| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2005 08:44:46 AM · #1 |
Hey All,
Yesterday I received an email from the management of Cafe Press (where I have a store). They had removed one line of my stuff from sales. Why? Well, please read the following -
In accordance with our Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Gwen Brenner, Sr. Director for the Milwaukee Art Museum, provided us with a notice stating that your use of the name and images of the Milwaukee Art Museum infringes upon their intellectual property rights ...
Accordingly, we have set the content that is alleged to infringe the rights of the third party to “pending status” which disables said content from being displayed in your shop or purchased by the public. You may review the content set to pending status by logging into your CafePress.com account and clicking on the “Media Basket” link. The content set to pending status will be highlighted red.
If you believe that you hold the rights to the content alleged to infringe the rights of the third party, we encourage you to contact the alleged rights holder directly for a resolution to this matter. Below please find the contact information for the party alleging infringement.
(The section of the letter deleted dealt listed the penalties for copyright infringement and forgery.)
Here's the problem I have with this action: the picture referred to was taken by me (and I want to emphasize that - I took it, not anyone else) on Milwaukee public property during open hours. At one point after it was taken I took a print and made a gift of the print to the public place, but I did not give them any copyrights at all. In fact, if they are using this picture in any way shape or form I believe they are violating my I.P. Rights
Now, likely none of you are lawyers, but as creators of I.P. yourselves, you might be able to give me some advice of some sort, whether that advice is find a lawyer (I am beginning the search) or give it up. Please give me some feedback.
Mik
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 08:51:54 AM · #2 |
heyah, mike, what a bummer to have to deal with this...sigh...
check out this thread, get the book, pay attention to the parts about conflict resolution and theft.
you could probably craft a letter to the person who started the problem, clarifying their rights and your rights, and request them to clear it up on their side so that you won't have to burden them with a legal process.
good luck, pm me if you want/need to.
skip |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 08:53:14 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 08:57:30 AM · #4 |
As a reminder I am neither a lawyer nor speaking on behalf of DPChallenge. All opinions are my own.
The Milwaukee Art Museum is a private, non-profit corporation, and built and owns the Quadracci Pavilion (which I assume is what you photographed). While you have the right to photograph the building from a public street, you do not have the right to make commercial use of that photograph without permission from the building owner. Selling merchandise qualifies as commercial use.
It appears that in this case, the Milwaulkee Art Musem is acting within their rights.
Originally posted by //www.mam.org/aboutus/history.htm:
These two institutions joined forces in 1957 to form the private, nonprofit Milwaukee Art Center (now the Milwaukee Art Museum), and moved to its current lakefront location.
In March 1996, Calatrava's dynamic expansion design was announced, and was met with enthusiastic support by the Milwaukee community. On December 10, 1997 , the Milwaukee Art Museum broke ground for the new addition. The entire expansion project was complete by October 2001. |
-Terry
(edited to add source excerpts)
Message edited by author 2005-07-02 09:00:34.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 09:00:59 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by smilebig4me1x:
what were the photos of? |
i asked that because i found this on the rights page of the site"
All text and images on this site are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and cannot be saved except for personal use only. Unauthorized use is prohibited. Copyright for some images is held by the artists and/or their estates. No part of this Web site may be reproduced, published or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Inquiries regarding permissions to publish Collection images should be directed to the Office of Rights & Reproductions, tel: 414-224-3278 or e-mail: melissa.hartley@mam.org or fax: 414-271-7588.
Inquiries regarding permissions to publish building images should be directed to the Office of Communications, tel: 414-224-3243 or e-mail: vicky.reddin@mam.org.
