Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cynicor, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Shawn Hirn wrote:
    > Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
    > check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
    > Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
    >
    > My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
    > the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
    > said something along the lines of ...
    >
    > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."


    First of all, the signs probably said "strictly," not "strickly." But be
    that as it may...

    It's a pure post-9/11 terror scare play. There is no justifiable reason
    for it, and it is not consistent across NYC or elsewhere. It may not
    even be illegal to take pictures of the bridge from a moving car,
    despite the signs.

    If you really want a picture of the bridge, head south on the Belt and
    pull off into the parking areas immediately south of it. You can do
    pretty good panos from there.
     
    Cynicor, Jun 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cynicor

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    On Jun 29, 12:02 pm, Cynicor <> wrote:
    > Shawn Hirn wrote:
    > > Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
    > > check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
    > > Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

    >
    > > My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
    > > the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
    > > said something along the lines of ...

    >
    > > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."

    >
    > First of all, the signs probably said "strictly," not "strickly." But be
    > that as it may...
    >
    > It's a pure post-9/11 terror scare play. There is no justifiable reason
    > for it, and it is not consistent across NYC or elsewhere. It may not
    > even be illegal to take pictures of the bridge from a moving car,
    > despite the signs.
    >
    > If you really want a picture of the bridge, head south on the Belt and
    > pull off into the parking areas immediately south of it. You can do
    > pretty good panos from there.

    _________________
    Cynicor gets a "golden star"!(remember those in the 2nd, 3rd grades?)

    Yes, I do buy it in certain circumstances for safety or traffic flow
    reasons(imagine some goober setting up his Hasselblad up on a 40lb
    tripod in the right lane of the Narrows or someplace & causing six
    cars to accordian and take his ass out in addition??).

    But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    - and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    Time to move on . . .

    -CC
     
    ChrisCoaster, Jun 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    Cynicor wrote:
    > Shawn Hirn wrote:
    >
    >> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
    >> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
    >> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
    >> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
    >> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
    >> signs said something along the lines of ...
    >>
    >> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."

    >
    >
    > First of all, the signs probably said "strictly," not "strickly." But be
    > that as it may...
    >
    > It's a pure post-9/11 terror scare play. There is no justifiable reason
    > for it, and it is not consistent across NYC or elsewhere. It may not
    > even be illegal to take pictures of the bridge from a moving car,
    > despite the signs.
    >
    > If you really want a picture of the bridge, head south on the Belt and
    > pull off into the parking areas immediately south of it. You can do
    > pretty good panos from there.
    >




    You know as a wedding photogpher many times over the years we go to
    Cannon Ball Park and take shots in front of the bridge and now based on
    this we can't?











    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Cynicor

    sanity Guest


    >snip<


    >But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    >of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    >as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    >- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.


    >9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    >will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    >dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.


    >Time to move on . . .


    >-CC


    And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    'fire' in a public theater?
    There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
    they had police stationed
    on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    US Navy ships used to pass
    under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    anyone recording movements of the ships.
     
    sanity, Jun 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    sanity wrote:
    >>snip<

    >
    >
    >>But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    >>of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    >>as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    >>- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    >
    >
    >>9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    >>will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    >>dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    >
    >
    >>Time to move on . . .

    >
    >
    >>-CC

    >
    >
    > And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    > 'fire' in a public theater?
    > There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
    > they had police stationed
    > on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    > US Navy ships used to pass
    > under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    > anyone recording movements of the ships.
    >
    >



    Different situation












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 29, 2008
    #5
  6. Cynicor

    sanity Guest

    "Joseph D. Korman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > sanity wrote:
    >
    >>>snip<

    >>
    >>
    >>>But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    >>>of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    >>>as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    >>>- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    >>
    >>
    >>>9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    >>>will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    >>>dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    >>
    >>
    >>>Time to move on . . .

    >>
    >>
    >>>-CC

    >>
    >>
    >> And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    >> 'fire' in a public theater?

    >
    > Big difference, the famous theater example could get many people hurt
    > immediately. With camera phones and other small cameras available today,
    > it's a joke to prevent honest photographers from taking photos. If a
    > terrorist really needed a picture of their target, they could just search
    > the net or use a camera phone.
    >
    >> There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
    >> they had police stationed
    >> on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the
    >> bridge.

