Re: Professional cameras not allowed

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

  1. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:50:15 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >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.


    Really? You think you might want to check out things before you make
    one of your pronouncements? Read this:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...pher-works-copyright-act-photographic-subject

    >other places will copy it


    That's like saying that 7/11's in Florida will not sell you marijuana,
    but other places will, and considering your streetcorner dealer to be
    "other places".

    > 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.


    What a stupid thing to say. The assertion was not that photographers
    don't allow copies to made of their portraits, but that stores will
    not do it. If you want a copy of a professionally-done photograph,
    you must bring a note of release from the photographer for the store
    to do it.

    Whether it is a print, digital files, or negatives, the store will not
    make copies without permission from the photographer. That doesn't
    mean that the store always catches that the order contains such
    images, or even attempts to catch such images, but they will refuse to
    copy them if they do catch them and you don't have a release.

    Costco's "Terms of Service" for photo services say:

    To this end, we require that every user of the Services refrain from
    uploading, posting, storing, sharing or otherwise using the Site to
    process "Prohibited Content." Generally, Prohibited Content includes
    (without limitation) any of the following:

    b. Copyrighted material that is used without the express permission of
    the owner.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 22, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.

    >
    > Really? You think you might want to check out things before you make
    > one of your pronouncements? Read this:
    >
    > http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-10-26/entertainment/9003300637_1_photo
    > grapher-works-copyright-act-photographic-subject


    that's just two lawsuits, not all pro photographers.

    > >other places will copy it

    >
    > That's like saying that 7/11's in Florida will not sell you marijuana,
    > but other places will, and considering your streetcorner dealer to be
    > "other places".


    nope.

    places like costco turn it down because of lawsuits such as the ones
    above and since they're used to dealing with amateurs who can't take
    decent photos, so when a decent photo comes along, they're instantly
    suspicious.

    pro labs are used to quality work and will more than likely print
    whatever you have. unlike costco, they don't treat their customers as
    criminals. in the event they do suspect something (i.e., a logo that
    they know isn't yours), they might ask questions or possibly decline
    it, but they don't automatically assume it's infringing just because it
    looks good.

    > > 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.

    >
    > What a stupid thing to say. The assertion was not that photographers
    > don't allow copies to made of their portraits, but that stores will
    > not do it.


    that's not what you said before. you said it was the photographers who
    demanded it:
    > >> Costco is turning down the sale because professional
    > >> photographers demand that they turn down the sale. (Costco is just



    > If you want a copy of a professionally-done photograph,
    > you must bring a note of release from the photographer for the store
    > to do it.


    some places require a note, but not all. crazy as it may seem, some
    places trust their customers.
     
    nospam, Aug 22, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:38:50 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >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.

    >>
    >> Really? You think you might want to check out things before you make
    >> one of your pronouncements? Read this:
    >>
    >> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...pher-works-copyright-act-photographic-subject

    >
    >that's just two lawsuits, not all pro photographers.


    What is it you don't understand about "The law forbids any individual
    to copy an original photograph and sell the copy to a person or to any
    publication. The only way it could be done is from the original owner
    granting permission in writing. Let me cite several recent copyright
    victories."

    Why would you expect the Chicago Tribune to cite dozens of cases when
    two suffice to make the point? Besides, the article specifically
    referenced two cases in a four-month period.

    >
    >> >other places will copy it

    >>
    >> That's like saying that 7/11's in Florida will not sell you marijuana,
    >> but other places will, and considering your streetcorner dealer to be
    >> "other places".

    >
    >nope.
    >
    >places like costco turn it down because of lawsuits such as the ones
    >above and since they're used to dealing with amateurs who can't take
    >decent photos, so when a decent photo comes along, they're instantly
    >suspicious.
    >
    >pro labs are used to quality work and will more than likely print
    >whatever you have. unlike costco, they don't treat their customers as
    >criminals. in the event they do suspect something (i.e., a logo that
    >they know isn't yours), they might ask questions or possibly decline
    >it, but they don't automatically assume it's infringing just because it
    >looks good.


    Yeah, and you have so much experience dealing with pro labs all over
    the country and know what all of them do.

    Most portraits - and that's what I used as an example - taken by a
    professional photographer are watermarked or otherwise emblazoned with
    the photographer's name on the front or the back. You think maybe
    that would make a lab "suspicious" when the portrait is brought in for
    copying by the subject of the photograph?
    >
    >> > 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.

    >>
    >> What a stupid thing to say. The assertion was not that photographers
    >> don't allow copies to made of their portraits, but that stores will
    >> not do it.

    >
    >that's not what you said before. you said it was the photographers who
    >demanded it:


    It *is* photographers: members of the PPofA (Professional
    Photographers of America) demanded it, lobby for it, and press the
    issue. What do you think the member of PPofA do for a living?

    http://www.ppa.com/copyright-advocacy/what-we-do.php


    >> >> Costco is turning down the sale because professional
    >> >> photographers demand that they turn down the sale. (Costco is just


    >> If you want a copy of a professionally-done photograph,
    >> you must bring a note of release from the photographer for the store
    >> to do it.

