Well just as a suggestion can't we post something like "please remember to check your local laws concerning official buildings and people" and then IF someone hands over an image of an official building then we can ask them.
I mean there's no point burning the house down to protect it from burglars is there? On Thursday, March 12, 2015 01:45:34 PM Martin Klapetek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Martin Klapetek wrote: > > > However do you know how it is with property licenses when used as > > > backgrounds? > > > > It varies by country, sensible countries make sure that photos of > > public buildings are not restricted by copyright. Both the UK and the > > US are sensible countries in this regard. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama > > That is not true, for example Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square > in London that are not private tourist photos _must_ have a property > release before using it commercially. And there are many such buildings > or landmarks in US and everywhere else too. > > > > Same goes with children or any person on photos, > > > there you need "model release" (ie. the person's signature that > > > > his/her > > > > > photo > > > can be used for various purposes). > > > > Personality rights for people modelling is only a US concept, sensible > > countries have no such restrictions. > > That is also not true and it's more complicated. Basically, taking a picture > on the public space/street should be safe, but as soon as the person (and > especially children) are the main object of the photos, you do need to have > a license to use those in a non-private way. > > All I'm saying is, better stay safe (licensing Golden Gate Bridge for > non-private use is 2000$, getting sued could be very very very > expensive). > > Cheers _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
