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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
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?
Best Lodewijk
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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Unless they specifically bought the rights, owners ain't no authors. Hence, this is not a legal problem, it is a problem of malevolent human stupidity.
Of course, one point for commercial FoP is that it is less apt for misuse than NC FoP, and we should stress that. But it does not abolish neither bad faith nor ignorance (which, as we know, is the root of suffering). So, we can't really say FoP would avoid such cases.
Raul On 29 Mar 2016 23:24, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Best Lodewijk
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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Thanks Dimi for this awful story. It sounds to me as if it really depends on the legal basis the house owners have used. Perhaps when contacting the photographers you can get hold of one of those cease and desist letters, which might give us additional insight... Regards, Jan On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 23:32 +0300, Raul Veede wrote:
Unless they specifically bought the rights, owners ain't no authors. Hence, this is not a legal problem, it is a problem of malevolent human stupidity. Of course, one point for commercial FoP is that it is less apt for misuse than NC FoP, and we should stress that. But it does not abolish neither bad faith nor ignorance (which, as we know, is the root of suffering). So, we can't really say FoP would avoid such cases. Raul On 29 Mar 2016 23:24, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Best Lodewijk
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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1]http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_z aplashen_sus_sud_da_ne_pokazva_snimki_ot/?ref=email_mynews
[1]http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_z aplashen_sus_sud_da_ne_pokazva_snimki_ot/?ref=email_mynews
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
I will talk to the photographer. Seems odd inded.
Dimi
2016-03-30 9:42 GMT+02:00 Jan Weisensee jan.weisensee@posteo.de:
Thanks Dimi for this awful story. It sounds to me as if it really depends on the legal basis the house owners have used. Perhaps when contacting the photographers you can get hold of one of those cease and desist letters, which might give us additional insight...
Regards, Jan
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 23:32 +0300, Raul Veede wrote:
Unless they specifically bought the rights, owners ain't no authors. Hence, this is not a legal problem, it is a problem of malevolent human stupidity.
Of course, one point for commercial FoP is that it is less apt for misuse than NC FoP, and we should stress that. But it does not abolish neither bad faith nor ignorance (which, as we know, is the root of suffering). So, we can't really say FoP would avoid such cases.
Raul On 29 Mar 2016 23:24, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Best Lodewijk
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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing listPublicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Get my PGP public key at https://keybase.io/janweisensee http://here XMPP Chat: jan@swissjabber.de Tox ID 4522 CD10 A395 D810 1708 F3C0 B929 9AD9 882B 82FF B165 10CB F4F6 D5F6 AB6E 6517 E4CE 9D76 0934
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Very interesting story, though. Thanks for paraphrasing, Dimi! Michael
2016-03-30 10:42 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
I will talk to the photographer. Seems odd inded.
Dimi
2016-03-30 9:42 GMT+02:00 Jan Weisensee jan.weisensee@posteo.de:
Thanks Dimi for this awful story. It sounds to me as if it really depends on the legal basis the house owners have used. Perhaps when contacting the photographers you can get hold of one of those cease and desist letters, which might give us additional insight...
Regards, Jan
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 23:32 +0300, Raul Veede wrote:
Unless they specifically bought the rights, owners ain't no authors. Hence, this is not a legal problem, it is a problem of malevolent human stupidity.
Of course, one point for commercial FoP is that it is less apt for misuse than NC FoP, and we should stress that. But it does not abolish neither bad faith nor ignorance (which, as we know, is the root of suffering). So, we can't really say FoP would avoid such cases.
Raul On 29 Mar 2016 23:24, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Best Lodewijk
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.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
[1] http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/03/25/2730238_fotograf_e_zaplashen_sus_s...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing listPublicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Get my PGP public key at https://keybase.io/janweisensee http://here XMPP Chat: jan@swissjabber.de Tox ID 4522 CD10 A395 D810 1708 F3C0 B929 9AD9 882B 82FF B165 10CB F4F6 D5F6 AB6E 6517 E4CE 9D76 0934
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org