual property", shouldn't the said property exist in the first place?

In what misterious way has Stonehenge became subject of copyright law?

Re:Image rights and trademark

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[jonbryce]

Is there anything there that grants them this as intellectual property to exploit?

Re:Image rights and trademark

[dkf]

I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

That's what you'll need to read Hansard for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.

As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[Dunbal]

I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

Translation: tell me what to think!

Please - use your fucking head when judging, that was what the "intent" of having a judicial branch was.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[cappp]

Thanks, I didn't know about that site - something to mess around with next time a similar topic comes up.

The reference to superior legislation is confusingly phrased but I think it's refering to Article 1 and the right to Protection of Property.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[cappp]

When laws are written in America there is an entire body of written material that accompanies them - including the Legislative History which includes the sum of all the discussions, debates, research, transcripts, and so on that represent the process of formulating said piece of legislation. This is a handy secondary authority when you're trying to decide what the law as written means. If you read the Act you'll find that there's some ambiguity as to what is meant, if we had Legislative History to fall back on we could trawl through the arguments that lead to the final writing and thereby follow the logic as it developed. The Judicial Branch often refers back to intent if it's demonstrable in the histories, it's hardly a bleating cry for instruction. Indeed the parlimentary discussion that was linked by DKF helps contextualise the question at hand and would be really useful for anyone seeking to challenge or support the law.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[Asic Eng]

They are 5000 years old. You think the public needs to continuously invest anything in them, to keep them existing?

Yes, in the case of Stonehenge you used to be able to rent a hammer in the village so you could go and chip away at the ancient monument and have a "souvenir". If you don't protect these sites, people will vandalize them. It's not like Stonehenge is the only English Heritage site either, there are plenty of castles, gardens monuments and what ever. It takes money to maintain them.

Just because they have an obvious need doesn't mean that they should go around and randomly charge photographers, though.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[moortak]

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile Productions ruled almost the opposite of that. In fact there is a particularly relevant quote from the majority opinion in that case."the Museum's building strikes us not as a separate and distinct mark on the good, but rather as the good itself. So trademark is out copyright is out do to section 120 of the copyright act. If US law were the deciding thing they would have to rely on some type of contract.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[Sockatume]

That they have the right to do it does not mean that they have the exclusive right to do it, which is what's required in this instance.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[naasking]

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 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.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[MartinSchou]

Finally, one key detail that is often overlooked in the Hall of Fame case is [...]

that it related to US imagry, and not stuff in England?

Re:Image rights and trademark

[Hatta]

The Act seems to apply to this case exactly. I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

If the intent of the legislation isn't clear, then more language needs to be added to the legislation to make it clear. Comments are not law, and should not be used as if they were.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[DavidTC]

I don't understand why they need any budget beyond paying a guard to stand at the site and yell at people doing stuff they aren't allowed, and a guy to come along every week and cut the grass.

I'm pretty sure Stonehenge 'maintains' itself.

Now, if the British people want to turn those responsibilities over to third party, and thus the third party getting the right to build a souvenir stand next to it or and sell guided tours, that seems reasonable. Perhaps even charge for admission, although that seems dodgy. (You can functionally charge for admission by charging for parking, which seems more reasonable.)

The whole idea that they're 'in charge' of the site and can claim to 'own' Stonehenge is a bit disturbing, though. The British people own Stonehenge.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of 'privatizing' historic sites, and I'm certainly not a big fan of letting these companies do whatever they want,. especially when they still have a huge subside from the government! The US, amazingly enough for a country much farther to the right than the UK, still manages to run its own historic sites, or has grant-supported non-profits do it, and often don't even charge any admission.

I mean, frickin Stone Mountain, which is a giant complex built around a historic site, has a $10 parking pass (Which is the same price as Stonehenge...but for a carload of people. Or you can walk in for free.), which lets you into all the public areas with hiking trails, picnic areas, lasers shows (Actual recent man-made things that cost money to build and maintain.), and, guess what? You can take all the pictures of the mountain you want.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[DavidTC]

If you don't protect these sites, people will vandalize them. It's not like Stonehenge is the only English Heritage site either, there are plenty of castles, gardens monuments and what ever. It takes money to maintain them.

