Re: Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:07 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-014/514630628_5f4WL-X2.jpg
    >>

    >
    >We have a difference in style. I would have isolated and taken three
    >different shots of those guys. They all look interesting, but are not
    >relating to each other. One of my shots destined for the SI will
    >illustrate my point. As I said you are not wrong in what you do, I just
    >prefer isolation or relations.


    I actually do more of that "isolated" than you might think. Here's
    one from the dog track series, but it's too soft.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-012/514630051_SgTzk-X2.jpg

    I do quite a few bikers in that style:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-3TrbK6g/0/X2/2009-02-15-1-X2.jpg

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-PSd2Rcg/0/X2/2011-11-28-1-X2.jpg

    and people in general:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-tQLS9cK/0/X2/2011-11-13-057cam-X2.jpg

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-jv8rzGW/0/X2/2012-07-14-68-X2.jpg

    But, my primary interest is "street", and in "street" I try to capture
    the people in the setting. Think of it as theatre photography where
    you have head shots for the cast, and scene shots with the cast in
    place on the stage. I do the scene shots.

    What you like is more in the portrait category. I can't pass up a
    close-up of an interesting character's face, but I usually draw back
    and try to capture the person in a setting that says why they are
    there.

    We look at images differently in the "street" forums. You might have
    shot that girl in the last link above up close and isolated and think
    of the dog and the other lady and the red shirt behind her as clutter,
    but in "street" she's OK as part of a crowd.

    And, sometimes I go for a shot where there is a crowd, but one person
    in the crowd has something special about them:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-9vcWGd6/0/X2/2012-08-04-1-X2.jpg







    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    Rob Guest

    On 18/08/2012 12:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-17 07:27:48 -0700, otter <> said:
    >
    >> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
    >>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
    >>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
    >>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
    >>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
    >>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
    >>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
    >>> cameras are not allowed...".
    >>>
    >>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
    >>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

    >>
    >> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >
    > Well, you couldn't get the view without them. ;-)
    >



    Hire a helicopter that should do the trick :) - cost effective?
     
    Rob, Aug 18, 2012
    #23
  4. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/18/2012 1:13 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:07 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-014/514630628_5f4WL-X2.jpg
    >>>

    >>
    >> We have a difference in style. I would have isolated and taken three
    >> different shots of those guys. They all look interesting, but are not
    >> relating to each other. One of my shots destined for the SI will
    >> illustrate my point. As I said you are not wrong in what you do, I just
    >> prefer isolation or relations.

    >
    > I actually do more of that "isolated" than you might think. Here's
    > one from the dog track series, but it's too soft.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-012/514630051_SgTzk-X2.jpg
    >
    > I do quite a few bikers in that style:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-3TrbK6g/0/X2/2009-02-15-1-X2.jpg
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-PSd2Rcg/0/X2/2011-11-28-1-X2.jpg
    >
    > and people in general:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-tQLS9cK/0/X2/2011-11-13-057cam-X2.jpg
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-jv8rzGW/0/X2/2012-07-14-68-X2.jpg
    >
    > But, my primary interest is "street", and in "street" I try to capture
    > the people in the setting. Think of it as theatre photography where
    > you have head shots for the cast, and scene shots with the cast in
    > place on the stage. I do the scene shots.
    >
    > What you like is more in the portrait category. I can't pass up a
    > close-up of an interesting character's face, but I usually draw back
    > and try to capture the person in a setting that says why they are
    > there.
    >
    > We look at images differently in the "street" forums. You might have
    > shot that girl in the last link above up close and isolated and think
    > of the dog and the other lady and the red shirt behind her as clutter,
    > but in "street" she's OK as part of a crowd.
    >
    > And, sometimes I go for a shot where there is a crowd, but one person
    > in the crowd has something special about them:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-9vcWGd6/0/X2/2012-08-04-1-X2.jpg
    >

    Nicely done. The subjects are obviously relating to each other. I am not
    against crowd shot, just that I feel they should be relating in some
    fashion, or forming an abstract pattern.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #24
  5. otter

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #25
  6. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/18/2012 12:45 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <502ebd9a$0$6468$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > says...
    >>> They may. If someone puts up a huge building in front of them, they
    >>> could sue because of the lost view, "enjoyment of their property" or
    >>> loss of "patron's enjoyment." It's been done before. But today,
    >>> businesses are ravenous to protect any possible form of income stream,
    >>> physical, intellectual, etc.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Wrong. At least in NY there is no such thing as an easement for light
    >> and air. I think, but do not know, as you seem to, there are similar
    >> laws on most States.

