What isn't clear to me here: are they actually copyright holders to the house? (i.e., the architect or its heirs?) A quick search suggests that Gerogi Fingov died in 1944. So maybe I'm missing something, but what is the legal basis for the cease and desist order? Because if it is privacy (or something related), it may be less ideal for us?


On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

This couldn't have been a better example [1] if we had dreamt it up it ourselves. I know most people's Bulgarian on this list is limited, so I'll try to provide the moments:

  • An old house by fmaous Bulgarian turn-of-the-century architect Gerogi Fingov  in the centre of Sofia is slowly decaying.
  • The house is categorised as a landmark and protected.
  • The owners are suspected want the house break down beyond repair, so it becomes dnagerous for the public and they are allowed to tear it down and build a highrise. (Common scheme in Bulgaria the past two decades, but that's a different issue.)
  • The municipality is not getting active, at least not effectively, and there is a public outcry abou this. Corruption is often mentioned. (This too has happened many times in Sofia, but is also a different issue.)
  • People start taking photographs of the house and posting them on social media, newspaper articles are written. There is a campaign to save this and other landmarks. 
  • The owners of the house send  a cease-and-deist letter to one of the more famous photographers whose pictures have been most commonly used in media and online to take down all the pictures of the house. 
  • He complies, saying that he has no time/energy/resources for this particular struggle.
Theoretically at least news outlets could claim the "news" exception, but everyone else could now fear to get a notice if they continue with the campaign to save architectural landmarks. 

I will contact the photographer. 




Publicpolicy mailing list