It takes paying a rent-a-cop to sit there and yell at people who get too close to stuff. That's it.

Re:Image rights and trademark

[Asic Eng]

To protect against vandalism yes. To maintain a garden? Did you even think about what you posted?

Re:Image rights and trademark

[ishobo]

If you had proper reading skills you would understand I was replying to a person that mentioned a case in the United States.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1831662&cid=33970084

Various case law in some jurisdictions (eg, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile Productions 1998 in the US)...

 

Re:Image rights and trademark

[DavidTC]

You can talk about gardens all you want, I'm talking about Stonehenge.

The idea that a garden, which has to be constantly replanted, is a 'heritage' site, is somewhat stupid.

You're talking about a park, which is all well and good to have, but is hardly some great cultural blow if it isn't maintained for a few years, and two decades from now the government has to step back in and fix it up. You need even less protection for a park, people aren't going to vandalize trees. (Some of them have some historic buildings, which do need guards.)

Unlike Stonehenge, which people actually will damage.

Music piracy has taken enough money from bands..

[shadowrat]

now this is going to absolutely ruin Spinal Tap.

A disguised way to sue Microsoft?

[Dogbertius]

C:\WINDOWS\Web\Wallpaper\Stonehenge.jpg

Need I say more?

Re:A disguised way to sue Microsoft?

[dominious]

Dear Dogbertius

OH THANKS!

Signed
Microsoft

Fortunately...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

...I've shot hundreds of pictures of the Loch Ness monster. Freeeedommmm!

Well...

[falken0905]

I think the Druids will have something to say about this.

Re:Well...

[guyminuslife]

I would think that, in this instance, as in all things, they would be True Neutral.

Re:Well...

[Chrisq]

Druidism has just been recognized as a religion in the UK, wouldn't they have some ground to claim "intellectual property" on Stonehenge?

Or maybe it will go the other way round and English Heritage will start taking all the money from collection boxes in St Pauls Cathedral, York Minster, etc - but once a year 'allow Christians "special access" for a religious ceremony.

Re:Well...

[Merls the Sneaky]

Considering the Romans killed them all, I reckon the druids will be saying fuck all.

Re:Well...

[Asic Eng]

Well some people today may have a religion which they believe to resemble what the druids thousands of years ago believed. To be a religion it needs to be a genuinely held belief.

However just because a belief is genuine, doesn't mean it's true. In this particular case, it doesn't mean that their acts of worship are even remotely similar to what the druids practiced, doesn't mean they believe in any of the same things or establish any kind of connection to druids.

So: wouldn't they have some ground to claim "intellectual property" on Stonehenge?

No.

Re:Well...

[dkleinsc]

As a modern-day druid, we know full well what portions of what we do are part of documented religious practices of the ancient Celts. For instance, we've discarded the part about stabbing prisoners with swords and making prophecies based on their entrails and what movements they made as they died. On the flip side, many of us have in fact studied what's known about ancient druidic practice, and will make use of the ideas that can be translated into modern times. The gods that are worshiped as part of druidic rituals are generally speaking the same ones mentioned in early Welsh and Irish literature, or the Roman writer's descriptions of Celtic religion.

And it's worth noting that even if modern druids were direct religious descendants of ancient druids, Stonehenge was built about 2500 years before the first documentary evidence of druids. There's also archaelogical evidence of an invasion around 1200 BCE, which some scholars think was what brought the Celts (and thus druidism) to Britain in the first place.

Not far away...

[Venkata Prasad]

... before the municipalities claim copyrights over photos taken in cities!

White House henge

[sempir]

Now there's an idea....don't want to start anything.....but!

When will the copyright expire?

