Re: Professional cameras not allowed

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

  1. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2012 1:23 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Savageduck writes:
    >
    >> ...and who says that?

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


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





    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:14:16 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

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

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


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



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > To the low tide line.

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


    actually, it is.
     
    nospam, Sep 1, 2012
    #83
  4. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

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

    > >
    > > actually, it is.

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


    true, but lone cypress is in the us.
     
    nospam, Sep 1, 2012
    #84
  5. On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Savageduck wrote:

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

    >
    > Probably no law at all.


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

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

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

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bistormpicture.com
    http://bistormpicture.blogpost.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 1, 2012
    #85
  6. On Sat, 1 Sep 2012, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

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


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

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bistormpicture.com
    http://bistormpicture.blogpost.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 1, 2012
    #86
  7. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2012 12:38 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> To the low tide line.

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

    >
    > actually, it is.
    >

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

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #87
  8. On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Alfred Molon wrote:

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

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


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

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #88
  9. > That is also the Pebble Beach Company's point, the tree is their property,
    > located on their property, it is not public property, and it is that
    > particular association with their property which makes the image iconic.


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

    /IANAL

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #89
  10. On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Savageduck wrote:

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


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

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #90
  11. On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2012-09-02 08:02:06 -0700, Ryan McGinnis <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> ...but it isn't visible from public land. You have to travel, at minimum 6
    >>> miles across their property to get to the site on their property to take a
    >>> photograph of a tree they own.
    >>>
    >>> Now what?

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

    >
    > Yup! They have signs posted, and they have terms, conditions and restrictions
    > posted on both the entry ticket and information brochure handed to those who
    > pay the $9.75 at the gates.
    >
    > Now, is it worth the cost of trying to prove a point?


    Well when I said that, it was under that assumption that a shot was done
    from public land or airspace. It wouldn't be worth it personally to me
    because I doubt that the return on such an image would be worth renting a
    helicopter and a gyro system for a few hours, even if they never sent
    their lawyers after me. If I shot it on their land, it definately
    wouldn't be worth it at any price, as they'd likely (rightfully) sue the
    pants off of me and win.

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #91
  12. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > actually, it is.

    >
    > Actually, it's not, at least not in the United States.


    actually, it is, and yes in the united states. it may be different
    elsewhere.

    > Thank goodness you can
    > fly freely over any property.


    wrong.

    at an altitude low enough that it interferes with the owner's user of
    their property, which is likely if you're low enough take a photo, you
    can be cited for trespass.
     
    nospam, Sep 2, 2012
    #92
  13. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/2/2012 1:16 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> It's obvious of me that you have never been involved with the valuation
    >> of intellectual property.

    >
    > I know it very well. I also know abuse of IP law when I see it.
    >


    Perceived abuse <> violation.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #93
  14. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/2/2012 1:20 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Alfred Molon writes:
    >
    >> Not sure why you are all so excited about a tree which grows somewhere
    >> on the American continent. If it's so difficult to photograph and use
    >> the photo, I would simply ignore it.

    >
    > Done. But there's still the principle of the thing.
    >


    right! If you don't defend your IP, it lapses into the public domain.
    So!
    If you feel that strongly, put your ass on the line and fight for the
    principle, instead of jaw boning something you seem to have just a
    little knowledge about.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #94
  15. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/2/2012 1:27 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> You can if you use it in connection with your business.

    >
    > No. You can trademark words and artwork, not living things. You could
    > trademark a single photo, perhaps, but not the tree being photographed. A
    > different photo would not be a trademark, even if it looked the same.


    citation please

    >
    >> BTW you might want to research the nature of the Pebble Beach Company's
    >> IP rights in the tree, and its legislative history.

    >
    > I have. They've been abusing IP law for a long time.
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #95
  16. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/2/2012 1:28 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> As is a representation of the Lone Cypress.

    >
    > So they could trademark a single representation. But not other
    > representations.
    >
    > And again they'd have to show confusion in the minds of consumers. What
    > products or services do they identify with their "trademark"? And who actually
    > recognizes the tree and associates it with anything having to do with the PBC?
    >


    Again citation please.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #96
  17. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:45:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:56:18 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> 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?


    >>>>> That's not what you said


    >>>>Hmmm. Yes, I can see that ... I thought it was quite clear
    >>>>that you couldn't use the idea, even if you came up with it
    >>>>independently, even if it is the obvious way, even if it's been
    >>>>used for however long.


    >>> You can void the patent if you can show it has been in use for a long
    >>> time.


    >>In reality that happens to be an extreme amount of work ---
    >>for each single patent.
    >>You could as well say "If you shot the wrong person, the hospital
    >>will sort him out again."


    > That's bureaucracy for you.


    Nope, that's a broken system.


    >>>>I.e. the idea is forbidden to use ---not just a specific implementation.


    >>> Forbidding the unlicensed use of an idea is not the same as forbidding
    >>> the idea, which last was your original statement.


    >>And there's no way to get a license unless the patent holder
    >>specifically wants to give a license to you.


    > Usually they do - under specified conditions.


    FRAND does not apply to everything. Blocking patents exist.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 4, 2012
    #97
  18. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012.09.02 14:19 , nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Mxsmanic
    >> <> wrote:


    >>>> actually, it is.


    >>> Actually, it's not, at least not in the United States.


    >> actually, it is, and yes in the united states. it may be different
    >> elsewhere.


    >>> Thank goodness you can
    >>> fly freely over any property.


    >> wrong.


    >> at an altitude low enough that it interferes with the owner's user of
    >> their property, which is likely if you're low enough take a photo, you
    >> can be cited for trespass.


    > No.


    > *First* there is the law, which in US goes: "The United States
    > Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."


    > and


    > "... airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace
    > needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."


    > *Secondly* there is the legal operation of an aircraft


    > So in the US, an aircraft can fly, legally, quite close to a property as
    > long as it complies to the FAA rules (below).


    So what does the FAA say about, say, quadcopters and similar
    'toys'? And what about LTA?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 4, 2012
    #98
  19. Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Savageduck wrote:


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


    >> Probably no law at all.


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


    They might have cause to sue me: they might mislike my nose.
    Whether that'll stand in court ...

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


    The US system seems somewhat broken.
    Here, the looser pays everything, if it's a 100% loss.
    And there are not necessarily exorbitant lawyer fees.

    > The photographer who took the original photo that you used for
    > "inspiration" for your artwork would likely have a good case against you
    > for derivative copyright infringement, however.


    Let's take that one:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lone_Cypress.jpg

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 4, 2012
    #99
  20. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > actually, it is, and yes in the united states.

    >
    > Point me to the law that says so.
    >
    > > at an altitude low enough that it interferes with the owner's user of
    > > their property, which is likely if you're low enough take a photo, you
    > > can be cited for trespass.

    >
    > If you are above FAA minimums, you are not interfering with anyone's use of
    > his property. And even if you are, it's not generally trespass. Aerial
    > trespass involves mostly fixed installations.


    <http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=17&pageid=72>

    The law is clear that an owner is entitled to freedom from excessive
    noise and passage by airborne carriers. If an aircraft is in flight
    so low that it is unreasonably disturbing to the landowner, the
    aircraft could be held liable for trespassing on your property.
    Additionally, if the aircraft or airport is government-owned, such
    flights would constitute a "taking" of your property.
     
    nospam, Sep 4, 2012
    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:
    1,346
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    308
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    301
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    380
    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:
    317
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page