    >
    >some places require a note, but not all. crazy as it may seem, some
    >places trust their customers.


    Another pronouncement from you about what people/places do that you
    have no idea of what they do. You can find all kinds of cites where
    people have not been able to get photos reproduced, but try to find
    one where someone was able to. Or, is this something you learned
    interviewing airline passengers?

    If you are personally dealing with a lab or processing facility that
    ignores the copyright of the taking photographer, and you know (as you
    allege) that they do, you are aiding and abetting a criminal act that
    is detrimental to professional photographers. You are knowingly
    giving business to a facility that deprives professional photographers
    of income and future business. Shame on you.

    You are, at least consistent. You always seem to grab the wrong end
    of the stick and claim your hand doesn't smell.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 22, 2012
    #43
  4. On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Savageduck 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.


    You can't copyright a tree any more than you can copyright a cloud or a
    person. As far as copyright law is concerned, you can photograph, paint,
    or otherwise artistically reproduce said tree (and any other tree in the
    world) to your heart's content. You can even copyright your artistic
    reproduction of the tree, which would keep others from copying your
    specific artistic reproduction. You can even use your art commercially.

    On the other hand, the tree may well be trademarked, which would place
    some limitations on what could be done with some artistic reproductions of
    the 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 23, 2012
    #44
  5. On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Savageduck wrote:

    > 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 may hold trademark rights, but they don't hold any rights to
    representations of their property. The law doesn't work that way.

    http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/05/property-releases-revisited.html
    http://www.propertyintangible.com/2... (Property, intangible)&utm_content=Bloglines
    http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=447

    This doesn't stop people from suing you, though. It can be very expensive
    to defend against lawsuits, even if you are sure to win, which is why it's
    probably worth it for most photographers to steer clear of attempting
    commercial use of photos of property in which the property owners make it
    known that such use is unwanted.

    --
    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 23, 2012
    #45
  6. 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,


    Yes. But irrelevant.

    > and they
    > hold the rights to photographic and graphic representation to their
    > property,


    By which statue do they hold the right to photographic and graphic
    representations to their property? Please state chapter and
    verse.

    > and "The Lone Cypress" is indisputably their property. Hell!


    You do own a car, right?

    If someone does photograph your car on the streets, do YOU "hold
    the right to photographic and graphic representations" to your
    property, or is your car stolen?

    Or is there a lex Pebble Beach Co.?


    > They even hold the copyright to the design of their golf courses (7 of
    > them) and the famous holes to be found on them.


    Even?
    They *designed* the golf courses. That's an intellectual property.
    A tree, grown and shaped by nature, isn't designed by a human.


    >> 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.


    Where exactly is there a statue that says that *commercial*
    shots have a different copyright?

    > 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


    Only if shot on their premises. I somehow doubt the sea does
    belong to their premises, and thus I think that shots from the
    sea won't be successfully bothered by their attorneys.


    >> 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.


    > ...and paintings and other artwork, including engravings carved into
    > redwood burl and found in tourist trap stores all over California have
    > fallen to the Pebble Beach Co. attorneys, but mostly in the
    > Carmel/Monterey area.


    Only if they successfully argue someone might construe the image
    as officially sanctioned by PBC or their trademark comes into play.

    I'm not doubting their success in limiting the image, but that's
    not based on copyright.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 23, 2012
    #46
  7. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:30:01 -0700, Savageduck


    >>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.


    That are completely different mechanisms. Sort of like
    patent (which forbids an IDEA) and copyright (which forbids
    the copying of a *specific implementation* of an idea).


    > 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.


    Nope, that's nothing to do with "professional photographers".
    They don't have that kind of lobby.

    It's simply copyright ... which is what RIAA and MPAA and
    others use to build their imperia.


    > 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.


    And the Lone Cypress is the property of the PBC ...


    > Shoe's on the other foot, here.


    If the shoe was on the other foot, ONLY that single photographer
    would be allowed to make any portraits of you.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 23, 2012
    #47
  8. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:55:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >> and they
    >> hold the rights to photographic and graphic representation to their
    >> property,

    >
    >By which statue do they hold the right to photographic and graphic
    >representations to their property? Please state chapter and
    >verse.


    You got me. I don't know of any statue with a chapter and verse.

    I suppose this one might qualify, though: http://tinyurl.com/9bw3laj


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 23, 2012
    #48
  9. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:55:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>> and they
    >>> hold the rights to photographic and graphic representation to their
    >>> property,


    >>By which statue do they hold the right to photographic and graphic
    >>representations to their property? Please state chapter and
    >>verse.


    > You got me. I don't know of any statue with a chapter and verse.


    Darn, statu*t*e.
    I keep dropping letters, one day I'll slip on them.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 23, 2012
    #49
  10. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    > Nonsense.


    Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 25, 2012
    #50
  11. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:44:35 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    >>>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...

    >
    >> Nonsense.

    >
    >Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    >similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?


    Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    the idea is implemented. All mobile phones have a patent involved.
    All incorporate the same ideas. Samsung used the same ideas as Apple,
    but sailed too close to the wind in how they incorporated the design
    aspect. They didn't lose the case because they incorporated the same
    idea in making a device to allow people to place telephone calls.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 25, 2012
    #51
  12. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    > >similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?

    >
    > Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    > the idea is implemented. All mobile phones have a patent involved.
    > All incorporate the same ideas. Samsung used the same ideas as Apple,
    > but sailed too close to the wind in how they incorporated the design
    > aspect. They didn't lose the case because they incorporated the same
    > idea in making a device to allow people to place telephone calls.


    samsung didn't just sail too close to the wind, they stole the entire
    boat. they explicitly copied apple, down to minute details.
     
    nospam, Aug 25, 2012
    #52
  13. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > >>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...

    >
    > > Nonsense.

    >
    > Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    > similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?


    if they have a different implementation, yes. ideas aren't patented,
    implementations are. come up with a different way, and possibly better
    way, to do it.
     
    nospam, Aug 25, 2012
    #53
  14. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/22/2012 2:30 AM, Savageduck 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
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > ...and paintings and other artwork, including engravings carved into
    > redwood burl and found in tourist trap stores all over California have
    > fallen to the Pebble Beach Co. attorneys, but mostly in the
    > Carmel/Monterey area.
    >
    > An interesting test might be a painter who creates his/her
    > interpretation of some solitary cypress on some rocky promontory, on
    > some weather beaten coast, either from self visualization, or from a
    > photograph of a similar tree, without ever having visited 17-mile Drive.
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > The two that might be grandfathered in would be Adams & Wesson.
    >
    >


    IIRC The expression: "use it or lose it," applies to trademark law. If
    the mark was not defended it wold be deemed abandoned and revert to the
    public domain.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 25, 2012
    #54
  15. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/22/2012 2:30 AM, Savageduck 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
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > ...and paintings and other artwork, including engravings carved into
    > redwood burl and found in tourist trap stores all over California have
    > fallen to the Pebble Beach Co. attorneys, but mostly in the
    > Carmel/Monterey area.
    >
    > An interesting test might be a painter who creates his/her
    > interpretation of some solitary cypress on some rocky promontory, on
    > some weather beaten coast, either from self visualization, or from a
    > photograph of a similar tree, without ever having visited 17-mile Drive.
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > The two that might be grandfathered in would be Adams & Wesson.
    >
    >

    Since you are a retired police officer, I wonder if you intended to say
    "Smith & Wesson." <G>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 25, 2012
    #55
  16. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/22/2012 9:56 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > 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.


    Possibly both, but more likely trademark or copyright violation grounds.
    See my prior posting.


    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 25, 2012
    #56
  17. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:44:35 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    >>> Nonsense.


    >>Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    >>similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?


    > Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    > the idea is implemented.


    Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.

    > All mobile phones have a patent involved.


    Idiot. "a patent". More like a couple thousand, at least.

    > All incorporate the same ideas. Samsung used the same ideas as Apple,
    > but sailed too close to the wind in how they incorporated the design
    > aspect.


    They used the same ideas, and Apple had them patented.

    > They didn't lose the case because they incorporated the same
    > idea in making a device to allow people to place telephone calls.


    The patent for a device that allows people to place telephone
    calls has long run out. It was issued in 1876 ...

    Idiot.


    Here's a bit of reading material for you. Maybe your brain
    is simply underinformed ...
    http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html

    You tell me an implementation that's not covered by the patent
    discussed below ...
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 25, 2012
    #57
  18. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:44:35 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    >>>>>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...

    >
    >>>> Nonsense.

    >
    >>>Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    >>>similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?

    >
    >> Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    >> the idea is implemented.

    >
    >Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.


    It's always interesting to try to deal with someone who doesn't
    understand the meaning of the words they use.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012
    #58
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>Here's a bit of reading material for you. Maybe your brain
    >>is simply underinformed ...
    >> http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html


    >>You tell me an implementation that's not covered by the patent
    >>discussed below ...
    >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html


    > http://www.kokoandkalila.com/images/Maypole_Pony_Hobby_Horse_opt.jpg


    > Again!


    http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D247003.html

    Any questions?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 26, 2012
    #59
  20. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>tony cooper <> wrote:


    >>> Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    >>> the idea is implemented.


    >>Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.


    > It's always interesting to try to deal with someone who doesn't
    > understand the meaning of the words they use.


    I know, I know, I'm having that experience right now with a
    certain tony cooper. He insists that e.g.
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    describes an implementation, not a concept, like, say, swinging
    on a swing.

    I try to throw clues his way, but he seems to have this weird
    idea that instead of catching them, he's supposed to be hitting
    them back over the net.


    Of course, he may be right and I may be wrong, unlikely as that
    may be: if that was so, he'd probably be posting URLs ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 26, 2012
    #60
    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:
    1,315
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    302
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    290
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    372
    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:
    311
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page