[SharpFang]

I thought copyright lasts some hundred years or so after death of last of creators, so Stonehenge's copyright should have expired about 4000 years ago. Which/whose intellectual property is being protected now? ...or is it just that Stonehenge is a modern-made ruse, and the copyright is still valid?

Where's my cut?

[phlegmofdiscontent]

A lot of my ancestors were from England. Don't I deserve a cut of England's national heritage?

Re:Where's my cut?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Well pay some taxes in this country and we'll see .... we could do with the money

Re:Where's my cut?

[Asic Eng]

You have a cut: there are national monuments maintained, and you have the opportunity to visit them.

some kind of wall...

[EricX2]

They should build a really big wall of stones surrounding it, a stonehengehenge perhaps? Then people wouldn't be able to take pictures without paying.

Google Earth

[metalmonkey]

Google earth still has photos - both satellite image and many photo icons with ads (commercial?).

  I have noticed a sacred mountain in china being greyed out on google terrain

Map

This is Spinal Tap

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

I suppose they'll want a percentage from sales of Smell the Glove too.

Re:This is Spinal Tap

[dkleinsc]

They've even copyrighted the cover image, so they're now suing people for using this on their websites.

Not copyright - a special law applies

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about copyright. If it were, these letters would have nothing to support them, since a) the copyright on Stonehenge has expired and b) the plain view doctrine (for at least some of the photos).
However, it turns out that there is a special law in Britain that grants English Heritage all rights to all intellectual property somehow derived from archaeological monuments (search for National Heritage Act 2002). Since the UK's constitution is a rather jumbled up and all in all pretty toothless mess, the principle that the government can and will create any law it bloody well pleases seems to be in effect. So yes, in the UK English Heritage has a case.
If you've smuggled the images outside of the UK and you publish them there, the situation might be different, but it depends highly on whether your country has an extradition treaty with the UK and if so what the exact terms of it are.

Re:Not copyright - a special law applies

[SharpFang]

So, in Communist UK, the nationalization of goods has started from Intellectual Property?

Re:Not copyright - a special law applies

[bellers]

>>Since the UK's constitution is a rather jumbled up and all in all pretty toothless mess,
>>the principle that the government can and will create any law it bloody well pleases seems to be in effect.

The UK has a Constitution? Since when?

4500 years?

[T Murphy]

How did they manage to build it by 2500 BC? I usually don't manage to finish it until 2000BC... they must have had a nearby source of marble I wasn't aware of.

In other news...

[srussia]

The United States Department of State is claiming copyright on all images of the world as "it been their responsibility for the last 27 of the planet's 6,000 year old history."

It's really simple, copyright expires.

[kawabago]

Old paintings are in the public domain as is stonehenge. Tell them to take you to court and make sure you have counterclaims to really slam them with because they wouldn't stand a chance!

Re:It's really simple, copyright expires.

[Sique]

It's not a copyright claim. So expiring copyright does not play a role. In every museum I have been at, you need to get a photography permit before you are allowed to take pictures. And the permit includes wording about non commercial use. I guess the Stonehenge Heritage Authority is doing something similar.

Re:It's really simple, copyright expires.

[esme]

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.

What you say !!

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You have no chance to photograph, make your time.

Since we're on this topic...

[rcasha2]

The Geological Society requests all profits from photos featuring the Earth (or part thereof) to be forwarded to its bank account. This claim however is being contested by the Astronomical Society which contends that the earth is just another planet and since it is the sole beneficiary of IP rights related to stars, planets and other cosmic objects, it automatically has rights over photos of Earth and the moon and sun. In addition, any photos made using unauthorised light from the sun are strictly forbidden.

Wrong jargon for Britain

[Mathinker]

Dear English Heritage,

We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Signed,

Everyone else

Re:Wrong jargon for Britain

[noidentity]

For those who are lazy like me: Arkell and Pressdram

'prior art, schmior art'.