    >
    > In Munich (Germany) you can't just build a house of whatever size you
    > want wherever you want. I'm not an expert but I have heard that such
    > things as an obstructed view for people who own an already existing
    > house matter. One reason that the centre of Munich has no skyscrapers is
    > that no building may be taller than a certain church. The local
    > government does it to preserve the city landscape.
    >


    Which proves that one cannot make a valid legal generalization about
    property laws.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #26
  7. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    > <> wrote:


    >>On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
    >>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
    >>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
    >>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
    >>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
    >>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
    >>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
    >>> cameras are not allowed...".


    >>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
    >>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.


    >>That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?


    > They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    > their property.


    ?

    If I wrote a novel in their cafe, would they own the rights to
    the novel?

    At best they could put up a sign "no novel writhing here" or
    throw me out and don't allow me to come back if I wrote one,
    but own the rights? I don't think so ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 20, 2012
    #27
  8. Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > In Munich (Germany) you can't just build a house of whatever size you
    > want wherever you want.


    Zoning plan. Doesn't nearly every city have one?

    > I'm not an expert but I have heard that such
    > things as an obstructed view for people who own an already existing
    > house matter.


    Not really. If the zoning plan allows you to build a 2 story house
    with a steep roof, you can build it. You cannot build arbitrarily
    near the border of your lot (and how close depends on height),
    because neighbours might want *some* light in their rooms.

    > One reason that the centre of Munich has no skyscrapers is
    > that no building may be taller than a certain church. The local
    > government does it to preserve the city landscape.


    Simply a zoning plan. No skyscrapers. Just like "no heavy
    industry" in a residental area.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 20, 2012
    #28
  9. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
    > registered trade mark and is part of their logo.


    Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.

    > They hold commercial
    > rights to the image.


    That's what they claim. Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
    true. (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 20, 2012
    #29
  10. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/20/2012 11:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-20 04:30:06 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
    >>> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.

    >>
    >> Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.

    >
    > They have been successful defending that copyright from infringement in
    > the US Courts, where it counts.
    >
    >>> They hold commercial
    >>> rights to the image.

    >>
    >> That's what they claim. Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
    >> true. (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)
    >>
    >> -Wolfgang

    >
    > They are not concerned with casual use of the image or graphic
    > representation of the image, but commercial use.
    >
    > "Only where commercial use of the photos (such as advertising) suggests
    > some sponsorship by or connection with the Pebble Beach Co. could the
    > company invoke the Federal Trademark (Lanham) Act. Among other things,
    > this may require the company to prove that the public regards the Lone
    > Cypress as their corporate symbol and not merely a popular tourist sight. "
    >
    > ...and
    > "The first reported reference in the Monterey Cypress (newspaper) on
    > January 19, 1889 was written by R. Fitch.``Rounding a short curve on the
    > beach, we approach Cypress Point, the boldest headland on the peninsula
    > of Monterey. Down almost to the water grows the cypress, and on the
    > extreme point a solitary tree has sunk its roots in the crevices of the
    > wave-washed rock, and defies the battle of the elements that rage about
    > it during the storms of winter.''
    > Early pictures of the Del Monte Hotel show reference to the Lone Cypress
    > Tree in the 1880s.
    > In the 1980s, businesses began to appreciate the financial value of
    > trademarks beyond just recognition. Federal registrations of trademarks
    > were shown to add to an owner's rights in protecting a trademark from
    > unauthorized use. Accordingly, Pebble Beach Company began registering
    > many of its trademarks, including images of the Lone Cypress Tree. In so
    > doing, the company was also able to demonstrate and record their first
    > use of the Lone Cypress Tree as a trademark in 1919. The Pebble Beach
    > Company, in a compilation of assets listed with the Monterey County Tax
    > Assessor in 1992, valued the trademark logo and goodwill intangibles,
    > which include the Lone Cypress Tree, at $100 million. ``People can take
    > photos of the tree,'' says Hoteling, ``but they can't use them for
    > commercial or promotional purposes. The only other business licensed to
    > use the Lone Cypress Tree as a logo is the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of
    > Commerce.''
    > From 1999:
    > < http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/1999/dec/02/lone-justice/ >
    >

