A new EU proposal could see millions of Britons face legal action for uploading photos of famous UK landmarks onto personal websites or even Facebook pages.

Monuments such as the Angel of the North and the London Eye, or public works of art such as Trafalgar Square’s Fourth Plinth or Liverpool’s Superlambananas, may need to be blacked out in holiday snaps to avoid breaching the copyright of individual architects or artists.

Members of the public would only be able to upload the uncensored photograph with prior consent from the author.

These are restrictions that already exist in some member states of the EU, including France, Belgium and Italy, but in an attempt to harmonise copyright law, Brussels could extend this to the UK as early as next month.



The Atomium Building in Belgium, as seen on Wikipedia (Photo: Nro92/Romaine/Wikipedia)

The UK, along with countries such as Spain and Germany, currently enjoys “freedom of panorama”, a provision in copyright law that allows people to publish photographs of modern buildings or public art installations and use any way they like without infringing copyright.

However, where this clause does not exist, restrictions extend even to educational, not-for-profit websites such as Wikipedia. The website’s page for the Atomium building in Belgium, for example, is illustrated by a silhouetted shot of the building, due to copyright restrictions.

• The best photobombing animals

In France, it is illegal to publish a photograph of the Eiffel Tower by night since the tower’s illuminations added in 2003 retain copyright, even though the copyright for the structure itself, built in 1889, has long since expired. Daytime photographs are acceptable, but prior permission must be obtained from operating company Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE), which owns the rights, for lit-up images.

The threat to the UK’s freedom of panorama is an unfortunate by-product of an attempt to reform EU copyright laws by German MEP Julia Reda. In a statement to parliament, her report calls for the EU to “ensure that the use of photographs, video footage, or other images of works which are permanently located in public places are permitted”.



The Eiffel Tower in Paris, photographed by day (Photo: Fotolia/AP)

However, a number of MEPs are attempting to introduce a non-commercial clause into the freedom of panorama rules. The amendment reads: “The commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them.”

• Telegraph Travel's Big Picture photography competition

The laws would primarily affect professional photographers using images on a commercial basis, however, there remains a "grey area" that could affect personal images posted on Facebook, Instagram or websites that generate revenue.

Nick Phillips, a copyright lawyer with Edwin Coe, told The Times: "It you're just taking a holiday snap of the Angel of the North, that's going to be non-commercial and so will be fine, but it becomes a grey area if, say, Facebook's terms and conditions give Facebook a licence to use your photograph for any purposes they like."

Charles Swan, a director of the Association of Photographers and an intellectual property lawyer said the proposal was “absurd” and “a complete invasion of our freedom of expression”.

“Why on earth shouldn’t you take pictures of the landscape or skyline and do what you want with them? It would be fairly disastrous and most of the British public, not just photographers, would think this was pretty horrific. The only people it would be good news for might be architects,” he told the newspaper.

A spokesperson for the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) said the institution was concerned that “the well intentioned proposals… would instead have negative implications, and represent a potentially damaging restriction of the debate about architecture and public space”. The spokesperson added that RIBA supports the current law.

• Paris: a city break guide

“Many of us have cameras and computers built into our phones,” said Michael Maggs, Chair of Wikimedia UK. “Digital photography and technological improvements make it easy to share our images online. This non-commercial exception to freedom of panorama not only prevents Europeans from sharing their content, it removes existing freedoms from UK citizens.”

Writing for Global Legal Post, Sharon Daboul, a trademark attorney at EIP, said the penalties for copyright infringement can be heavy.

Using night-time images of the Eiffel Tower as an example, she said: “It is hard to imagine SETE sending out a cease-and-desist letter or filing a lawsuit against individuals sharing holiday photos on Instagram, if an image starts to attract economic value or high public exposure, users should be aware that the penalties for copyright infringement can be heavy.

“SETE would be within their rights to sue, if they felt an image of the Eiffel Tower taken at night had been published or reproduced for commercial gain and without permission."