Cologne cathedral - a dilemma

[Jools Elliott]

Thanks Mark. In the end, I did manage to get the email address to work so I guess it will be wait and see.

 

The cathedral is the only place where I took interior photos, so at least from that extent I only have around 4 photos that may just end up as personal viewing only.

[NYCat]

Ooops. Sorry.

[David Davies]

Ooops. Sorry.

Not to worry.

[spacecadet]

Extraordinary restrictions. It implies that anyone can retrospectively assert their property rights without having made them explicit in any way.

Fortunately there's no such thing in the UK- it would only be a trespass- and a German property owner couldn't do anything outside Germany.

This isn't going to affect how I treat German images at all.

[NYCat]

 

Ooops. Sorry.

Not to worry.

 

Thank you so much..

[Chrissie]

Commercial means selling (or trading) whether the image is editorial or in fact 'commercial' (!)

[spacecadet]

If you know the definitions in German law, fair enough, but perhaps we need a German speaker, or even lawyer, to tell us how 'gewerblich' translates in law and why it is used in the judgment rather that 'kommerziel', for example.

All I can deduce is that it means any non-private use.

To repeat: There's no similar property right (eigentumsrecht)as such in English law. Here it would be a matter of trespass or contract. IMO.

[Semmick Photo]

I dont get it. You took a few photos and were told you cant use them commercially or put them up on the internet and it got you upset that you cant sell photos of someone elses property. Isnt that what its all about? Respecting someone else's property? You are protecting your own intellectual property but when someone else does it you get your knickers in a twist?

 

I have photos of the Willis Tower in Chicago, but I cant sell them either. Too bad, but I have to respect the owners wishes. 

[Semmick Photo]

Heck, I have even taken down photos when I later found out commercial use was not allowed. For example the Singapore flag. I just want to sleep with a clean concious. 

[Mark]

If you know the definitions in German law, fair enough, but perhaps we need a German speaker, or even lawyer, to tell us how 'gewerblich' translates in law and why it is used in the judgment rather that 'kommerziel', for example.

All I can deduce is that it means any non-private use.

To repeat: There's no similar property right (eigentumsrecht)as such in English law. Here it would be a matter of trespass or contract. IMO.

 

Mark,

 

"Gewerbe" means "a business". This is also defined clearly in law. To put it in simple terms, a "Gewerbe" is a business that operates with the intent to make profit continually, and operates on the open market. Someone selling jam occasionally to friends is not a "Gewerbe", nor is a hobby that may have income, but does not generate profit, or there is no intent evident to operate a profitable business. In fact, a registered "Gewerbe" (business) may be deregistered by authorities (with all consequences) if profit is not generated after an certain period. Similarly, a private person fulfilling the requirements of a "Gewerbe" (profit, market, intent) but NOT registering the business operates illegally (as some "hobby" stock photographers with good income have found out!...German Tax Office is already onto this!). A "Gewerbe" is governed by special business laws "Gewerberecht". The governmental office "Gewerbeamt" administers all affairs related to the businesses. "Gewerblich" is used as the term because it relates the activities done (the selling of the photographs) to the operation of a "Gewerbe". "Gewerbe" is the legal term.

 

The issue is related to the infringement of property (and possibly personal) rights, not to non-private use of photos. Owners can also restrict private use.

 

For photographs inside any building in Germany it is best to get permission prior to making the photographs. Often it is not a problem, but for many historical landmarks and properties these days (whether a ticket to enter is needed or not), photos for "gerwerblich" use often need permission, otherwise property owners rights may be infringed. Neuschwanstein (the fairytale castle) has even been trying for years to ban photography made OUTSIDE from public ground. They continue to fail because photos from public ground are protected by the law "Panoramafreiheit"....free to photograph whatever you can see when standing on public ground (which is NOT applicable if you use a ladder, shoot from the window of the building opposite, stand on someones shoulders, or use a helium balloon to lift your camera etc....then you can be bitten again by the property owners).

 

For a planned stock shoot, it is worth the upfront enquiry. With everyone a photographer these days, and photos distributed out of control (facebook, flickr, stock etc) property owners are becoming sensitive to photography.

[spacecadet]

I dont get it. You took a few photos and were told you cant use them commercially or put them up on the internet and it got you upset that you cant sell photos of someone elses property. Isnt that what its all about? Respecting someone else's property? You are protecting your own intellectual property but when someone else does it you get your knickers in a twist?

 

I have photos of the Willis Tower in Chicago, but I cant sell them either. Too bad, but I have to respect the owners wishes. 

There's no IP in a centuries-old church and no underwear problem, just an attempt to define what is appropriate.

Germany is evidently a problem but fortunately we can sell elsewhere. There isn't even a requirement to register a business here except for National Insurance purposes so there's no concept of operating illegally.

I won't be putting up any of Neuschwanstein but because there are an awful lot of them, not because of these laws.

[Jools Elliott]

As I said a few posts earlier, I managed to get their email address to work and I am awaiting the response.

 

I didn't see the thing about the internet until after I had actually photographed the building. Otherwise, i wouldn't have bothered.

[Semmick Photo]

Why bother now then if you dont mind me asking? Are your images seriously better then the others already on offer? Just asking because it might not even be worth it to put in all this time and effort chasing a priest in Germany to get approval to publish 4 photos if the photos have little chance of getting you a return. Maybe it has turned into a principle issue for you. I know the feeling. 

 

@ spacecadet, I was just making a point, not really going into legal terms. 

[Jools Elliott]

No, it's not a matter of principle. It's a matter of getting back a return on the work that I have done in Cologne and the area in general.

