Apparently It's Illegal to Publish Pictures of the Atomium
So, this Sunday me and Jeanine went to Brussels to attend a pharmaceutical conference, which was pretty close to the most famous Belgian landmark, the Atomium.
I would have loved to share some pictures of the Atomium, but apparently it's illegal for me to do so, unless I contact the Atomium foundation and ask permission beforehand. Then, I'd have to wait a couple of days and would also have to pay for using the photograph, since I earn money with this blog.
The rules for using the photographs, even after you've asked permission are just plain ridiculous, I'll share a short excerpt from their website.
Any individual may use the image of the Atomium; a request for authorisation must firstly be submitted to Atomium asbl or to SOFAM, and the image must meet the following conditions :
- the image of the Atomium is not to be used in a negative context (in relation to racist or anti-democratic slogans, and so on).
- the image of the Atomium is not to be misrepresented, distorted or inappropriately used (for example, it may not be shown being destroyed in an explosion).
Unauthorized use will lead to a fine of around 120 euros. Since it would be very easy to tie this blog to my identity, I'm pretty sure that I would get fined immediately, since this organization is known for going after people who publish pictures of the Atomium.
I've noticed that there are some great public domain images of the Atomium on Pixabay, but even with those I'd rather not take any chances. I just wanted to make this small post to show my disgust for these draconian rules, regarding the copyright of a freaking building.
If you ever visit Belgium, don't bother going to the Atomium, it's really not worth it for multiple reasons. The surrounding area is very uninteresting and the inside of the Atomium isn't worth it either.
Oooh this makes me mad! I remember writing a letter to my MP about this proposed law when it was being considered - it seemed outrageous! I don't think it passed in the UK. It makes me want to deliberately go there, photograph a bird flying next to the Atomium and publish it as "Beautiful bird - unfortunately the Atomium got in the way of the photo".
I think I remember pointing out in my letter to my MP that many of these buildings were built using public money, and if we're not allowed to take photos of buildings that our money paid to build, why should I pay taxes?
I've just been editing a video, and I've found that many old newsreel films that were out of copyright have been bought up by big agencies who now hold the copyright. I can understand an artist wanting to protect their work, but when the people who made the original films were paid a pittance and are now long dead anyway, it's simply a crime for some agency to expect payment for it. I think I've found a way round it, but it makes me furious!
Copyright law itself, is a work of fiction; a figment of someone's imagination jotted down on a piece of paper that should through it's own creation be protected as intellectual property not to be exploited by a corporate entity known as the gubmint who didn't pay for it nor paid for it's use.
In most cases the original creator of a copyrighted item is credited to the person, but the monetary rewards are granted to his/her employer. This is especially true for Engineers working for large corporations, even if it was not an item related to the work they were doing for that company. If you want to benefit from holding a copyright, you must be unemployed :)
Greetings!
You're right, and that's one reason I decided to go freelance way back, around 1989. I had been working as a magazine journalist, and all the companies started to bring in contracts saying that you had no rights to your own work. Before that we kind of did have rights (if we wanted to risk losing our jobs). One of my first jobs was writing stories for teenage magazines, and one day the company asked me if I would agree to my story being syndicated, because a Dutch company wanted to buy it. I was flushed with pride that someone wanted to buy my story, and said yes. Of course I got no extra money for it. That was the last time anyone asked me for permission to make extra money for my work, because after that all of those contracts came in.
In the late 1990s I had what seemed like a great freelance commission editing travel books from home. I agreed to a payment of about £4000 for each one. However one of them was in a terrible state and had to be practically rewritten. The whole process took several months, as I kept being told to do revisions of various bits. Eventually I demanded more payment, as it was working out about £1.50 an hour! The company boss just kept avoiding my calls, and eventually a more junior person agreed to pay me more. They never hired me again - but that book was in print worldwide for years, consistently got five-star reviews and must have made tens of thousands for the company. Every time I googled my name I would see five-star reviews of that book. At one point I was googling the 1960s soul legend Jimmy Helms, and I noticed that my name had more hits than his name! And all because of that book. Yet the company was so pissed off at having to pay me £6000 to rewrite the thing that it never hired me again!
The book still comes up linked to my name, but these days it's mainly Russian bootleg copies. Good on em!
Damn, that kind of stuff really makes me unreasonably angry. How is is that even possible? Shouldn't it just remain in the public domain?
Completely agree with the rest of your post and just want to say that I commend you for actively trying to do something about it. With the recent votes in EU parliament for these new copyright rules (article 11 & 13), I called to every party in my country to ask them personally about their stance.
Good! We will beat this! I cannot imagine who benefits from these laws, except for big business interests and maybe a small handful of very privileged artists, but certainly not most of the people who slog their butts off to produce the work!
