Re: Professional cameras not allowed

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

  1. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/3/2012 5:31 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> Again citation please.

    >
    > 15 USC § 1114 (1)
    >
    > Do the rest of the research yourself.
    >


    IOW you have no real foundation for your statement.
    The only reason I say you are not correct is to alert readers not to
    rely on what you say.
    If you had substantial authority for you statement, or that I am wrong,
    you have an obligation to state Since you lack proof, your statement
    must be taken as unsupported.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 5, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/4/2012 6:23 PM, nospam wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    If you feel a flight is below FAA minimums, then enforce your rights.
    That's exactly what that article says.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 5, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:15:15 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 9/4/2012 6:23 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    >If you feel a flight is below FAA minimums, then enforce your rights.
    >That's exactly what that article says.


    Try it sometime with the police helicopters. Those choppers that
    hover over a crime scene with spotlights.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 5, 2012
  4. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:02:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:45:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>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.


    > FRAND has to do with the setting of standards and is not part of the
    > patent system.


    So your "Usually they do - under specified conditions" is to be
    read as "If you're lucky, you'll get a license and don't go broke
    paying for it".

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2012
  5. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Anybody thinking any aircraft flying low enough to even find the "Lone
    > Cypress" along that piece of coast


    GPS. It is rumored to work even when not seeing the ground or
    being in space.

    > is going not be noticed and have a
    > tail number recorded, is living a fantasy.


    Quadcopters don't *have* a tail. (Nor do they need a pilot (which
    would be kinda heavy on a 400g flying machine), some can start,
    land and follow GPS waypoints all by themselves.)


    > Along with the seven golf courses, the Lodge, Spyglass Inn, The Inn at
    > Smugglers Bay, a few galleries, & the various club houses, Pebble Beach
    > has an extraordinary density of high end residential property all of
    > which any low flying plane, helicopter, autogyro, microlight, or rocket
    > pack wearer is going to have to cross either going in or coming out
    > after their photo-op fly-by.


    I was unaware that they have that density between the "Lone
    Cpress" and the sea.

    > Just take a look at what has to be flown over, and the relatively small
    > target. Any loitering in the air is going to attract all sorts of
    > attention.


    So?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2012
  6. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:15:15 -0400, PeterN


    >>If you feel a flight is below FAA minimums, then enforce your rights.
    >>That's exactly what that article says.


    > Try it sometime with the police helicopters. Those choppers that
    > hover over a crime scene with spotlights.


    Enough gun fire, and they'll stop hovering there one way or
    another. Even a bazooka should work well if they're hovering ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2012
  7. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Beach, or might be a club member. Since it is on Wikipedia it probably
    > falls under Creative Commons with its non-commercial use disclaimer.
    > < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ >


    You need to look up all the possible CC licenses. There are more
    combinations that just BY-NC-SA, for example BY or BY-SA.
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

    And read up on Wikipedia treats NC licenses for their purposes.
    (Hint: they think they don't allow Wikipedia to be printed by
    third parties and many more commercial uses, so they don't
    want them at all.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2012
  8. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > PeterN writes:


    >> citation please


    > A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or device (design)--not a tree. See 15
    > USC § 1127 for the formal definition.


    A tree can be a symbol.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2012
  9. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > An aircraft flying at or above the minimum height is not disturbing the
    > landowner, prima facie.


    wrong. a helicopter hovering near your house, never mind over it, will
    be very disturbing, as are low flying planes.
     
    nospam, Sep 5, 2012
  10. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


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


    > See 14 CFR § 91.119 (d).


    Doesn't say a single word about LTA.

    And whether sub-500g flying toys such as quadcopters are
    helicopters in the sense of the regulation is another question.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 6, 2012
  11. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-09-05 08:00:01 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >> Savageduck writes:


    >>> Anybody thinking any aircraft flying low enough to even find the "Lone
    >>> Cypress" along that piece of coast is going not be noticed and have a
    >>> tail number recorded, is living a fantasy.


    >> So? If it's above the FAA minimums, you can record all the tail numbers you
    >> want, but you can't do anything about it.


    > Over a residential area, which is what we are talking about here, 1,000
    > ft. A helicopter might be able to fly lower by regulation, but that
    > pilot is going to have some explaining to do as he has no particular
    > right intruding on private property and disturbing the peace. This is
    > not going to be a law enforcement helicopter on a mission.