    >
    > That was a long time ago. Not to mention that the Brooklyn Navy Yard was
    > located upstream of the BB.
    >
    >> US Navy ships used to pass
    >> under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    >> anyone recording movements of the ships.

    >
    > It was more for the Naval security that for the bridges.
    >
    > Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.
    >
    > --
    > -------------------------------------------------
    > | Joseph D. Korman |
    > | mailto: |
    > | Visit The JoeKorNer at |
    > | http://www.thejoekorner.com |
    > |-------------------------------------------------|
    > | The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
    > | may be a train going the other way! |
    > | Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
    > |-------------------------------------------------|
    > | All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
    > -------------------------------------------------



    I was just trying to bring out that just because he is an American citizen
    and a taxpayer he does not have the right to do anything he wants to. He has
    to follow laws, rules and regulations as we all do.
     
    sanity, Jun 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Cynicor

    Chris H Guest

    In message <2CR9k.7074$>, sanity
    <> writes
    >
    >>snip<

    >
    >>But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    >>of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    >>as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    >>- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    >
    >>9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    >>will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    >>dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    >
    >>Time to move on . . .

    >
    >>-CC

    >
    >And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    >'fire' in a public theater?
    >There are safety or security reasons for these signs.


    Safety maybe.
    Security certainly not

    > During World War 2
    >they had police stationed
    >on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    >US Navy ships used to pass
    >under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    >anyone recording movements of the ships.


    That was a very different time.
    50 years ago the sort of pictures everyone can get on google earth were
    not even available to governments

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Cynicor

    JamesStep Guest


    > Big difference, the famous theater example [shouting "fire"]
    > could get many people hurt immediately.  


    True, but I think the larger point of that famous example is that free
    speech isn't absolute; that there are certain types of speech that can
    get you in legal hot water (defamation, lying under oath, making
    threats, etc.).

    James
     
    JamesStep, Jun 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Cynicor

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    On Jun 29, 3:46 pm, Bolwerk <2> wrote:
    > sanity wrote:
    > >> snip<

    >
    > >> But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    > >> of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    > >> as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    > >> - and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    >
    > The bridge is probably paid for by tolls.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> 9/11 is OVER.  The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    > >> will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!!  Because such circumstances were not
    > >> dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    >
    > >> Time to move on . . .

    >
    > >> -CC

    >
    > > And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    > > 'fire' in a public theater?
    > > There are safety or security reasons for these signs.  During World War 2
    > > they had police stationed
    > > on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    > > US Navy ships used to pass
    > > under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    > > anyone recording movements of the ships.

    >
    > There's a balance maybe, but once people are off the bridges, it's
    > nobody's business who photographs.  If you're *on* the bridge, then
    > whatever authority controlling the bridge arguably has authority to
    > regulate.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -

    _____________
    Well, if I'm a passenger in a moving vehicle nearing or traversing
    said bridge I'll take DAMN near as MANY pictures as I LIKE!

    What are you, brainwashed or just plain ignorant - all of yous?? Half
    the national security laws we've got passed in the last 6 years 9
    months & 3 weeks amount to little more than minor annoyances designed
    to keep us all more in check than the side & up-stop wheels do keeping
    a 36 passenger inverted train on the tracks of the Batman Ride at
    Great Adventure.

    You've got Senator Larry Craig extending his leather-loafered-foot
    under the nextdoor bathroom stall - do you actually trust HIM to make
    sound decisions regarding national security legislation??

    Get a clue - at least half the one Captain Smith had when his
    carpenters phoned back from the Titanic's mailroom that there was more
    mail floating about in there than movie critics wandering about at
    Cannes!

    sheesh!

    -CC
     
    ChrisCoaster, Jun 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Cynicor

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    On Jun 29, 9:31 pm, Bolwerk <2> wrote:

    > So, if you want to fight it by taking DAMN near as MANY pictures as you
    > LIKE, be my guest, but I'm not aware of anything in the federal or state
    > constitutions, or in statutory or common law, saying the MTA isn't
    > within its authority.
    >
    > - Show quoted text -

    ______________

    Like I said, PASSENGER in a MOVING VEHICLE, not parked or walking on
    the bridge snapping away. If some "authority" is actually going to
    pursue someone in the back of a BUS or the front passenger seat of a
    car or SUV then they really have too much time on their hands or must
    be members of the 4th Reich.

