travel images - your expectations

[elsa hoffmann]

what you think you are going to see and shoot - vs what the reality is.... put a couple of things in perspective for me

http://matadornetwork.com/life/hilarious-photos-show-difference-travel-expectations-travel-reality/

[John Geerts]

You never travel alone

[Ron Scubadiver]

Unfortunately, crowding is not an exaggeration at many famous tourist sites.  Venice is one of the worst.  I wind up looking for lesser known landmarks or doing street photography where members of the crowd become the subject.

[BW]

I always stay clear of the tourist traps. The chance to get a decent photograph is minuscule. To expect a shot wordy of showing someone other than your closest friends is one to a million. I`m always disappointed after a I visit such sites, but I always find something interesting going there or on the way back. The only chance to get ok shot, is if you do something totally different of famous sites. 

[Andy]

I rather prefer these kind of trips:


But if I "have" to be there (familiy, etc, ...), I usually try to do night photography. Keeps the number of tourists and the tension with the travel partner low ........

Venice






Paris




rgds,
Andy

[armando_m]

Interesting link

I guess every site has times where it will be crazy crowded and others when it is more pleasant, I went to Stonehenge and it was closer to the nice image, than the ugly crowds

[elsa hoffmann]

Armando - I seem to recall Stonehedge is now fenced off and you cant get right up to it - unlike a while ago when people could practically hug the rocks?

[armando_m]

Elsa, there is a rope to keep people away, there are tours where people are allowed inside the circle

[Fons Baerken]

Travelling i prefer to plan my own trips, these commercial package deals are an ugly sight, though there are places you cant go without them unfortunately.

[Les Olson]

Photographing at night may avoid crowds, but unfortunately, in Europe it may infringe copyright in many cases, such as the Eiffel Tower.  In France, the creators of publicly displayed works retain the right to control reproduction of images.  Although the Tower itself is in the public domain because of its age, the lighting display is modern and still subject to copyright (http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/filming-at-the-eiffel-tower.html ).  The same is true in Italy, so some of your photographs of Venice at night may also be problematic. 

Some other older monuments in France have followed the Eiffel Tower's lead and installed lighting displays so they can assert control over night photography at least. Modern architectural works in France and Italy - IM Pei's Louvre pyramid, eg - are in themselves copyright and cannot be photographed night or day without permission (http://wiki.gettyimages.com/the-louvre-and-im-peis-pyramid/). 
 
In France photographs of public areas incidentally including the works are allowed; this relates to a recent French court decision: until a few years ago SETE tried to claim that any picture in which the lighting display of the Eiffel Tower was even partially visible - ie, about half of all pictures of Paris at night - infringed its rights.   
 

[Fons Baerken]

Insanity is mans' rule



at least not here Drakensbergen South Afrika

D300 12-24/4 2008

[Anthony]

Photographing at night may avoid crowds, but unfortunately, in Europe it may infringe copyright in many cases, such as the Eiffel Tower.  In France, the creators of publicly displayed works retain the right to control reproduction of images.  Although the Tower itself is in the public domain because of its age, the lighting display is modern and still subject to copyright (http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/filming-at-the-eiffel-tower.html ).  The same is true in Italy, so some of your photographs of Venice at night may also be problematic. 

Some other older monuments in France have followed the Eiffel Tower's lead and installed lighting displays so they can assert control over night photography at least. Modern architectural works in France and Italy - IM Pei's Louvre pyramid, eg - are in themselves copyright and cannot be photographed night or day without permission (http://wiki.gettyimages.com/the-louvre-and-im-peis-pyramid/). 
 
In France photographs of public areas incidentally including the works are allowed; this relates to a recent French court decision: until a few years ago SETE tried to claim that any picture in which the lighting display of the Eiffel Tower was even partially visible - ie, about half of all pictures of Paris at night - infringed its rights.   
 

Here is a discussion on freedom of panorama as it applies in various states.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

[Andy]

Photographing at night may avoid crowds, but unfortunately, in Europe it may infringe copyright in many cases, such as the Eiffel Tower.  .....
 
In France photographs of public areas incidentally including the works are allowed; this relates to a recent French court decision: until a few years ago SETE tried to claim that any picture in which the lighting display of the Eiffel Tower was even partially visible - ie, about half of all pictures of Paris at night - infringed its rights.   
 

Les,
I did exactly that for my Eiffel tower pictures.

Out of curiosity, I wrote a mail to SETE for clarification and got permission to use it for non-commercial usage - i.e. on my blog.
Any commercial usage requires a contract.
Here is a thread in a german speaking forum from that trip.

But I agree with you on the principle that it is indeed a worrying development.

rgds,
Andy

[Les Olson]

Another wrinkle about French and Italian law is that there are two rights at issue: copyright, and the moral rights of authors.  In those countries copyright can be bought and sold and has a limited term, as in most jurisdictions, but the moral rights of authors are eternal and inalienable.  Moral rights include the right "to control the presentation of the work to the public", which includes things like the placement of a statue, but also the right to approve photography of the work - not just the fact that you are going to make a photograph, but the technical and aesthetic aspects of the photograph after you have made it.  "Presentation of the work to the public" includes non-commercial publication, although I am not aware of anyone being taken to court for putting terrible photographs of a statue on Flickr.  But someone who wants to photograph a work commercially needs both the copyright owner's approval, and if the artist is not the copyright owner, the artist's approval of the final product as well.