    Just because a plane may not be allowed lower than 1000 ft doesn't
    mean the property owner can claim that space. A helicopter
    pilot doesn't need to explain; he's within the FAA regulations,
    just as a plane pilot at 1000 ft doesn't need to explain anything.


    >>> Just take a look at what has to be flown over, and the relatively small
    >>> target. Any loitering in the air is going to attract all sorts of
    >>> attention.


    >> So? Loitering in the air is not illegal.


    > At an altitude low enough over those homes to locate and shoot the tree
    > from the right angle, the aircraft would certainly get the attention of
    > the authorities. That is going to be over the property not offshore as
    > in the Streisand case.


    So you are saying the airspace above your property is yours,
    up to 1000 ft?


    > Again, you are taking this position on your supposed right to shoot
    > images of this privately owned tree, located on private property, and
    > use your images commercially, ignoring the property owner's rights to
    > establish conditions for such commercial use of images of their tree.


    You mean similar to copyright, where when I buy a photograph of
    myself I may not copy it or have it copied, even though I *am*
    the property owner?

    There's no law that allows you to establish conditions for
    commercial use of images of your property as such. There's also
    no law prohibiting the use of cameras to make images (harming
    painters), no law to inform people over the intenet (even though
    that hurts e.g. newspapers), and so on.


    > They are not stopping anybody from shooting as many shots of the tree,
    > with the equipment of their choice for non-commercial use.


    So?


    > If you want to make a commercial shoot of any type on their property
    > call their office and make the arrangements. They might even go for a
    > proposal to permit aerial shots, I believe the last batch of those date
    > back to 1941.


    The question is whether a vessel flying above their property is
    *on* their property.

    That they "permit" aerial shots may not mean more than me
    "permitting" you to photograph.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 6, 2012
  12. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/5/2012 11:05 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> IOW you have no real foundation for your statement.

    >
    > In other words, you haven't actually read 15 USC § 1114 (1), which is the
    > foundation for my statement.
    >


    I've studied, lectured and written about it More times that you might
    imagine. If you wish to pay for my efforts, I will be happy to educate
    you. If you are interested, we can discuss fee arrangements offline.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  13. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/6/2012 12:40 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Savageduck writes:
    >
    >> Over a residential area, which is what we are talking about here, 1,000
    >> ft. A helicopter might be able to fly lower by regulation, but that
    >> pilot is going to have some explaining to do as he has no particular
    >> right intruding on private property and disturbing the peace.

    >
    > Not true. He doesn't have any explaining to do. As long as he is not a hazard
    > to people or property, he's fine. He is not "disturbing the peace" simply by
    > flying low. The airspace above private property does not belong to the
    > property owner, in the U.S.
    >
    >> At an altitude low enough over those homes to locate and shoot the tree
    >> from the right angle, the aircraft would certainly get the attention of
    >> the authorities. That is going to be over the property not offshore as
    >> in the Streisand case.

    >
    > It still doesn't matter.
    >
    >> Again, you are taking this position on your supposed right to shoot
    >> images of this privately owned tree, located on private property, and
    >> use your images commercially, ignoring the property owner's rights to
    >> establish conditions for such commercial use of images of their tree.

    >
    > I'm taking this position based on the law, which does not prohibit taking
    > pictures of a tree from an airplane or flying over private property.
    >
    >> Consider that your arguments are made from speculative interpretation
    >> from France in the face of the Pebble Beach Company dealing with their
    >> reality of defending their property rights since 1919.

    >
    > My arguments are based on U.S. law, not French law. I'm not sure how you came
    > to believe otherwise. Last time I checked, Pebble Beach was in the U.S.
    >
    >> If you want to make a commercial shoot of any type on their property
    >> call their office and make the arrangements. They might even go for a
    >> proposal to permit aerial shots, I believe the last batch of those date
    >> back to 1941.

    >
    > They don't need to give permission for aerial shots.
    >


    Which State are you referring to


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  14. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/6/2012 3:34 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
    >
    >> A tree can be a symbol.

    >
    > Not for trademark purposes.
    >


    Specifics please?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  15. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/6/2012 5:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-06 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Browne
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 2012.09.06[36] 02:30 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think the time has come for you to put your money where your mouth is,
    >>> and test this right of yours to fly over Pebble Beach until you have
    >>> located the "Lone Cypress", position the aircraft so that you can make
    >>> the optimal capture, trip your shutter and publish the product for sale.
    >>> Then you can test the Pebble Beach Company, their attorneys, and the
    >>> courts.