WOW I have never heard of anything like that, I did have one building in NYC contact me to take the photo of their building down of facebook or face legal Action, I forget now what building it was, but it was not anything special LOL
If they don't want the building to be seen then they need to put a tarp over it or plant a bunch of trees to hide it. It is cow crap that they can build in plain view and then try and tell people that they can share what they can legally view in an open space in the form of a photograph.
That is just how absurd this world has become, someone needs to file suit against them for building the building and blocking their line of sight to what ever is behind the building on the next block or piece of property.
Make the suit where you want no monetary damages, just to have the building torn down for obstructing the view.
Then they might reconsider their position on photos.
Yeah it's just plain ridiculous and completely violates any rights we have as citizens. I'd post the picture, if I had the money to fight those charges/fines, just to make a point.
This isn't the only building that's "copyrighted" btw, while doing some research, I've found numerous examples. The EU is soon going to have one of the strictest copyright laws in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if someone eventually copyrights the sound of a fart, just to charge anyone who lets one go :P
Total bullcrap!
Hell, if you can't beat them, join them, go get that fart sound copyrighted and then start collecting. People will literally crap their pants to keep from paying you.
That is pretty sad that they have to be so stupid like that. Imagine if the rest of the world started imposing rules like that. I would be pretty dumb.
Thanks for the heads up about it being a waste of time! Doesn't sound like somewhere I would want to hang around anyway!
For sure, like do they not want people to share pictures of the building or what? That's what it's there for, I would think?
Yeah it's also pretty far out of town. Okay, mini-Europe is also there, but that's also not really worth doing IMO.
Hah!
I think that law only applies in Belgium and an easy way to get around that is to upload the picture to another social media platform like FB, Photobucket, or any such not for profit (for the user) online entity, and then link the image in your blog post. As long as you credit yourself for the image, you shouldn't get flagged either. Lol!
Of course if you live in Belgium you may want to consult a Lawyer before trying this approach. It sounds like those guys don't have a sense of humor. Greetings!
Thanks for the tip! I'll look into it a bit more, I just don't want to deal with possible legal issues. These guys don't f*** around I've heard, even going after small time bloggers etc.
If you live in Belgium, don't push your luck. I live in the Netherlands and any picture I take in open public space is fair game. It seems crazy to think that a press photographer would need permission to publish a picture of an event, like a Car crash, with that building in the background. (te zot voor woorden)
I don't see how they could prohibit it's use as I'm merely quoting Google, and in turn, Google merely recorded what was visible from an open public road.
Here is the direct link to this picture published by Google:
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Atomium/@50.894941,4.341547,3a,97.3y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1shttp:%2F%2Ft2.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn:ANd9GcTgF5HhGwJzVOMoC9msgG_HajK0eyh0HHaEpLEiR1AwINLLof0U!2e7!3e27!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FD0Lxc9OrDli-0fAiQV2NzTSn42gi2wJUdu9Hwj7lXMbhX2O-wrq2e5Dn1VztoAFya_i_YKbnpLtdA6cNgq_00roQCTarYPDBofVGFoP5TSp6DEEOJ5QSok1TkaHkdZkIj7wCFnYHrrBY-0v_cybZjezUeyIAsUQ%3Dw203-h136-k-no!7i1080!8i728!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c3c3ac00000001:0x5293071d68a63709!8m2!3d50.894941!4d4.341547
Mmh, first time I did hear/read about this!
Just crazy and stupid!
They can request what ever they want. I mean "Send a minimum $5 for each photo you take" is one approach but you can't make that stick.
The NFL probably has the most famous disclaimer "Any accounts blah blah blah" which simply means that you can not copy work that they did or commissioned done. If you take a picture of a game in progress you own that picture and can do with it as you please.
I'd think the same would hold true in any sort of international court. Pictures of public buildings are permitted. Period.
I know for sure that they try and bully people into paying though. I should really test that theory and post a picture anyway, and upvote myself for like 10 cents.
I wonder if they'd find that and try and squeeze some money out of me.
Whoever wrote that disclaimer/law was probably a genius, covering each angle and ensuring profit! I heard about such laws applying regarding important landmarks, though I did not imagine they will narrow it down that way. I am just curious, what a tourist who does not speak the language would do - could he play that card?
Okay, that is a bizarre sort of copyright enforcement? What if you are just taking a picture of the skyline with the Atomium in the background? Surely, there must be some sort of leeway, or is it that you stand to make money with Steem?
WHUT!
I didnt know this dude....but uhhhh how did you find this out then?
Well, I was first planning to write a post about the Atomium, but then I vaguely remembered that I've heard someone get fined for doing something similar. This was a couple of years ago, but I decided to go look it up.
And indeed, their website states that they really do go after people who publish pictures without asking permission. Pretty crazy if you ask me.
http://atomium.be/AuthorsRights.aspx?lang=nl