[unity100]

stop trying to fight irratonale of these patent & copyright thingies on their own ground. they are legalese. legalese, can be changed to fit any private interest's needs.

you argue prior art today, and win, some other bunch of lawyers will argue something else the other day, and go around your argument. if not, private interests will finance a new law, and will totally undo whatever defense you were using to defend the rational approach.

patent, copyright systems are intellectual feudalism. eventually they will be totally dominated by whomever has the most wealth/power. they need to be abolished, before we come to that point and need a revolution for that.

Sydney Opera House Too

[Nom du Keyboard]

The Syndey Opera House Trust tries to pull the same crap, even though they are directly contradicted by Australian law on photography in public places. Seems to me that England also has a law that you can shoot any photograph you want in public, although the police there often do their best to ignore it when they are misbehaving otherwise. I would think that the Stonehenge people don't really have a case and are trying to get away with threats and bluster.

Re:Sydney Opera House Too

[gowen]

Except Sydney Opera House was opened in 1973, so its completely reasonable that its design is subject to copyright. Stonehenge was completed sometime around 1500BC, so that copyright has probably lapsed by now.

Re:Sydney Opera House Too

[martinX]

Yep, the design of the SOH probably is still covered by copyright. You cannot build another one without the permission of the copyright holder. That doesn't apply to photographs though.

Re:Sydney Opera House Too

[gowen]

I can't speak for Australian Law, but it most certainly does in some jurisdictions.

Re:Sydney Opera House Too

[coofercat]

Quite seriously, I wonder if English Heritage would try to go after people who have photos that are older than English Heritage's tenure at Stonehenge. They didn't always fleece people to go there - once upon a time, you could just park your car where the hell you wanted and walk right up to the stones. If you got a photo back then, can you make money off it now without attracting their attention?

Speaking as an ancient monument myself

[Budenny]

I am something of an ancient monument myself now, and I do notice that the young take lots of admiring pictures of me when I am out and about, doubtless to show their friends this extraordinary old thing they have seen at Tesco. So I look forward to taking ownership of these photos and selling them back for a small fee to defray my ever growing wine bill, and maybe be able to shop in a better class of store one of these days....

Good Reply To The Letters.....

[IHC Navistar]

Dear Sir/Madam, We will gladly remove the photographs of Stonehenge that you have asked us to remove. However, we require that you provide us with written, notarized documentation detailing: 1. Ownership or controlling interest in Stonehenge by your organization, 2. Transfer of ownership to your organization by the original creator(s) of the work, and, 3. That the work was, in fact, created by those that transferred ownership to your organization. Additionally, we would like to take this letter as an opportunity to inform you that we have awarded your organization with lifetime membership in our "Good Luck With That" club, which is an exclusive organization of groups displaying exceptional confidence in their legal endeavors. Sincerely, Howard, Fine, and Howard Attorneys-At-Law

Re:Egypt Pyramids, similar issue

[Hognoxious]

Apparently if you take photos of the Pyramids you get harassed to buy/pay for the local photos.

Sounds more like a scam to rip-off gullible tourists.

I mean even modern copyright goes "death+75 years" in the US.

But are mummies, technically speaking, dead?

Disgruntled...

[poddys]

Makes me want to stick my photos of Stonehenge up for sale "just because" and to park outside and take more photos to sell (not going in to pay the admission fee of course).

Meanwhile Ireland has announced ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

... that Irish Stew is property of Ireland Heritage. Any pictures of a bowl of Irish Stew belong to Ireland Heritage. People distributing recipes for Irish Stew are in violation. Private folks are allowed to make Irish Stew at home, provided that they pay the appropriate Irish Stew license fees to Irish Heritage.

A working group at Irish Heritage is now finalizing a similar policy for "The Humble Spud."

Disney will love the precedent

[Chrisq]

Disney will love the precedent. Don't worry about copyright running out 75 years after the artist dies, 4,500 years will do us for now.

"English Heritage" to "Infernal Greed"

[piotru]

The Infernal Greed Foundation's (C) next step would be the licensing fee programme for mentioning it's Valuable Name, including the licence applications and mail envelopes.

Copycats

[Wowsers]

So as the UK and USA economies are sinking to oblivion, they think that using BS "intellectual property" will save their rapidly sinking economies. I weep for what the UK has become, a third rate poodle picking the worst of the worlds laws to implement.

Re:Copycats

[delinear]

The irony is that the emerging markets are the ones who pay least notice to the West's IP, meanwhile we think the best way to regenerate our economies is by stifling innovation and dragging everyone through the courts for every supposed infringement. And the bigger irony is that, once the companies behind the ever more insane IP laws have milked every drop from the average guy in the street, they won't hang around to prop up an ailing economy in a country going down the tubes, they'll up sticks and move their HQ to those same emerging markets and start all over again.

can't photograph, can't paint, can we write IT!

[Rsriram]

Can't photograph because of copyright. I presume, painting it also follows the same (warped) logic. Can we say that stone word? Or is slashdot infringing on copyright by posting the word online??

Dissenting voice here

[tehcyder]

I think everyone is missing the point that English Heritage are talking about commercial use of Stonehenge images. No-one is saying you can't take your own pictures.

In the UK there is no over-riding right to make money enshrined in law.

Re:Dissenting voice here

[zebslash]

Since when in the UK you cannot make money with Public Domain stuff ?

Re:Dissenting voice here

[tehcyder]

That is begging the question that this is in the public domain.

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.

Re:Dissenting voice here

[Lumpy]

Upkeep....

OF ROCKS!

Sounds like a plan. Nobody is allowed to use the roads in england to make money. Taxpayers paid for those roads you should not let anyone else make money off them.

You sir are what they call in england...... a "Nutter"

Re:Dissenting voice here

[zebslash]

So if I put the picture of a 18th century painting on the cover of my book, I cannot sell it because it was repaired/restored in the last 20 years ? Since when restoration resets the copyright of an artist? And to whom goes the copyright? The museum ? This has no legal basis at all.

Re:Dissenting voice here

[uninformedLuddite]

So is there an exemption for English taxpayers or do they get screwed twice? You suck

Re:How is our children learning...

[History's Coming To]

Not entirely accurate - there was a spat between the band and the local council at the Glastonbury festival a few years back because the council were concerned that Stonehenge was more associated with Spinal Tap than it was with Stonehenge. In the end (as pointed out above) it was settled on the grounds that Spinal Tap's copyright is still in force while Stonehenge's had run out years ago.

The photographer owns the copyright

[Viol8]

.. of any photo they take in the UK. So EH can bluster and threaten all they want , they won't get anywhere. Someone needs a good kick up the arse in their legal department.

Is that the legal definition of the word "must"?

[CurseOfTheVampire]

'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.'

If this is the legal definition of the word "must", then it is legally synonymous with the word "may" (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at least) - in other words, they're giving us a choice. In a legal sense they probably would have had to use "obliged", "compelled" or "required" for this to have any weight (and I doubt they could do this without having some kind of contract in place compelling anyone to specific performance).

Thanks English Heritage - I choose not to direct any commercial interest to you. See ya later!

(Not a lawyer, obviously.)

Sure, I'll give you back your Stonehenge photos...

[HertzaHaeon]

But only if you trade them for all the images of myself captured by Birtish surveillance cameras. Photos or video of me belong to me, sorry.

In *England*

[wangi]

"English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge"

No, English Heritage only manages sites within England (clue is in the name). Other bodies cover the other countries on the UK; for example Historic Scotland (Scotland), Cadw (Wales) and Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland).

Re:In *England*

[esme]

Yes, and assuming England is still located in the UK (I haven't been over for a few years, and I understand there have been some changes recently...), then saying they manage sites in the UK is correct, if inexact.

Granted, your average American doesn't know the relationships between England, Wales, Scotland, Britain, Northern Ireland and the UK. But I would think you could save your snark for when they actually say something wrong, which is often enough.

