On 21 Oct 2010, at 20:09, geni wrote:

On 21 October 2010 14:04, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:

...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/04044411496/english-heritage-organization-claiming-it-holds-effective-copyright-on-any-and-all-photos-of-stonehenge.shtml

No. Apart from anything else the stones in the current form may well be under copyright (last "reconstruction" was 1963). I can't really comment without seeing the full email and even the origin of this story doesn't give that:

http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=445.

I would expect the UKs extremely liberal freedom of panorama laws to make such images okey but there is always the possibility of a bylaw or the like. -- geni

They've clarified their position: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/photography-and-stonehenge/

Basically, they only have a problem with people that take commercial photographs from their property. Which is an interesting question: taking photographs for Wikipedia means that they are available for commercial use, so should we be asking uploaders to make sure they have permission to release their photographs commercially?

Mike Peel

On 23 October 2010 11:07, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:

Basically, they only have a problem with people that take commercial photographs from their property. Which is an interesting question: taking photographs for Wikipedia means that they are available for commercial use, so should we be asking uploaders to make sure they have permission to release their photographs commercially?

I believe asking nicely is considered the right thing to do. Another example is the V&A, who have a similar house rule but have been amenable to Wikimedia exposure in the past.

Of course, if someone does take a picture without permission, they still own the copyright and English Heritage or whoever would then have to consider suing them. But house rules do not change copyright law.

- d.