    >>
    >> The sole legal problem with that scenario is "publish".

    >
    > Yup! Otherwise the argument is pointless. If he just wants to take shot
    > of the tree, or stuff happening on one of the golf courses, just pay up
    > and shoot to your heart's content for all the non-commercial shots you
    > want.
    >
    > Naturally there is stuff other than trees to shoot at Pebble Beach.


    I paid up and took a lot of shots on the Pebble Beach golf course.



    >
    > This was on a practice day.
    > <
    > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/BSVQTJG2Xl/Shared Images/PB-USO-2010
    >
    >>

    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  16. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/7/2012 4:36 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> Which State are you referring to

    >
    > All of them. Federal law overrides State law.
    >


    suggest you read, with comprehension, the full volume.
    A;though dated 1935, the enunciated principles are still valid.
    <http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jhb/conflict_laws.htm>


    Also, WRT contracts issues you might want to consider

    <http://store.westlaw.com/williston-on-contracts-4th/1403/13511436/productdetail>
    --
    WRT Real Property issues:
    <http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/cat...ail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=10123

    All of the above are available at any depository law library.

    Last, but certainly not least, you should certainly understand the
    meaning of the reservation of powers contained in Article 1 of the US
    Constitution.

    If you think that Federal law preempts State Law in all cases, your
    legal education is sorely lacking.



    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  17. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/7/2012 5:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 9/7/2012 4:36 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> PeterN writes:
    >>
    >>> Which State are you referring to

    >>
    >> All of them. Federal law overrides State law.
    >>

    >
    > suggest you read, with comprehension, the full volume.
    > A;though dated 1935, the enunciated principles are still valid.
    > <http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jhb/conflict_laws.htm>
    >
    >
    > Also, WRT contracts issues you might want to consider
    >
    > <http://store.westlaw.com/williston-on-contracts-4th/1403/13511436/productdetail>
    >


    I left off my reference to the 10th Amendment.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  18. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/7/2012 4:40 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> I've studied, lectured and written about it More times that you might
    >> imagine.

    >
    > Yes, and I personally wrote it.
    >


    You really have a problem.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 7, 2012
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:34:37 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:02:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:45:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>>>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.


    >>> FRAND has to do with the setting of standards and is not part of the
    >>> patent system.


    >>So your "Usually they do - under specified conditions" is to be
    >>read as "If you're lucky, you'll get a license and don't go broke
    >>paying for it".


    > I have much the same problem when buying groceries.


    - There's only a single supplier of each item (and usually an
    item group) of groceries you can use, no matter how much money
    you're willing to spend. Worse, for many items you need to
    ask several parties as each one of them hold a part of the item
    and it can only be used complete.

    Cereals: grain, sugar, making flakes, frosting, each additive,
    adding additives, using a carton, using a plastic bag to
    hold food items, printing on a package, selling packages
    ... everything held by a different party, and if just one party
    disagrees or overcharges badly ...

    When I buy groceries, I have a choice of many suppliers: several
    chains of several sizes, independent stores, specialized stores,
    online stores, ... and most items and all item groups have
    multiple sources within easy walking distance. If one shop
    is out of something I can go to the next shop, even of the
    same chain. They're all *very* willing to sell to me, and due
    to lots of competition prices are acceptable or downright cheap.

    - If you grow something in your backyard, you need to pay for a
    license --- unfortunately, for your apple tree you can't get a
    license, so you need to chop it down. You could try to claim
    apples were there before the need to license was granted, but
    that'll bancrupt you. And even if you were to win in a couple
    years from now, your tree still needs to be chopped down today.

    Where I live I can just buy seeds and grow groceries (except
    for stuff like pot and similar drugs). I can use the seeds of
    the plants I have grown to grow new plants if I like.

    Guess you still live in the old communist block, where shortages
    are the daily bread and getting a car would take 10-15 years
    (unless you were a fat cat). Oh, being able to choose between 2
    items of a kind (say tomato ketchup) is a rare treat for you.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 9, 2012
  20. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> You need to look up all the possible CC licenses. There are more
    >> combinations that just BY-NC-SA, for example BY or BY-SA.
    >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/


    > They don't matter.


    I see. Licenses do not matter.

    > The image has been released to the public domain by the
    > photographer. CC licenses don't apply to something in the public domain.


    Irrelevant, this is no longer about the photograph.
    You need to actually *read* what you reply to.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 9, 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:
    1,350
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    311
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    303
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    383
    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:
    318
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page