Re:In *England*

[wangi]

It's just wrong. It's like saying the Texas Rangers have investigated crimes ranging from murder to political corruption, acted as riot police and as detectives, protected the Governors, tracked down fugitives, and functioned as a paramilitary force at various places in the United States of America.

Re:How is our children learning...

[jimicus]

Stonehenge would never have been under copyright, the idea didn't exist 4,000 years ago.

Art, not History

[gafisher]

Stonehenge as we know it is a fairly modern structure, almost completely disconnected from what existed prior to what can only be called an "artistic" reconstruction in the early 1900s. Here can be found a fairly good summary of the story, which shows that "[Stonehenge] has been created by the heritage industry and is NOT the creation of prehistoric peoples." An online search for "Stonehenge rebuilt" brings up other articles, including (while they last!) photos, showing that commercial interests like English Heritage have a far better claim to Stonehenge than archeology or history. One more quote summarizes the issue: ""The instigators of the English heritage landscape were essentially amateurs, working by trial and error."

UK Photographers rights

[jools33]

A good site for photographers rights is: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

As others have stated - property owners have no rights to prevent phots taken from public places - so this allows pretty much all aerial photography of stonehenge - and any from outside of the property.
Then they can only restrict photographs taken on the site, by requiring this on entry to the site so they must actually state this in the contract (when you buy your tickets).

Run by assholes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The place is run by assholes, I had a similar problem myself when dealing with them. Not only that, have you seen the ticket prices? They cost equiv. of US$40 per person just to walk around the thing. Ridiculous

Sup Britian

[thatblackguy]

For a country so obsessed with keeping other countries heritage, greek architecture and what not, I am not surprised. They have the arrogance to suppose that they can take care of other countries property better than the rightful owners can.

Actually it does belong to English Heritage now.

[Combatso]

They rebuilt it after Clark Griswald knocked it over 1985. http://replicahenge.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/chevy-sh.jpg?w=300&h=225

Contact Warner Bros.

[pspahn]

Surprised I didn't see it mentioned already...

I would like to know if they will be notifying Warner Brothers that their use of Stonehenge in National Lampoon's European Vacation is a violation as well.

It would be pretty funny for Warner Brothers to get a taste of their own medicine for once.

Does this mean...

[IronSight]

...next they will do the same for someone taking a picture of Big Ben and sticking it in a calender or making it a wallpaper in a paid for OS they will pull the same leverage? This seems a bit far out. It makes you wonder what moron was sitting around and seriously thought they could pull this off. The next step from this is you can't take a picture anywhere but inside the house you built if you are in the UK if you intend to sell it somehow.

Re:Does this mean...

[Builder]

Well, to be fair, I don't believe it's at all possible to take pictures of Big Ben from public ground. I'm pretty sure it's entirely enclosed in the clock tower.

We win, we lose

[captainpanic]

^^ +5 insightful,

they also better sue Microsoft for that picture of Stonehenge they distributed with their OS.

On the short term, that would be a win:
Two companies known for petty copyright claims are fighting each other in a lawsuit. Both lose money.

On the long term, we lose:
At first, more lawyers find work. But then they become unemployed. Unemployed lawyers may start searching for other things to sue (that's what they do, right?). Assuming that people cannot become more stupid, but the rules can become more stupid, it stands to reason that more lawyers means more (stupid) rules.

Re:We win, we lose

[SirGarlon]

Assuming that people cannot become more stupid, but the rules can become more stupid

That is a wildly optimistic assumption. Both people and rules have repeatedly demonstrated an unlimited potential for stupidity. There is no reason to think either have bottomed out yet.

Re:We win, we lose

[commodore64_love]

This whole debate could be simplified by asking one simple question:

- To whom does common property belong?
- Answer: The People from which all legitimate authority derives.

Stonehange is part of the British people's common property (just like air, water, roads), and it belongs to all, which means it is public domain and not copyrightable.
.

>>>Feedback on this comment system?

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

Re:We win, we lose

[Anonymous Cowpat]

But then English Heritage is a quango, not a private organisation - it's a government organisation which is supposed to look after England's* heritage.