    The Lanham Act deals with trademarks and service marks, which are
    different from copyrights.
    We have a common law copyright in every original image we produce. If
    you use the term "Duck photos" in connection with marketing your images
    in interstate commerce, you can register the phrase "Duck photos" under
    the Lanham Act.


    --
    Peter
    Playing Tony Cooper
     
    PeterN, Aug 21, 2012
    #30
  11. On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
    >> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.

    >
    > Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.
    >
    >> They hold commercial
    >> rights to the image.

    >
    > That's what they claim. Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
    > true. (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)


    A trademark is a trademark, no matter where you shoot it from -- however,
    it wold probably be be difficult (in most circumstances) to enforce
    trademark law on a photograph of a tree.


    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 21, 2012
    #31
  12. otter

    otter Guest

    On Aug 20, 6:58 pm, Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
    > >> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.

    >
    > > Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.

    >
    > >> They hold commercial
    > >> rights to the image.

    >
    > > That's what they claim.  Doesn't mean it's true, or completely
    > > true.  (Think about a shot from a boat on the ocean.)

    >
    > A trademark is a trademark, no matter where you shoot it from -- however,
    > it wold probably be be difficult (in most circumstances) to enforce
    > trademark law on a photograph of a tree.


    Except in this case, of course. It has already been tested in the
    courts a few times.
     
    otter, Aug 21, 2012
    #32
  13. otter

    otter Guest

    On Aug 20, 3:36 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:14:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >
    > >> In Munich (Germany) you can't just build a house of whatever size you
    > >> want wherever you want.

    >
    > >Zoning plan.  Doesn't nearly every city have one?

    >
    > >> I'm not an expert but I have heard that such
    > >> things as an obstructed view for people who own an already existing
    > >> house matter.

    >
    > >Not really.  If the zoning plan allows you to build a 2 story house
    > >with a steep roof, you can build it.  You cannot build arbitrarily
    > >near the border of your lot (and how close depends on height),
    > >because neighbours might want *some* light in their rooms.

    >
    > >> One reason that the centre of Munich has no skyscrapers is
    > >> that no building may be taller than a certain church. The local
    > >> government does it to preserve the city landscape.

    >
    > >Simply a zoning plan.  No skyscrapers.  Just like "no heavy
    > >industry" in a residental area.

    >
    > Years ago, a friend of  mine found a foundry and a forging press in
    > operation on the 12th floor of a residential apartment building in
    > Hong Kong.


    Seriously? Think of the fire hazard and toxic fumes!
     
    otter, Aug 21, 2012
    #33
  14. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-08-20 04:30:06 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    >>> Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
    >>> registered trade mark and is part of their logo.


    >> Trademarks and logos are quite different from copyrights.


    > They have been successful defending that copyright from infringement in
    > the US Courts, where it counts.


    You surely have an URL where they defended on *copyright*?


    > "Only where commercial use of the photos (such as advertising) suggests
    > some sponsorship by or connection with the Pebble Beach Co. could the
    > company invoke the Federal Trademark (Lanham) Act. Among other things,
    > this may require the company to prove that the public regards the Lone
    > Cypress as their corporate symbol and not merely a popular tourist
    > sight. "


    Trademark. Not copyright.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 21, 2012
    #34
  15. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > ...and the Pebble Beach Co. has registered the graphic representation
    > of the "Lone Cypress" as their trademark. They also hold copyright
    > rights regarding commercial use of photographic and artistic
    > reproduction of the image of their unquestioned property, that very
    > same tree.