    -CC
     
    ChrisCoaster, Jun 30, 2008
    #10
  11. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    Joseph D. Korman wrote:
    > sanity wrote:
    >
    >> "Joseph D. Korman" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I was just trying to bring out that just because he is an American
    >> citizen and a taxpayer he does not have the right to do anything he
    >> wants to. He has to follow laws, rules and regulations as we all do.
    >>

    > True, but my point was that some of these rules under the blanket of
    > national security are pointless and probably unconstitutional. On the
    > transit newsgroups we've had many discussions about the problems that
    > some rail fans have faced with this nonsense.
    >


    When I used to go on the photographers NGs we would talk about such
    things all the time: i.e.
    You try to shoot a certain building and a rent-a-cop comes out and stops
    you. Some of my colleagues think some buildings are copyrighted and
    can't be shot without permission. BULL!
    Some years back a poster tried to take a shot of a car that just
    happened to be in front of a Blockbuster Video outlet, a clerk came out
    and told him it was against company policy to photograph BBV's store
    fronts. Just as a gag I made like I was taking shots of the BBV on
    25th Ave and 86th St, waiting for someone to come out, didn't happen.













    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #11
  12. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    ChrisCoaster wrote:
    > On Jun 29, 9:31 pm, Bolwerk <2> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So, if you want to fight it by taking DAMN near as MANY pictures as you
    >>LIKE, be my guest, but I'm not aware of anything in the federal or state
    >>constitutions, or in statutory or common law, saying the MTA isn't
    >>within its authority.
    >>
    >>- Show quoted text -

    >
    > ______________
    >
    > Like I said, PASSENGER in a MOVING VEHICLE, not parked or walking on
    > the bridge snapping away. If some "authority" is actually going to
    > pursue someone in the back of a BUS or the front passenger seat of a
    > car or SUV then they really have too much time on their hands or must
    > be members of the 4th Reich.
    >
    > -CC
    >


    See my other post
    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #12
  13. Cynicor

    Sancho Panza Guest

    "sanity" <> wrote in message
    news:2CR9k.7074$...
    >
    >>snip<

    >
    >>But on the whole, as a tax-paying legal citizen of the United States
    >>of America I have the right to take photos of anything, from anywhere,
    >>as long as I am still on PUBLICally accessible property that MY TAXES
    >>- and OUR taxes - pay to upkeep.

    >
    >>9/11 is OVER. The circumstances dictating events that terrible day
    >>will NEVER EXIST AGAYNE!!!! Because such circumstances were not
    >>dictated by desert dwellers or millionaires in Saudi outposts.

    >
    >>Time to move on . . .

    >
    >>-CC

    >
    > And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    > 'fire' in a public theater?
    > There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
    > they had police stationed
    > on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    > US Navy ships used to pass
    > under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    > anyone recording movements of the ships.


    That could have been accomplished almost as easily from the shore.
     
    Sancho Panza, Jun 30, 2008
    #13
  14. Cynicor

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Vince
    <> writes
    >
    >
    >Joseph D. Korman wrote:
    >> sanity wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Joseph D. Korman" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I was just trying to bring out that just because he is an American
    >>>citizen and a taxpayer he does not have the right to do anything he
    >>>wants to. He has to follow laws, rules and regulations as we all do.
    >>>

    >> True, but my point was that some of these rules under the blanket of
    >>national security are pointless and probably unconstitutional. On the
    >>transit newsgroups we've had many discussions about the problems that
    >>some rail fans have faced with this nonsense.
    >>

    >
    >When I used to go on the photographers NGs we would talk about such
    >things all the time: i.e.
    >You try to shoot a certain building and a rent-a-cop comes out and
    >stops you. Some of my colleagues think some buildings are copyrighted
    >and can't be shot without permission. BULL!




    Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at
    night... and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square,
    London. Both restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.

    I am not sure why those restrictions are in place. There must be a few
    other exceptions to the general rule that if you are in a public place
    you can photograph what you like.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 30, 2008
    #14
  15. Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
    > In article <2CR9k.7074$>,
    > sanity <> wrote:
    >> And as an American and a taxpayer does that give you the right to shout
    >> 'fire' in a public theater?

