{ UK } citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
19 replies, posted
- sorry if late -
quick quote from the article
[Quote]Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question.[/Quote]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/[/url]
I am not from the UK but are new dumb laws like this starting to place all of a sudden,.?
So now I need an Ouija board to photograph a chair, huh.
Good luck enforcing this.
Yes and we will even have to pay extra royalties for using bank notes showing the Queen's face.
This seems like a very bad thing to implement, So if you take a picture of your home it will read like one of those advertising images "there are 56 copyrighted objects in this photo, can you spot them?"
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49318214]Yes and we will even have to pay extra royalties for using bank notes showing the Queen's face.[/QUOTE]
With even more bank notes showing the Queen's face?
I wonder if this extends to CG objects too.
[QUOTE=cartman300;49318246]With even more bank notes showing the Queen's face?[/QUOTE]
You see our dilemma.
We're all fucked.
[sp]This isn't happening[/sp]
[quote]that's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death[/quote]
ooh GL with that, we here in america have the exact same shitty law
ugh
Wow and I thought US Copyright law was backwards at times.
This is ridiculous.
They must have a dedicated team somewhere that sits around and thinks up shitty and impractical laws. I just don't understand how somebody wakes up one day and thinks this needs a law, or more to the point of why.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49318328]ooh GL with that, we here in america have the exact same shitty law[/QUOTE]
Wait, we do? Because I photograph designer chairs from the 60s all the time...
[QUOTE=cartman300;49318246]With even more bank notes showing the Queen's face?[/QUOTE]
Well you can pay by cheque, but then you have to pay royalties to the bank because their logo is clearly visible on the cheque
[QUOTE=woolio1;49321356]Wait, we do? Because I photograph designer chairs from the 60s all the time...[/QUOTE]
no we just have really long term copyright laws.
I really hope more rediculous laws pop up like this so that people see how absolutely broken copyrights and patents are.
This isn't a law they will enforce on regular Joe Schmoe. This is so that large online portals will need to pay extra to have pictures of their inventory. They might not go after that guy on ebay, but they [I]would[/I] go after a multi-million dollar operation to get more money for no effort.
[QUOTE=Moby-;49320852]They must have a dedicated team somewhere that sits around and thinks up shitty and impractical laws.[/QUOTE]
It's called the House of Commons.
These are the kind of laws I would go out of my way to break.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49322764]These are the kind of laws I would go out of my way to break.[/QUOTE]
good to know,.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.