    So by the same logic anyone would have copyright ... on whatever
    they own. So if you photograph about anything on Earth ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 21, 2012
    #35
  16. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:31:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>> <> wrote:


    >>>>On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>>>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
    >>>>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
    >>>>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
    >>>>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
    >>>>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
    >>>>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
    >>>>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
    >>>>> cameras are not allowed...".


    >>>>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
    >>>>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.


    >>>>That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>>>from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?


    >>> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >>> their property.


    >>?


    >>If I wrote a novel in their cafe, would they own the rights to
    >>the novel?


    > The Harry Potter series was largely written in a cafe.


    Is the Harry Potter series is largely owned by a cafe?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 21, 2012
    #36
  17. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:28:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> ...and the Pebble Beach Co. has registered the graphic representation
    >> of the "Lone Cypress" as their trademark. They also hold copyright
    >> rights regarding commercial use of photographic and artistic
    >> reproduction of the image of their unquestioned property, that very
    >> same tree.

    >
    >So by the same logic anyone would have copyright ... on whatever
    >they own. So if you photograph about anything on Earth ...


    The Duck is incorrect, and your application of logic is even more
    faulty. Pebble Beach Co. has registered the tree as a trademark and
    has protection under the Lanham Act regarding use of the trademark.

    They do not hold copyright rights to all photographs of the tree -
    commercial or non-commercial, although they own the copyright to many
    photographs of the tree.

    Pebble Beach's ability to control photographic rights to the tree
    rests on contract law, not IP law, because they can place conditions
    on entry to the property. One of those conditions is banning the
    commercial use of photographs of the tree taken on their property.

    Even that does not prohibit commercial use of photographs of the tree
    taken before the restrictions were in place, but those photographs
    might be violations of the trademark aspect.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 22, 2012
    #37
  18. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:30:01 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-21 22:33:33 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:28:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ...and the Pebble Beach Co. has registered the graphic representation
    >>>> of the "Lone Cypress" as their trademark. They also hold copyright
    >>>> rights regarding commercial use of photographic and artistic
    >>>> reproduction of the image of their unquestioned property, that very
    >>>> same tree.
    >>>
    >>> So by the same logic anyone would have copyright ... on whatever
    >>> they own. So if you photograph about anything on Earth ...

    >>
    >> The Duck is incorrect, and your application of logic is even more
    >> faulty. Pebble Beach Co. has registered the tree as a trademark and
    >> has protection under the Lanham Act regarding use of the trademark.

    >
    >They certainly hold the trademark rights under the Lanham Act, and they
    >hold the rights to photographic and graphic representation to their
    >property, and "The Lone Cypress" is indisputably their property. Hell!
    >They even hold the copyright to the design of their golf courses (7 of
    >them) and the famous holes to be found on them.
    >
    >> They do not hold copyright rights to all photographs of the tree -
    >> commercial or non-commercial, although they own the copyright to many
    >> photographs of the tree.

    >
    >I did not say they held copyright to all photographs of the tree.
    >Certainly they don't hold copyright for the Adams and Wesson shots of
    >the tree taken in the period 1932-1958 prior to the Pebble Beach Co.
    >Trademark and Copyright registrations, nor are any of the thousands of
    >amateur non-commercial shots taken before or since. Each and every
    >photographer holds their personal copyright to images they have
    >capture. However if they want to realize any commercial benefit to
    >those images of "The Lone Cypress" they will be dealing with the Pebble
    >Beach Company, and if they choose not to do so, they will be dealing
    >with their attorneys


    Yes, but PBC attorneys will not be going after violators on copyright
    grounds. It will be breach of contract grounds since the photographer
    entered into a contract with PBC agreeing not to use photographs for
    commercial purposes when they agreed to the conditions of entry to the
    property.

    The trademark aspect would depend on how the photograph is used
    commercially. Simply publishing a photograph of the tree, even if
    paid for that photograph, is not a trade mark violation.


    >> Pebble Beach's ability to control photographic rights to the tree
    >> rests on contract law, not IP law, because they can place conditions
    >> on entry to the property. One of those conditions is banning the
    >> commercial use of photographs of the tree taken on their property.