I'm not saying that what they're claiming isn't moronic, but that this is probably not the best line of argument to oppose it with

*yes, in this context "England's" is correct - Wales has Cadw and Scotland has Historic Scotland which fulfill the same role inside their respective borders.

Re:We win, we lose

[Obfuscant]

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

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.

Re:We win, we lose

[commodore64_love]

Same in the US for our national monuments, but the objects & their images still belong to the people collectively. They are public domain, not copyrighted.

Re:We win, we lose

[northstarlarry]

You should be able to go back to the old style comment system using your user preferences. I just did, anyways. Help & Preferences > Discussions > Viewing > Disable Dynamic Comments.

Re:We win, we lose

[shaitand]

Just because you own something doesn't mean you own the copyright on pictures of it. Unless these guys claim to be the artists who created Stonehenge?

Re:We win, we lose

[shaitand]

If I am not mistaken you don't magically own copyright on photos of objects you own anyway. Not unless the object is a work of art and you hold the copyright on that work.

Somehow I doubt these guys are the original artists or that the copyright on Stonehenge is still valid.

Re:We win, we lose

[VShael]

Indeed. I have often thought (when drunk out of my mind) that temperature has an inverse effect on human intelligence. Start at Canada, work your way down through the Blue states, the Red states, then to Mexico.

Similar to Europe, where Sweden has 100% literacy rates, and by the time you've moved south enough to hit Turkey, you're surrounded by holocaust deniers.

As global warming continues, the latitude of idiocy will move further north.

Re:We win, we lose

[russ1337]

I take a different approach. I read all the comments first then decide which will be modded. It takes ages, but it's what my boss asked me to do....

oh damn... I just checked... he said slash COSTS...

Avebury

[CountBrass]

The complex at Avebury is orders of magnitude more impressive than Stonehenge. Possibly the most impressive stone... calendar err.. complex in the world. You can't get more than a fraction in a single photo. Definately worth a day trip. Some links: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-avebury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury

Re:Avebury

[Ksevio]

Having been to both, the Avebury site is more interesting to walk around, but Stonehenge was a lot more interesting as a single point. In Avebury, the stones are so spread out that it's hard to get a good idea of the whole scale of the thing and how it was used.

Admission ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Egypt would like the English Heritage Society's...

[Fibe-Piper]

Obelisks, Sphinxes etc...

If they attempted to assert their claim in the US

[voss]

Someone would probably sue them and win for copyright fraud. Considering big media corporation dont want to have to pay some
  english government agency for photos of things like Big ben and parliament this is a suit which would soon have massive media support.

Stealing Stonehenge

[Culture20]

By taking pictures, the druids believe you are stealing Stonehenge's fairies souls!

Dear England....

[Lumpy]

You can shove that one directly up your Bum....

Glad to see your Government is completely full of what you call "nutters". My photos of Stonehenge are My property and I'll sell them all I want.

Re:Heritage of the English?

[Lumpy]

Very true. It was more likely built by the Celts.

So the Irish and Scottish have more of a claim to it than the english do.

You, too! could build your very own Stonehenge!!

[zooblethorpe]

The "mystery" of how "they" made it isn't really a mystery for anyone who dabbles in such archaeology, or even that surprising - unusual at best.

Indeed. The tech is *so* simple that Wally Wallingford of Flint, Michigan is building his own Stonehenge (more of a Concretehenge, really) almost single-handedly, just using wood forms, levers, and clever balancing to move these huge multi-ton blocks about.

A lot of things that people these days describe as "OMG how did they possibly do that it must be ALIENS!" are really only mysterious because people are shockingly ignorant of the basics of how the world works. Probably comes of sitting on their bums so much.

Cheers,

Re:Sure, I'll give you back your Stonehenge photos

[DavidTC]

Well, yes, that's the point.

If pictures of Stonehenge belong to Stonehenge (Or the organization running it.) then pictures of HertzaHaeon belong to HertzaHaeon.

