Slashdot Mirror


All Your Stonehenge Photos Are Belong To England

An anonymous reader writes "English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge, has apparently sent letters to various photo sharing and stock photo sites claiming that any photo of Stonehenge that is being sold violates its rights, and only English Heritage can get commercial benefit from such photos. In fact, they're asking for all money made from such photos, stating: 'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.' As one recipient noted, this seems odd, given that English Heritage has only managed Stonehenge 'for 27 of the monument's 4,500 year old history.'"

17 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. First Henge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brought to you by the aliens who built it.

  2. Carhenge by tag · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine. I'll use pictures of Carhenge instead.

  3. Re:Simple: by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  4. Dear English Heritage, by MarioMax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear English Heritage,

    Go fuck yourselves.

    Signed,

    Everyone else

    1. Re:Dear English Heritage, by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  5. Ruining photography by proxima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of crap has the potential to make photographer's lives really annoying. And this comes just as more and more people are active amateur photographers.

    The lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted? Museums claim rights over photographic reproductions of century-old paintings? Where do we draw the line?

    On the one hand, we have the physical equivalent of contracts: agreements made as a requirement for entrance; this allows zoos, museums, etc. to restrict the use of commercial photography. But photos taken from public streets? From the air?

    The fact that these institutions go after commercial users isn't much comfort; the line between non-commercial amateur and commercial-but-still-amateur photography. Have ads up on a blog? Submit your photo to a local art show? Sell your photo to a stock photo site? It's easy for an amateur to make a little cash from the best of their photos.

    --
    "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Ruining photography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

  6. While we're making unenforcable claims... by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  7. Image rights and trademark by williamhb · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  8. A disguised way to sue Microsoft? by Dogbertius · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Need I say more?

  9. Re:Simple: by c0lo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  10. Wrong jargon for Britain by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear English Heritage,

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

    Signed,

    Everyone else

  11. Good Reply To The Letters..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  12. Re:Simple: by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Art, not History by gafisher · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  14. Re:Simple: by thoth · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. You, too! could build your very own Stonehenge!! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."