    >
    >They protect their property rights regarding commercial photography
    >and/or graphic representation of "The Lone Cypress" by actively
    >prosecuting any such unauthorized violations, much to the chagrin of
    >professional photographers and commercial artists.


    The chagrin is unjustified, in my opinion. When you go on someone
    else's property, are clearly advised that photographs taken there can
    not be used commercially, and you acknowledge that you have been so
    advised by accepting the gate receipt, you have no business being
    upset to find that you can't use the photograph commercially.

    We photographers get our backs up whenever photography is restricted
    in any way, but we don't mind it a bit when it works for us. That
    professional photographer who is chagrined about not being able to use
    his Lone Cypress photo commercially, is delighted and defensive of his
    right to restrict your use of his photographs.

    Go to him, have your portrait taken by him for a fee, and then try to
    have Costco make duplicates of that portrait. Costco won't accept the
    order. Costco isn't turning down the sale because they don't want the
    business. Costco is turning down the sale because professional
    photographers demand that they turn down the sale. (Costco is just
    one example. Other photo services are required to do the same.)

    You've paid for the portrait session. You bought that portrait. Why
    shouldn't you be able to duplicate that portrait any way you want to?
    It's your property.

    Shoe's on the other foot, here.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 22, 2012
    #38
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:31:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>>On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
    >>>>>>> cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
    >>>>>>> floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
    >>>>>>> are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
    >>>>>>> least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
    >>>>>>> immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
    >>>>>>> allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
    >>>>>>> cameras are not allowed...".

    >>
    >>>>>>> In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
    >>>>>>> Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

    >>
    >>>>>>That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>>>>>from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >>
    >>>>> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >>>>> their property.

    >>
    >>>>?

    >>
    >>>>If I wrote a novel in their cafe, would they own the rights to
    >>>>the novel?

    >>
    >>> The Harry Potter series was largely written in a cafe.

    >>
    >>Is the Harry Potter series is largely owned by a cafe?
    >>

    > I thought my comment speaks for itself.


    > Of course the cafe doesn't own any part of the Harry Potter series.


    At least a few Edinburgh cafes claim to the the one where the first
    Harry Potter novel was written. Quite possibly because at least one
    page of it was written there. There are lots of Edinburgh cafes which
    are good for writing in. Sometimes in some of them you feel a bit of a
    tourist if you haven't got a laptop or large jotter with you.

    The windows of the cafe where most of the first Harry Potter was
    written diagonally overlooked the windows of a cafe I sometimes wrote
    papers in. Sometimes I sat right in the window. Possibly Rowling
    sometimes sat in obe of the windows where she could have looked down
    at me. But probably neither of us ever saw the other. We didn't even
    know each other existed.

    And now she's not only beautiful but fabulously rich and has got
    planning permission to build a tree house in the capacious garden of
    her mansion. I've always wanted a tree house...

    <sigh>

    But once the first novel had been published there was no longer any
    need to write in a cafe for the warmth. Rowling was then able to
    afford to heat her own home.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 22, 2012
    #39
  20. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > Go to him, have your portrait taken by him for a fee, and then try to
    > have Costco make duplicates of that portrait. Costco won't accept the
    > order. Costco isn't turning down the sale because they don't want the
    > business. Costco is turning down the sale because professional
    > photographers demand that they turn down the sale. (Costco is just
    > one example. Other photo services are required to do the same.)


    nobody is required to turn down the sale. some places might turn it
    down because they don't want to deal with potential problems because
    there have been previous lawsuits.

    other places will copy it, and if the photographer gives you the
    negatives or digital files (which some do), they *expect* you will make
    copies. otherwise, why give those out?

    > You've paid for the portrait session. You bought that portrait. Why
    > shouldn't you be able to duplicate that portrait any way you want to?
    > It's your property.


    that depends what the agreement is with the photographer. there is no
    blanket rule.

    > Shoe's on the other foot, here.


    more like in your mouth.
     
    nospam, Aug 22, 2012
    #40
    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. tony cooper

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,291
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    290
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    283
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    359
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 23, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    301
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page