    >
    > Yes, because Schenck v. US (the "fire in a public theater" case, which
    > did not in fact concern such) is NO LONGER GOOD LAW.
    >
    >> There are safety or security reasons for these signs. During World War 2
    >> they had police stationed
    >> on the Brooklyn Bridge and 'no cameras allowed' signs all over the bridge.
    >> US Navy ships used to pass
    >> under that bridge to get to the Brooklyn Navy yard and they didn't want
    >> anyone recording movements of the ships.


    > WW2 = over.


    It is?

    Did the good guys win?

    > Never mind that there's no need for photography to record
    > movements of ships.


    No, satellites do a much better job.

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 30, 2008
    #15
  16. "Chris H" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night...
    > and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
    > restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
    >


    The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
    used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
    company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to manage
    commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
    approve."

    As for Trafalgar Square the restrictions there apply to commercial
    photo shoots. Basically you need to apply for a permit , not unreaonable
    given that such photoshoots tend to be rather disruptive in a very
    busy part of London.

    http://www.london.gov.uk/trafalgarsquare/manage/guidelines_filming.jsp

    Keith
     
    Keith Willshaw, Jun 30, 2008
    #16
  17. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    Chris H wrote:
    > In message <>, Vince
    > <> writes
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Joseph D. Korman wrote:
    >>
    >>> sanity wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Joseph D. Korman" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Let's face it photography had nothing to do with either WTC attack.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I was just trying to bring out that just because he is an American
    >>>> citizen and a taxpayer he does not have the right to do anything he
    >>>> wants to. He has to follow laws, rules and regulations as we all do.
    >>>>
    >>> True, but my point was that some of these rules under the blanket of
    >>> national security are pointless and probably unconstitutional. On
    >>> the transit newsgroups we've had many discussions about the problems
    >>> that some rail fans have faced with this nonsense.
    >>>

    >>
    >> When I used to go on the photographers NGs we would talk about such
    >> things all the time: i.e.
    >> You try to shoot a certain building and a rent-a-cop comes out and
    >> stops you. Some of my colleagues think some buildings are copyrighted
    >> and can't be shot without permission. BULL!

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at
    > night... and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square,
    > London. Both restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
    >
    > I am not sure why those restrictions are in place. There must be a few
    > other exceptions to the general rule that if you are in a public place
    > you can photograph what you like.
    >
    >

    I heard about that Eiffel Tower nonsense, the Trafalgar Square is a new
    one. I guess they didn't have it was I was there in 1972.

    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #17
  18. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    Keith Willshaw wrote:
    > "Chris H" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night...
    >>and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
    >>restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
    >>

    >
    >
    > The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
    > used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
    > company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to manage
    > commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
    > approve."
    >


    Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
    would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
    "un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other nations?

    >
    >



    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #18
  19. "Vince" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Keith Willshaw wrote:
    >> "Chris H" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night...
    >>>and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
    >>>restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
    >> used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
    >> company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to
    >> manage
    >> commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
    >> approve."
    >>

    >
    > Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
    > would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
    > "un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other
    > nations?
    >


    Copyright laws are enforceable internationally under the terms of the Berne
    Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty

    I doubt that Joe Blogg's Deli is at much risk but any multinational
    would likely find a writ arriving.

    Keith
     
    Keith Willshaw, Jun 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Cynicor

    Vince Guest

    Keith Willshaw wrote:
    > "Vince" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >>Keith Willshaw wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Chris H" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night...
    >>>>and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
    >>>>restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
    >>>used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
    >>>company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to
    >>>manage
    >>>commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
    >>>approve."
    >>>

    >>
    >>Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
    >>would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
    >>"un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other
    >>nations?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Copyright laws are enforceable internationally under the terms of the Berne
    > Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty
    >
    > I doubt that Joe Blogg's Deli is at much risk but any multinational
    > would likely find a writ arriving.
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    >
    >


    I forgot about that one.
    In any case I still say how would they know?
    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cynicor

    Verrazano-Narrows bridge

    Cynicor, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    910
    Peter
    Aug 7, 2010
  2. Penis Kolada

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Penis Kolada, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    343
    Vince
    Jun 30, 2008
  3. Chris H

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    940
    Eugene Miya
    Jul 2, 2008
  4. Paul Furman

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Paul Furman, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    404
    Sancho Panza
    Jul 1, 2008
  5. GK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    449
    John Turco
    Jul 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page