For use of works in which copyright is held by Artists Right Society, Inc. (ARS):
Reproduction, including downloading of ARS members’ works, is prohibited by copyright laws and international conventions without the express written permission of Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.
text
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 09:14:43 AM · #6 |
I don't know much about the legal end of photography. But this happened to me about a year ago. I was taking a picture of our local government center building. Only 11 stories tall with two side buildings and very nice architecture. I was approached by a public service officer and asked what I was doing. I replied taking a picture. He wanted to know if I worked for a news agency, etc. I told him no, photography was my hobby. He told me it was OK to take a picture of the building for private/personal use but if I was going to sale prints of the photograph for personal gain I must get authorization from the Consolidate government first.
Could this be a similar circumstance?
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 09:29:11 AM · #7 |
It is my understanding that some architectural works, such as the CN Tower here in Toronto, holds both trademark and copyright protection to their structure.
I do not know if the museum that you are referring to holds similar rights, but this registration is becoming popular with many venues, unique architectural structures and buildings.
Think of the Eiffel Tower, Sidney Opera House, the Guggenheim Museums in New York City and Bilbao, Spain, the UN building, the Statue of Liberty, and many more. An Architect friend answered my question on this subject on the telephone this morning by telling me that all of these structures are fully protected. He also mentioned some of the master works of Frank Lloyd Wright, including homes owned by individuals, are protected.
This does not mean that a tourist can not photograph these images, rather that you can not make money from the images without the rights-holder’s full written agreement. Well, that how this “right of use” scenario is being explained to me this morning. However, neither of us are lawyers and we are in Canada, where laws are different than in the United States.
So, I wonder if this concept is relevant in this case too.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 09:56:36 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 10:20:00 AM · #9 |
That's interesting that you can't sell a picture of a building like that.
So an artist cannot paint it and sell his painting? And what if it's part of a larger landscape?
Seems pretty weird when you look at it that way. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 12:22:30 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
That's interesting that you can't sell a picture of a building like that.
So an artist cannot paint it and sell his painting? And what if it's part of a larger landscape?
Seems pretty weird when you look at it that way. |
Think of the building as a very large sculpture. Would you deny an artist copyright protection merely because of the size of the work?
It is only since about 1986 that buildings are covered by copyright (in the US); older buildings are probably OK, except for circumstances like the Eiffel Tower, where the newly added lighting IS covered by copyright, while the tower itself is not (i.e. you can sell a daytime photo, but not one taken at night).
A building which is part of a larger land/cityscape is also generally OK, as long as the building is not the (recognizable) subject of the photo. DON'T title it "Long View of Sydney Opera Hours" or something; a wide view of "Sydney Harhor" which happens to include the Opera House is probably OK, as are isolated (but unidentified) architectural details. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 12:42:29 PM · #11 |
| Also some cities, such as Denver and Dallas are attempting to copyright their skylines, so even those shots as GeneralE speaks of may soon be unusable. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 12:42:49 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
damn gov |
It's not the gov. It's a private non-profit corporation.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 12:49:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
|
BROWN?? Geez - Challenge relevance obviously meant a lot more back in '03.
sorry for the disruption.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 01:54:25 PM · #14 |
I know the San Diego Zoo clearly says you can not take photos there for commercial use. Seems to be a growing trend... We were told at a ghost town recently that we were not allowed to use photos from their property commercially.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 02:14:48 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I know the San Diego Zoo clearly says you can not take photos there for commercial use. Seems to be a growing trend... We were told at a ghost town recently that we were not allowed to use photos from their property commercially. |
it's funny that you bring this up--i just came from a shoot at one of the most beautiful parks in richmond. while there, we were discussing how some places charge professionals a 'usage' fee, where you can either pay up front, or pay by the published image. a number of floral parks actually have photographer entry rates and times.
on the flip side, enforcement of some of these restrictions is handled on a case by case basis. some courts won't hold for blanket you-can't-shoot-to-sell restrictions; as generale pointed out, a lot of it depends on the image and the context of the subject.
for amatuers, this really doesn't matter, unless you take a picture and you want to sell it. for professionals, though, it's a no-brainer: you get permission first. and if you don't get permission, you don't do anything with the image that could compromise you professionally. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/10/2026 09:13:28 PM EST.
