Photographic activities

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

This industry category includes the following:

74.2 Photographic activities
74.20 Photographic activities
74.20/1 Portrait photographic activities
This subclass includes:
portrait photography for passports, schools, weddings etc.
74.20/2 Other specialist photography (not including portrait photography)
This subclass includes:
- aerial photography
- photographing of persons, objects or scenery using special apparatus and techniques e.g.
  • underwater photography
  • medical and biological photography
  • photomicrography
  • microfilming of documents
74.20/3 Film processing
This subclass includes:
- developing, printing and enlarging from client-taken negatives or cine-films
- film developing and photo printing laboratories
- one hour photo shops (not part of camera stores)
- mounting of slides
- copying and restoring or transparency retouching in connection with photographs
74.20/9 Other photographic activities (not including portrait and other specialist photography and film processing) n.e.c.
This subclass includes:
- photography for commercials, publishers, fashion, real estate or tourism purposes
- videotaping of events: weddings, meetings etc.
- activities of photojournalists

Click Here for more details on this classification: Industry Appendix


Industry Sectors
  • Photographic activities (25)

Photographic activities is an industry sector defined within the Copyright Evidence wiki.


The following studies involve this industry sector (25):

 Citation
Astle and Muir (2002)Astle, P.J. and Muir, A., 2002. Digitization and preservation in public libraries and archives. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 34(2), pp.67-79.
Attorney-General's Department (2008)Attorney-General's Department (Australia), 2008, Review of copyright exceptions for private copying of photographs and films - final report, Attorney-General's Department (Australia)
BOP Consulting and DotEcon (2015)BOP Consulting, DotEcon (2015). International Comparison of Approaches to Online Copyright Infringement: Final Report, commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office.
Canat, Guibault and Logeais (2015)Canat, J., Guibault, L. and Logeais, E., Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Museums, World Intellectual Property Organization (2015) SCCR/30/2.
Cooper and Burrow (2018)Cooper, E. and Burrow, S. (2018) Photographic Copyright and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in Historical Perspective. CREATe Working Paper Series DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1246559.
Corbett (2011)Corbett, S., 2011. Archiving Our Culture in a Digital Environment: Copyright Law and Digitisation Practices in Cultural Heritage Institutions. New Zealand Law Foundation Report.
Cotropia and Gibson (2014)Cotropia, C. A., & Gibson, J. (2014). Copyright's Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation. Texas Law Review, 92(7).
Dryden (2008)Dryden, J.E., 2008. Copyright in the real world: Making archival material available on the Internet (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).
Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017)Dulong de Rosnay, M. and Langlais, P. Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence. Internet Policy Review Vol. 6(1)
Dusollier (2010)Dusollier, S., WIPO (2010) CDIP/4/3/REV./STUDY/INF/1.
Envisional (2011)Envisional (2011), Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet
Erickson, Rodriguez Perez and Rodriguez Perez (2018)Erickson, K, Rodriguez Perez, F and Rodriguez Perez, J (2018) What is the Commons Worth? Estimating the Value of Wikimedia Imagery by Observing Downstream Use. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Open Collaboration. OpenSym ’18: The 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, 22-24 Aug 2018, Paris, France. ACM (Association for Computing Machinery). ISBN 978-1-4503-59 36-8
Favale, Homberg, Kretschmer, Mendis and Secchi (2013)Favale, M., Homberg, F., Kretschmer, M., Mendis, D., & Secchi, D. (2015). Copyright, and the Regulation of Orphan Works: A Comparative Review of Seven Jurisdictions and a Rights Clearance Simulation. Available at SSRN 2613498.
Gowers (2006)Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The Stationery Office.
Greenhalgh, Phillips, Pitkethly, Rogers and Tomalin (2010)Greenhalgh, C., Philips, J., Pitkethly, R., Rogers, M., & Tomalin, J. (2010). Intellectual Property Enforcement in Smaller UK Firms. Report for the Strategy Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP).
Hadopi (2011)HADOPI. 2011. Hadopi, cultural assets and internet use: practices and perceptions of French internet users (Online). Available: http://www.hadopi.fr/download/HADOPI_T0_version_long.pdf.
Hansen, Hashimoto, Hinze, Samuelson and Urban (2013)Hansen, D. R., Hashimoto, K., Hinze, G., Samuelson, P., & Urban, J. M. (2013). Solving the orphan works problem for the united states. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 37(1).
Hargreaves (2011)Hargreaves, I. (2011). Digital Opportunity. A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth,
Heald, Erickson and Kretschmer (2015)Heald, P. J., Kretschmer, M., & Erickson, K. (2015). The Valuation of Unprotected Works: A Case Study of Public Domain Photographs on Wikipedia. Available at SSRN.
Hooper and Lynch (2012a)Hooper, R., & Lynch, R. (2012). Rights and wrongs: Is copyright licensing fit for purpose for the digital age? The first report of the Digital Copyright Exchange feasibility study, IPO.
Hooper and Lynch (2012b)Hooper, R., & Lynch, R. (2012). Copyright works: Streamlining copyright licensing for the digital age. Intellectual Property Office: Newport.
Hudson and Kenyon (2007)Hudson, E. and Kenyon, A.T., 2007. Digital Access: The Impact of Copyright on Digitisation Practices in Australian Museums, Galleries, Libraries, and Archives. UNSWLJ, 30, p.12.
United States Copyright Office (2015b)Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, United States Copyright Office (2015), available at http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf.
Urban, Karaganis and Schofield (2016)Urban, J, Karaganis, J. and Schofield, B. (2016) Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice (March 29, 2016). UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2755628.
Vuopala (2010)Vuopala, A., 2010. Assessment of the Orphan works issue and Costs for Rights Clearance. European Commission, DG Information Society and Media, Unit E, 4.