1 vote
Jul 9, 2015

To play the Devil's advocate, I can see why such a copyright law would surface (cancelling out motives of governmental greed - although I don't see how it would financially benefit anyone; seems more like a moral decision with fascistic undertones). The discrepancy between the possible origin/purpose of the building (and the sometimes careless ways its taken images are used for - cheap flyers and such) have changed a bit, now that there is a lower threshold of taking and sharing visual copies of whatever ancient landmarks are left to behold - despite wars and failing budgets meant for restauration.

It raises the question who these buildings belong to and what we are to do with it (not sure if this is the point Jean-Marie Cavada is trying to make).

I just don't understand why they didn't come up with this when photography was invented in the first place. I've always hated how the possession of an automatic mobile camera (originally, being a photographer was a trade which called for knowledge of lighting, filters, films and development - but most all: delicacy) invites people to act all stupid around ancient/historic landmarks, just to get the highest possible amount of praise on whatever social platform.

Wikipedia is a big exception. Prohibiting Wikipedia to place two or three explanatory images of 'le Tour Eiffel' to support the text describing this landmark would be like prohibiting me to make a hand-drawn copy of it whilst seated in its vicinity.

Long story short: I can see the problem (when I squint), but I'm not convinced of the solution.

Reply to this opinion
Challenge someone to answer your opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: