Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Professional cameras not allowed

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Professional cameras not allowed

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On 9/1/2012 1:23 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Savageduck writes:
>
>> ...and who says that?

>
> Trademarks are made by people, just like copyrighted works. You can't
> trademark or copyright simple random phenomena of nature.


You can if you use it in connection with your business.
BTW you might want to research the nature of the Pebble Beach Company's
IP rights in the tree, and its legislative history.





--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:14:16 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Savageduck writes:
>
>> If those images are being used commercially in violation of the terms
>> of entry onto their property, they can and have taken legal action
>> which has resulted in seizures of those unlicensed images. There are
>> galleries in Carmel which learned this the hard way.

>
>They cannot license images, they can only license permission to take
>photographs on their property. It's not the same thing.
>
>A clear solution here is to hire a helicopter, hover off the coast and take
>some really good photographs, and then release high-resolution photos to the
>public domain.


Very realistic scenarios. I suggest that you include that, in
addition to hiring a helicopter pilot to hover over the coast from
which to take your photograph, you hire a second helicopter to dangle
a huge mirror from the other side of the property so the photographs
show the tree with the ocean in the background.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > To the low tide line.

>
> The air above the property is not part of the private property, which could
> give someone some ideas.


actually, it is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> To the low tide line.
> >>
> >> The air above the property is not part of the private property, which could
> >> give someone some ideas.

> >
> > actually, it is.

>
> Depends on the country. For the US, yes. For Indonesia (OP), not likely.


true, but lone cypress is in the us.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Savageduck wrote:

>> So if I never went there myself, bought an officially sanctioned
>> photograph and paint my very own interpretation based on that
>> photograph (i.e. different enough that copyright doesn't prohibit
>> me), what law am I breaking by selling my work as my own work
>> and not implying the PBC has anything to do with it or has
>> sanctioned it?
>>
>> -Wolfgang

>
> Probably no law at all.


No criminal laws -- not sure if that is what you mean. The question is
whether anyone might have cause to sue you.

The answer is complicated. If PBC had any action against you, it would be
through trademark -- but they would be unlikely to win if all you did was
sell prints. But it'd still be expensive.

The photographer who took the original photo that you used for
"inspiration" for your artwork would likely have a good case against you
for derivative copyright infringement, however. And "how much you can
use" of the original art before it is considered a derivative infringement
is up to a jury to decide (and is weighed against three other factors
which have nothing to do with how much of the work you used), which means
that you should probably get a release from the photographer before you
ever attempt it unless you have lots of money to test your fair use claim
out.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
http://bistormpicture.com
http://bistormpicture.blogpost.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Savageduck writes:
>
>> If those images are being used commercially in violation of the terms
>> of entry onto their property, they can and have taken legal action
>> which has resulted in seizures of those unlicensed images. There are
>> galleries in Carmel which learned this the hard way.

>
> They cannot license images, they can only license permission to take
> photographs on their property. It's not the same thing.
>
> A clear solution here is to hire a helicopter, hover off the coast and take
> some really good photographs, and then release high-resolution photos to the
> public domain.


Yup! This would probably fit the bill, though no doubt they would still
use lawyers to intimidate via trademark law. It'd be fun if one of the
big stock agencies did this, as their layers have enough money to fight
such silliness, but I have no illusions of this ever happening -- that
shot isn't worth the trouble.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
http://bistormpicture.com
http://bistormpicture.blogpost.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On 9/1/2012 12:38 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> To the low tide line.

>>
>> The air above the property is not part of the private property, which could
>> give someone some ideas.

>
> actually, it is.
>

Then charge those airplanes a toll, every time they fly over your house.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Alfred Molon wrote:

>> Yup! This would probably fit the bill, though no doubt they would still
>> use lawyers to intimidate via trademark law. It'd be fun if one of the
>> big stock agencies did this, as their layers have enough money to fight
>> such silliness, but I have no illusions of this ever happening -- that
>> shot isn't worth the trouble.

>
> Not sure why you are all so excited about a tree which grows somewhere
> on the American continent. If it's so difficult to photograph and use
> the photo, I would simply ignore it. Plenty of other much more
> photogenic stuff spread around the globe which you can photograph.


Meh, it's a great American tradition -- we tend to get a bit tetchy when
something that was previously considered a right starts hinting at going
away. So even though a tree isn't a big deal, it annoys a lot of
photographers that certain corportate entities attempt to restrict
photography that legally they have no real right to restrict. Hell, I had
a security guard for *Reuters* try to stop me from taking a photo of the
Reuters New York Office building (while standing on the sidewalk!). Did I
need that shot that bad? Nope. But darned if I'm going to let some $12
rent-a-cop for a photo agency try to restrict photography that he has no
legal basis to restrict.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
http://bigstormpicture.com
http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
> That is also the Pebble Beach Company's point, the tree is their property,
> located on their property, it is not public property, and it is that
> particular association with their property which makes the image iconic.


Yeah, but that holds no water legally, really, at least in no jurisdiction
that I know of. Privacy tort is a state and local issue, but I know of no
state or municipality that claims that property visible from public land
has a right to privacy -- for one thing, property isn't a person, and for
another, if they wanted that, they shouldn't have made it visible from
public land.

/IANAL

--
-Ryan McGinnis
http://bigstormpicture.com
http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Savageduck wrote:

> ...but it isn't visible from public land. You have to travel, at minimum 6
> miles across their property to get to the site on their property to take a
> photograph of a tree they own.
>
> Now what?


Well, public airspace, anyhow. If you take photos on their land, all
bets are off if they have signs posted or terms & conditions on the entry
ticket.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
http://bigstormpicture.com
http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Professional cameras not allowed tony cooper Digital Photography 77 09-12-2012 12:25 AM
Re: Professional cameras not allowed Laszlo Lebrun Digital Photography 2 08-25-2012 06:40 AM
Re: Professional cameras not allowed sms88 Digital Photography 6 08-23-2012 01:22 AM
Re: Professional cameras not allowed Rob Digital Photography 4 08-18-2012 02:24 PM
Re: Professional cameras not allowed ray Digital Photography 1 08-17-2012 04:00 PM



Advertisments