formed

Archive for the 'Law & Order'

I am neither a professional nor a photo journalist, but what I do in FreeLens blog had read, I was somewhat shocked. After all, whether professional or amateur - the copyright is that the rights to the image always lie with the photographer. Of course he can not work order to resell x-arbitrary, but the law remains on the work of the photographer. I sell some (few) pictures from agencies. (I'm on CC licenses!) Where I could choose whether the images are to be sold exclusively there. The right of the screen and remain on a use for their own purposes, however, unaffected.

Besides, you work for the Hamburg publishing seasons. Its flagship, the living principle of excellent recordings, is certainly "Merian". With the action taken "gag contracts" the company shot some point even the knee: the really good photographers will turn away, the second and third row should be careful also there to make representations, and the replacement for the replacement of the equipment carrier (as I ) is not determined to play well. (The last thing I would take my leave, the rights to my images are.)

This is the way, seemingly in contradiction to the offer to be able to download photos from Flickr or piqs.de freely and in accordance with the Creative Commons license. In abuse case, I can do about it, I can set the editing rights, etc.

But wait, it was about the seasons and his publishing business manner. In the blog there is an appeal and a petition , which I would like to point you.

To make a long story short, I prefer my pictures back to and from photo sharing sites that do not offer CC license. I think Creative Commons total for a very fair and transparent system of rights - it only needs to read sometimes. For most of my work I assign, for example, this license .

For some time I just put photographs on Flickr. There are many reasons - the community, the ability to distribute images across different groups, and even the CC license. But one thing remains: The copyright for the picture is not from this license. Consequently, the user must also mention the name of the author if he uses a CC-licensed image. I would like to this article refer.

Sure, I have some pictures on sales platforms, which have, of course, another form of license. But generally I like Creative Commons. To quote Julia Seeliger (found in the comment section of the above article):

"I would hope that people understand and use Creative Commons to make the world more beautiful. For beautiful images for all people and provide to the other side to take advantage of Creative Commons and beautiful images (and other plants) can. "

The panorama freedom that allows us (yet) by § 59 Copyright Act of recordings from the public highway may, of course not apply to zoos and animal parks - after such a public park is not in the true sense. Therefore, it is quite useful when the terms of each license and equipment related to photography of the publication in view.

Alligator at Loro Parque, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife

Rest of this entry »

"Oh, how beautiful panorama!" § 59 of the Copyright Act governs what can be photographed free of charge and without explicit permission. In short, corresponding receptacles are permitted if they are made of public land from. But it is now to be shaken. The Enquete Commission on "Culture in Germany" would like to know this limited view of freedom and the German Bundestag has given a recommendation.

The curtailment of freedom of panorama - a nightmare. Recorded in Stavenhagen, MV.

The journalists' union is naturally against it. I personally have the appeal of the DJV, the German Journalists' Association, already supported and can only hope that many will join. If you would like to inform yourself, or even sign the same appeal: Per freedom of panorama .