Photographic activities

From Copyright EVIDENCE

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 is an industry sector defined within the Copyright Evidence wiki.

The following studies involve this industry sector (54):

Allen (2012)Allen, N. (2012) Art Museum Images in Scholarly Publishing. Texas: Connexions.
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.
Ballon and Westermann (2006)Ballon, H. and Westermann, M. (2006) Art History and Its Publications in the Electronic Age. Texas: Connexions.
Bar-Ziv and Elkin-Koren (2018)Bar-Ziv, S. and Elkin-Koren, N. (2018) Behind the Scenes of Online Copyright Enforcement: Empirical Evidence on Notice & Takedown. Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 50(2).
Bechtold, Buccafusco and Sprigman (2016)Bechtold, S., Buccafusco, C. And Sprigman, J.C. (2016) Innovation Heuristics: Experiments on Sequential Creativity in Intellectual Property. Indiana Law Journal, 2016, Forthcoming.
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.
Collections Trust (2015)Collections Trust (2015) Striking the Balance: How NMDC members are balancing public access and commercial reuse of digital content. A report by the Collections Trust commissioned by the NMDC <> (accessed 6 January 2022)
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).
Denoyelle et al (2018)Denoyelle, M., Durand, K., Daniel, J. and Doulkaridou-Ramantani, E. (2018) Image rights, art history and society. Report presented to the Foundation de France <> (accessed 7 January 2022)
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. (2017) 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.
EUIPO (2017)EUIPO (2017) European Citizens and intellectual Property: Perception, awareness and behaviour. A survey commissioned to Deloitte.
Engstrom and Feamster (2017)Engstrom, E. And Feamster, N. (2017) The Limits of Filtering: A Look at the Functionality & Shortcomings of Content Detection Tools. Available: (last accessed 23 May 2019)
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.
Gecer and Topal (2019)Gecer, A.K. and Topal, A.D. (2019) Academic and postgraduate student awareness of digital product copyright issues. Information Development.
Gowers (2006)Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The Stationery Office.
Green (2021)Green, D. (2021). Learning to Let Go: Ownership, Rights, Fees, and Permissions of Readers’ Photographs. Anglia, 139(1), 59-70.
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:
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.
Kelly (2013)Kelly, K. (2013) Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access. Mellon Foundation Study <> (accessed 6 January 2022)
Kelly (2019)Kelly, E.J. (2019) Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses: Copyright or Copywrong? Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(3)
Landes and Posner (2003a)Landes, W. and Posner, R.A. (2003) Indefinitely Renewable Copyright. 70 University of Chicago Law School Review 471
Liu (2019)Liu, J. (2019) An Empirical Study of Transformative Use in Copyright Law. Stan. Tech. L.Rev. 22(1) pp. 164 - 241
Luo and Mortimer (2018)Luo, H. And Mortimer, J.H. (2019) Infringing Use as a Path to Legal Consumption: Evidence from a Field Experiment . NBER Working paper No. 25453.
Marshall and Shipman (2019)Marshall, C.C. & Shipman, F.M. (2019) The Ownership and Control of Online Photos and Game Data: Patterns, Trends, and Keeping Pace with Evolving Circumstances. 2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
Marsoof and Gupta (2019)Marsoof, A.and Gupta, I. (2019) Shielding internet intermediaries from copyright liability — A comparative discourse on safe harbours in Singapore and India. J World Intellectual Prop. 22, 234 - 270
Patton (2019)Patton, M. (2019). How to Protect Users' Copyright Rights in the Age of Social Media Platforms and Their Unread Terms of Service. USFL Rev., 53, 463.
Rogers (2013)Rogers, E. (2013) Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis among the Federal Circuits. Mich. St. L. Rev. 893
Shmatkov (2020)Shmatkov, D. (2020) Does copyright only serve the creative industries? International Conference on Business Management, Innovation and Sustainability.
Silbey (2014a)Silbey, J. (2014) The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators and Everyday Intellectual Property. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
Silbey (2014b)Sibley, J. (2014) Promoting Progress: A Qualitative Analysis of Creative and Innovative Production, in The SAGE Handbook of Intellectual Property (SAGE Publications, 2014), p. 515
Silbey (2019a)Silbey, J. (2019) Control over Contemporary Photography: A Tangle of Copyright, Right of Publicity, and the First Amendment. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 42(3), pp. 351-364
Silbey (2019b)Silbey, J. (2019) Justifying Copyright in the Age of Digital Reproduction: The Case of Photographers. UC Irvine Law Review, 9, pp. 405-454
Silbey, Subotnik and DiCola (2019)Sibley, J., Subotnik, E.E. and Dicola, P. (2019) Existential Copyright and Professional Photography. Notre Dame Law Review 95(1)
Sinnreich et al. (2020)Sinnreich, A., Aufderheide, P., Clifford, M. and Shahin, S. (2020) Access shrugged: The decline of the copyleft and the rise of utilitarian openness. New Media & Society.
Tanner (2004)Tanner, S. (2004) Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums. Mellon Foundation Study. <> (accessed 6 January 2022)
United States Copyright Office (2015b)Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, United States Copyright Office (2015), available at
... further results