In actual law, pictures belong to the people who take them, of course.

Re:Many years ago...

[DavidTC]

But there actually is a copyright on a web site. I mean, the Met, or someone they paid, did make it, very recently. (Compared to their actual art, that is.) Likewise, someone took those pictures.

You can take pictures at the Met for free of uncopyrighted work. Go in with a tripod and take whatever non-flash pictures you want.

You just can't use their professionally taken photographs from their website. I agree that it would be nice if museums would provide such pictures for free, but museums are chronically underfunded and need the cash from selling them, and no one's stopping anyone else from doing that, from taking a picture of every painting, and then putting them in the public domain on a web site, so blaming the museum for not doing that is a bit silly.(1)

I suspect, with you, they didn't quite understand what you were trying to do with screenshots of their site. It probably got forwarded to the 'He wants to reprint our pictures in a book' lawyer, and they sent you the normal fees, not understanding you weren't trying to sell an art book.

1) I do, however, sharply criticize any museum that does stop people from taking their own pictures.

what about parody photos?

[TheGratefulNet]

wonder if they'll come after me for this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works/140536377/

yes, it was a slow day in the hardware lab and I felt inspired at the time. I know that if anyone will 'get' what those are, its the slash crowd.

How about the Stonehenge replica?

[GayBliss]

I wonder if this includes the life-size stonehenge replica in Washington state.

Re:How about the Stonehenge replica?

[akeeneye]

You beat me to it, I was just going to suggest that tourists make the trip to the Maryhill site instead. More are belong to England pix here: http://www.maryhillmuseum.org/stonehenge.html

I refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

[Rogerborg]

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

A fine precedent, I think.

It's not Marblehenge

[edawstwin]

How did they manage to build it by 2500 BC? I usually don't manage to finish it until 2000BC... they must have had a nearby source of marble I wasn't aware of.

If you're building Stonehenge with only a marble resource hooked up, then that explains the delay.

Re:It's not Marblehenge

[penguinchris]

Marble is a type of stone, and in Civilization if you have access to marble you can construct quarries. It can be assumed then that your civilization can quarry other types of stone as well. Stonehenge is indeed not made out of marble, though, so having a marble resource shouldn't speed production of stonehenge (not that Civ is realistic about these kinds of things). But, I am curious about what your comment meant - what did you think Marble was, exactly? ;)

Foamhenge's artist already did this

[billstewart]

Foamhenge is a styrofoam Stonehenge that's been mentioned in some of the articles about this bureaucratic nonsense.

Re:You cannot sign away statutory rights

[TheoMurpse]

Until then, see this "stone henge" of mine? Suck it.

That's no Big Ben! It's just a

*tries to fit in pun about Lulworth and fails*

Quiote common

[BlackBloq]

Many countries claim ownership over monuments and unique cultural icons and artwork.
Eiffel Tower at night is copy-write. The Mexican government says it has notified Starbucks Corp. that Mexico is owed intellectual property rights for a line of coffee mugs showing pre-Hispanic images. The Golden Gate Bridge is a trademark. In addition, the pyramids, Big Ben, the Seattle Space Needle I'm sure there are more. This is not news but certainly an interesting subject.

See France for http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

http://www.whistlerquestion.com/article/GB/20100106/CP07/301069782/1030/WHISTLER/mexican-government-says-starbucks-owes-for-using-pre-hispanic-images&template=cpArt

Callanish on Lewis

[turgid]

The Callanish stone circle on the Isle of Lewis is very picturesque. It's in a beautiful setting and the view out over Loch Roag from the stones is pretty spectacular. I think it might even be free to get in.

Obligatory Fall reference

[oldmac31310]

ley, ley, ley... It's the lay of the land, my son

Different types of law

[KingAlanI]

Indeed, contract and property law can be utilized in addition to or instead of intellectual-properly law.
Logical that they'd want to use one type of law to reinforce rights held under another type, or instead of rights that they don't have under another type.