Intellectual Property, Indeed!

by VinceDaliessio

While searching for follow-up information on the terminal collapse at Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris last May, I came across a curious article in a German online architectural publication "Structurae";

This entry is no longer displayed to the public!
Dear Visitor of Structurae,

At the end of May 2004, Structurae was admonished (i.e. sued) by the Verwertungsgesellschaft Bild-Kunst (VG Bild-Kunst), a German organization representing visual artists' copyrights, for the unlicensed use of slightly over 60 images and requested payment of usage fees.

The architects Paul Andreu and Roger Taillibert as well as the Fondation Le Corbusier (representing the deceased architects Le Corbusier and Pierre Andr Jeanneret) as the copyright owners of their own works also own the copyright on photographs of their work. Under German law this is however limited to photographs taken from a view-point not accessible to the public (including interior images). This fact was unknown to me until that point.

The photographers themselves had already agreed to the publication free of charge on Structurae, although quite a large number of the photos were made by myself. The images were removed from public display on Structurae as quickly as possible although the VG Bild-Kunst did not identify which images were actually subject to their claims.

So, let's see, German copyright law prohibits photographs of failed buildings from being published without permission of (and payment to) the architects of those failed buildings, even if the architect is deceased? So much for the probitive power of journalism. Given the increased tendency that jurists in this country have for looking to European law for inspiration, it seems only a matter of time before such restraint occurs here.

One is left to wonder - exactly who benefits from this scheme? Well, we know it isn't the public, let alone the people killed in the collapse.

Perhaps we will allow that it might benefit messirs Andreu and Tallibert, as well as Aeroports de Paris, who engineered the whole debacle, as well as this one;

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/uae/?id=11391

Comments

Let's just say Structureae was displaying the photos to make money, instead of as editorial content. It's bad enough - the photos as I understand them did not show any people, and they were taken by photographers unaffiliated with the copyright owners who willingly provided them to the site. The German law conveys IP rights to the image to the original designer. How will this fail to result in prior restraint, further resulting in disasters like this being underreported? This kind of prior restraint is not unknown in this country. Look closely next time you enter the quasipublic New Jersey Turnpike - among the many, many rules you agree to (without ever reading them, c'mon, admit it) on the little green signs at the tolls is a statement prohibiting photography. So what if this picture were newsworthy - could they ban it?; https://libertyguys.org/photos/resize_width.asp?path=D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\libertyguys.org\html\images\gallery\DSCN0191.JPG&width=400

So far we have "editorial usage" rights in the US. If I take a photo of you and use it in an ad for my company to make a profit without getting consent from you, I am in the wrong. However, if you just happen to be in a photo that is being used in an editorial setting such as a news story, the rights belong to me. I guess Germany is likening these photos to trespassing. So when a building breaks open and you are able to get a shot that you otherwise could not have gotten from the street before the building spewed its guts, you are trespassing. No wonder Germany is so screwed up.

Post a Repsonse

Name:
Comment: