| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2012 02:44:03 AM · #26 |
I will keep my legal opinions to the streets of NYC :) Besides, what I think already's been said.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2012 03:33:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
I will keep my legal opinions to the streets of NYC :) Besides, what I think already's been said. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I take shit from people all the time. |
? |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 05:33:51 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Venser:
It's their own adaption so to the best of my knowledge, they do have a leg to stand on. I've been trying to verify this, but reading through the legalese is quite cumbersome. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) issued by the Department of Justice Canada [snip] is a rather cumbersome undertaking, but other than asking for an opinion from legal counsel, this is your best bet. |
thanks, ray, my eyes are bleeding ;-)
seriously, thanks for posting that link; it really shows the difference between guessing at the law and understanding the law. while i have a much better handle on the differences between US and Canada's copyright law, i think this particular situation really needs clarification from a Canadian attorney versed in copyright law.
just from reading through it, i am still of the belief that you are free to photograph whatever you want and that any possible infringement would come from the usage of the photograph. the part that i feel needs clarification is this (emphasis is mine):
Originally posted by Canadian Copyright Act:
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever |
the question is, would the non-editorial usage (as the law does specifically exempt reportage from being an infringing offense) of a photograph fall under that broad "in any material form whatever"?
if that were to be true, then i wonder to what extent that Canadian definition would include anything else that could be considered art that could be captured in a photograph, be it architecture, graffiti, an advertisement at a bus stop, a neon sign, or a plate of food served in an upscale restaurant? in the US, photography is protected by being "transformative", meaning that the photograph changes the substance of the subject (for example, a neon sign may be copyrighted, but a photograph of the sign would not necessarily infringe upon the sign's artist as it is not in the same medium) (however, a photograph of a photograph with no contextual changes would most likely be considered an infringement - very similar to the dpc art rule.).
without any experience or expertise in the matter, i would hope that Canadian photographers would enjoy the same freedom to photograph their world and share those images without fear of receiving such notices as chris has... |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 07:07:41 AM · #29 |
You could always check Here to see if this play is registered or conversely ask her for the registration number of her copyright.
If the copyright laws in Canada have indeed shifted this far, then we are all doomed since we will no longer be able to photograph anything that someone else made.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 07:16:36 AM · #30 |
i'm not a lawyer, but i play one in online forums.
honestly, she's got nothing going for her.
the lighting people? the costumers? do THEY have copyrights on their lighting setup or costumes? NO?!?!? IMAGINE THAT!!!
She's just pissy |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 07:27:30 AM · #31 |
Wow, I guess they are going to need lawyers walking around during the Busker Festival next year then.
Seriously, someone who has some expectation that noone is going to take their picture while they put on an open performance in a public park is an idiot. Kind of like standing up and shouting "Look at me, look at me, we are doing something really interesting over here...but please put away your cell phones before you look because we wouldn't want you to take a picture."
Not saying that it is OK to sell said pictures or what not, but crap, you have purposely made a spectacle of yourself in an uncontrolled area and still expect that noone will take your picture in this day and age. I would be surprised if at least 20% of the audience wasn't recording them on their phones at the very least. |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 07:55:14 AM · #32 |
I just want to chime in with one thing that I don't think anyone has brought up. And this is the case in the US and I'll assume in Canada as well.
Even though it's a public Park, if an organization has it leased/rented to perform the play then it for legal reasoning becomes private property, which then changes the "I am free to photograph in public places" This is also true of sporting events held in parks by organized groups. You have to have permission from the organizer to photograph the event/play. |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 08:18:57 AM · #33 |
@ matt, I did mention that a couple posts back, but it did bear repeating
@ rcollier, as mentioned repeatedly, the issue is not taking photos, but using them.
@ ryan, anything that can be produced can be copyrighted, including lighting diagrams and costumes. |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 11:18:01 AM · #34 |
| Using my celebrity example again, if costume design was a copyright infringement in a photo, celebrities would all wear them until the paparazzi were all bankrupt. |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 05:19:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I just want to chime in with one thing that I don't think anyone has brought up. And this is the case in the US and I'll assume in Canada as well.
Even though it's a public Park, if an organization has it leased/rented to perform the play then it for legal reasoning becomes private property, which then changes the "I am free to photograph in public places" This is also true of sporting events held in parks by organized groups. You have to have permission from the organizer to photograph the event/play. |
Could be, but unless it was posted as such then one could have a valid counter argument. Also, where I live, rental of such space the renter usually has to post a permit and hire on duty police officers to ensure the security and safety of the participants.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-08-19 17:36:19. |
|
|
|
08/19/2012 09:59:22 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Using my celebrity example again, if costume design was a copyright infringement in a photo, celebrities would all wear them until the paparazzi were all bankrupt. |
not true, celebrity/paparazzi are a mutually beneficial relationship. almost symbiotic.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2012 01:25:46 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by jadin:
Using my celebrity example again, if costume design was a copyright infringement in a photo, celebrities would all wear them until the paparazzi were all bankrupt. |
not true, celebrity/paparazzi are a mutually beneficial relationship. almost symbiotic. |
Wikipedia as well as 90% of paparazzi news stories disagree with you.
Wikipedia : Paparazzi photographers are often described as an unacceptable annoyance by celebrities.[1] Many celebrities complain about the extent to which paparazzi invade their personal space[2], and some have even filed a restraining order against them.
Legality of paparazzi
Due to the reputation of paparazzi as a nuisance, some states and countries (particularly within Europe) restrict their activities by passing laws and curfews, and by staging events in which paparazzi are specifically not allowed to take photographs[citation needed]. In Norway, Germany and France, photographers need the permission of the people in their photographs in order for them to be released[citation needed].
In Norway it is legal to release photographs when they are relevant and of general interest.[7]
A 20/20 story on actors "Losing It", most of the actors were 'losing it' at paparazzi. ( //www.hulu.com/watch/373998 )
A recent law change ( //articles.cnn.com/2009-10-14/justice/paparazzi.law_1_anti-paparazzi-celebrity-brad-pitt-angelina-jolie?_s=PM:CRIME ). Part of it agrees with your assertion, but the law itself as well as the other examples agree with mine.
You might be right that some celebrities embrace paparazzi, but that doesn't mean it's illegal to take those photos, which is what I was stating. The evidence points to it being perfectly legal.
Message edited by author 2012-08-20 01:52:02. |
|
|
|
08/20/2012 07:36:52 AM · #38 |
even if they hate it, its still a mutually beneficial relationship.
it always bothered me when actors lose it on them, im not defending the paparazzi here, but the actors camp has no problem tipping them off when a promotional tour is going on but then get all upset when they are being hounded when things aren't all happy for them
you have to take the bad with the good or lease leave the industry.
still they need each other, whether the actors/actresses care to admit it. |
|
|
|
08/20/2012 08:50:19 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
even if they hate it, its still a mutually beneficial relationship.
it always bothered me when actors lose it on them, im not defending the paparazzi here, but the actors camp has no problem tipping them off when a promotional tour is going on but then get all upset when they are being hounded when things aren't all happy for them
you have to take the bad with the good or lease leave the industry.
still they need each other, whether the actors/actresses care to admit it. |
None of which invalidates my point. Which was the legality of it. |
|
|
|
08/20/2012 09:50:24 AM · #40 |
Update.
Another person from the theatre company contacted me to apologize for the behavior of the GM and invited myself to come take photos last night of the production. I have a friend up from Brazil, so I respectfully declined but took a rain cheque for next week. He seemed congenial and I had to apologize because I was still in GM attack mode. Since last Thursday I've been reading nothing but copyright law in Canada and still think I'm in the right. The problem with the legalese is there's a lot of grey space and obfuscating language to wade through.
Here's the photo which was the catalyst to everything.
 |
|
|
|
08/31/2012 12:09:48 PM · #41 |
| What a lovely tree. Has that filed for copywright? ;op |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:33:17 AM EDT.