 

I believe that I am now trying to pursue the correct channels and I will see what comes out of it.

 

Do I think my images are better? That will always be a subject of opinion. I have my own style in which I take photos but that doesn't necessarily make them any better/ worse than what is out there.

[DavidC]

deleted

[DavidC]

Just in case it is a little confusing to the less experienced contributors....Mark said: "There isn't even a requirement to register a business here except for National Insurance purposes so there's no concept of operating illegally."

 

As a number of UK hobbyists may discover to their costs this is not the complete picture - all income must be declared/registered for income tax and if sufficient for VAT - agencies/libraries/newspapers have to notify HMRC when income paid to a contributor passes a certain limit and you become a business whether you wish to or not. 

 

It is better under the self-assessment arrangements to make this declaration yourself - the Revenue is less trusting if they catch you out...

 

[Imagery by Charly]

There's no IP in a centuries-old church....

 

That maybe true, but..... It could be for religious reasons or simply with thousands of people visiting and most "not being" good photogs, they don't want crap images up of that beautiful structure to be seen anywhere.

 

 

As I said a few posts earlier, I managed to get their email address to work and I am awaiting the response.

 

I didn't see the thing about the internet until after I had actually photographed the building. Otherwise, i wouldn't have bothered.

 

Seems like a lessen learned; don't assume everything you shoot you can use commercially or put up for sale or even on the internet.

 

 

No, it's not a matter of principle. It's a matter of getting back a return on the work that I have done in Cologne and the area in general.

 

If one is taking a trip to shoot images to sell in whatever medium to help pay for said trip, wouldn't it behoove them to research the properties to see if they might have restrictions and/or what they are prior? Seems that would save time in the long run and money. Then again there's always the case of shoot at will, then find out the restrictions later and not use them...

 

Personally, I never assume I have the right to sell every image I take. An in my humble opinion, to knowingly put up restricted images w/o proper permissions sheds a bad light on photography and the photogs themselves.

[Jools Elliott]

Hi Charly. I have to admit that this particular trip was my least researched. I just didn't get the time I needed in order to be able to have an idea of everything around.

 

On a recent trip to Lyon, I knew I wanted to photograph the inside of Notre Dame de Fourviere. I got written permission and they have said they don't mind me selling what I have done. So, yes I usually get things sorted beforehand by getting hold of the tourist information press office and trying to find out the relevant info from there.

[Imagery by Charly]

Hi Jools. One thing I always fret about is what if I take that masterpiece of a shot by accident hehehe and then can do nothing with it. So like you usually do, wink wink, I do the research prior, because as we both know it's not difficult to get the proper permissions with just a wee bit of effort, as your work will speak for itself. And if it's of a property I cannot get permissions, like you I'll usually pass it by.

[dov makabaw]

Personally I would mark the image as no PR, RM. Let the end user decide whether his use would be contentious.

 

dov

[Semmick Photo]

Personally I would mark the image as no PR, RM. Let the end user decide whether his use would be contentious.

 

dov

I didnt know Alamy was not connected to the internet. 

[Semmick Photo]

Jools, your OP said you had a dilemma, but there is no dilemma, you have a note saying you cant use them anywhere, period. Now, you are following the right approach, get them to give you permission or not. Either you get to post them, or you get to enjoy them forever alone in your lightroom   , on both outcomes there is still no dilemma, unless you let it become a dilemma. Good luck, I do hope you get permission. 

[Imagery by Charly]

Personally I would mark the image as no PR, RM. Let the end user decide whether his use would be contentious.

 

dov

 

 

dov, though I completely respect your stand on this, I'm curious about a couple of things. 

 

1. In doing so, aren't you actually telling the end user that you care not about what restrictions are in place? Thus making the end user think 'why should I care about restrictions or copyright for that matter?', which is not what us photogs want anyone to think correct?

 

2. Let's say a buyer finds 3 images that will fit their needs. They may or may not know of any restrictions to deal with. But of the 3, one of them clearly states Editorial (which usually means there are restrictions) or Property Release Yes and the other 2 do not. Which one do you think most buyers would choose?

 

Of course that is not to say, sales don't happen w/o any research whatsoever on images that hold restrictions and according to what I've read places all legal infractions on the buyer. Yet why on earth would any photog wish to put a buyer or somehow themselves is that situation? It seems at the end of the day, we as professionals should do everything we can to deter an issue for the buyer and ourselves. Though yes there are times when that might be difficult, we shouldn't we all at least try, instead of having a 'I don't give a s*** attitude.' imho. I certainly don't wish for buyers to take that stance...

[DavidC]

How much of a real difference is there between say an owner placing restrictions on photographing the artistic creations on the inside of a building – and an owner placing restrictions on the artistic rendering of a photograph ?

 

In the first case the photographer asks for permission and hopes to sell licenses for financial profit……

 

…..and in the second case the artist would like to eat as well – in both cases there is an option (or should be) to simply say “No” or maybe just be a bit flexible ?

 

Or am I mixing up a couple of topics here ?

[Jools Elliott]

Jools, your OP said you had a dilemma, but there is no dilemma, you have a note saying you cant use them anywhere, period. Now, you are following the right approach, get them to give you permission or not. Either you get to post them, or you get to enjoy them forever alone in your lightroom   , on both outcomes there is still no dilemma, unless you let it become a dilemma. Good luck, I do hope you get permission. 

 

Thanks! I hope that they go for what I have said. I guess it may take some time for them to come back to me but fingers crossed it will be positive. I tried to put a positive case forward to them and offering them my work I did within the cathedral. Hopefully they will bite.