|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2003 11:34:28 AM · #26 |
| I'm a little frustrated with this whole situation lately. As I mentioned once before, in Los Angeles I am constantly being told I can't take pictures. So far, I have been barred from taking pictures of buildings, malls, landmarks, and now people at parks. I got stopped at the Budweiser Brewery recently when trying to take a picture of their topiary garden (which spells out Budweiser). People are also a problem due to the discussion at hand. This is amplified in LA because everyone is either an actress or a model and nearly every child has an agent, so everyone protects their image. At Venice Beach, all the freaks that roam the strand want $1 every time someone takes thier picture (even tourists) or they become extremely beligerant. When all is said and done, what's left is flowers, your own kids, pets, etc. and we all know how that is received on this website. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 11:50:54 AM · #27 |
Yeah, great eh? Next thing you know you can't take photos of Yosemite Falls.
But here's another issue: America 24/7 FORBIDS you to publish or post your photos for 2 years. it's in the Amateur agreement. You still retain the copyright, but they own the rights for publication for 2 years. Also, America 24/7 is related to 24/7 Real Media, which is an ADVERTISING company in deep crap (check their Nasdaq news, they are almost being delisted), so this is probably just an attempt to get royalty-free stock images. next thing you know, the neighborhood kid photo you took with the model release is going to end up as an ad for condoms. Doubt your neighbor will ever invite you over after that :)
Originally posted by progersct:
I'm a little frustrated with this whole situation lately. As I mentioned once before, in Los Angeles I am constantly being told I can't take pictures. So far, I have been barred from taking pictures of buildings, malls, landmarks, and now people at parks. I got stopped at the Budweiser Brewery recently when trying to take a picture of their topiary garden (which spells out Budweiser). People are also a problem due to the discussion at hand. This is amplified in LA because everyone is either an actress or a model and nearly every child has an agent, so everyone protects their image. At Venice Beach, all the freaks that roam the strand want $1 every time someone takes thier picture (even tourists) or they become extremely beligerant. When all is said and done, what's left is flowers, your own kids, pets, etc. and we all know how that is received on this website. |
Message edited by author 2003-05-22 11:51:13. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 01:39:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by hawkida:
|
I don't understand the logic here. If 2% of the population want to find a kid to kidnap then a school's going to be an easy target, and so is a playground and a whole host of other places. How is taking a photo of a child in any of those areas going to make it simpler for a kidnapper to get hold of them?[/quote]
Schools for the most part are protected, most have fenced in playgrounds and require being buzzed in so there is a measure of security protecting the child, and usually playgrounds are to busy of a place but kids are very easy targets on the way to and from school and while playing in their own neighborhoods, the issue and biggest problem with projects like America 24/7 is they are asking for names and cities and whenever possible ages so anyone who sees that photo knows the childs name, what they look like and what city they are from then if the person looks closely at the photo it is even more possible to come up with a neighborhood, so now the "pervert" would have the child's name and an area to look for them. Many kidnappings take place simply cause the perp knows the childs name and lures them away using that info. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 01:46:01 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Refracted:
from setz's link:
certain landforms and flora that are trademarked are protected against shutterbugs (for instance, the lone cypress tree at Cypress Point golf course)"
|
So if I publish the picture, that I made of it in 1997, at dpchallenge I would be violating a law? :)
Didn't see much protection, no sign, no nothing except a lone cypress tree. :)
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 02:00:50 PM · #30 |
I just finished photo copying my model releases and mailing them...priority geeeshhh they got to be there by Tuesday. But after reading this thread and the issues involving 24/7 Real Media, maybe I should point something out to everyone...Many of you know that picture.com is a pretty shady thing, after posting photos for the so called competition a few weeks later you get a letter in the mail telling you your photo is being included in a book that they charge $69.95 for and they make a fortune selling this book to everyone who has an image included.
Well look at the model release form, name, address, phone number and email address. Well hey they are going to make a large profit off of us when it is all said and done. One person I photographed and had sign a release pointed this out to me. Say they decide to use a photo I took of this little darling girl clog dancing at a festival last weekend. I will get a free copy of the book and an order form to order extras for family. The little girl's Mom and Dad will get this letter in the mail stating that there darling little angel is being included and would they like to purchase a copy of the book and also it would make a wonderful gift for grandparents and aunts and uncle and there you have it. I wouldn't panic to much over seeing the neighbors kid showing up in a condom ad. If anything I would say America 24/7 is simply a wonderful marketing ploy that benefits the publishing company with a financial gain and help us as photographers with exposure. At least they aren't charging us a fee to see out photographs in their publications |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 02:18:23 PM · #31 |
Well the chances for selected for publication is not high. Considering they had 1000 contract pro photographers and 10,000 images to be selected, it leaves little room for everyone else.
What is worrisome is the ADVERTISING part. ONce the model release and once you upload the photo, they have EXCLUSIVE rights to use the photo for 2 years (they have to decide by December, 2003 to use it or not). You won't be compensated for the photo, the model will not get anything as he/she has signed it. Furthermore, they don't need model release for the BOOK since it's journalistic and laws in general allows journalistic publications to use photos shot in public to not require a model release, they need model releases for the advertisements where the real money is made (i.e. they sell it to advertise xxx products for their "affiliates". Read the model agreement... affiliates can be anything)
I'm not mailing out the model releases unless the photo has been selected, since they don't need the release anyway for the book publication.
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I just finished photo copying my model releases and mailing them...priority geeeshhh they got to be there by Tuesday. But after reading this thread and the issues involving 24/7 Real Media, maybe I should point something out to everyone...Many of you know that picture.com is a pretty shady thing, after posting photos for the so called competition a few weeks later you get a letter in the mail telling you your photo is being included in a book that they charge $69.95 for and they make a fortune selling this book to everyone who has an image included.
Well look at the model release form, name, address, phone number and email address. Well hey they are going to make a large profit off of us when it is all said and done. One person I photographed and had sign a release pointed this out to me. Say they decide to use a photo I took of this little darling girl clog dancing at a festival last weekend. I will get a free copy of the book and an order form to order extras for family. The little girl's Mom and Dad will get this letter in the mail stating that there darling little angel is being included and would they like to purchase a copy of the book and also it would make a wonderful gift for grandparents and aunts and uncle and there you have it. I wouldn't panic to much over seeing the neighbors kid showing up in a condom ad. If anything I would say America 24/7 is simply a wonderful marketing ploy that benefits the publishing company with a financial gain and help us as photographers with exposure. At least they aren't charging us a fee to see out photographs in their publications |
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 02:31:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by paganini:
What is worrisome is the ADVERTISING part. ONce the model release and once you upload the photo, they have EXCLUSIVE rights to use the photo for 2 years (they have to decide by December, 2003 to use it or not). You won't be compensated for the photo, the model will not get anything as he/she has signed it... |
I'm going to check this out further, but I also think the chances of them suing me for posting a shot of Isaac on my website is also pretty small, especially since it would probably be advertising their book.
If one of my shots turns out to be so fantastic (I use that word advisedly) as to sell tons of copies, I'm willing to wait two years to collect some royalties, and let them develop the market since I have no aptitude for marketing... |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 04:39:08 PM · #33 |
Yeah it's small but why risk it? :)
This is how I did my submission:
I took MULTIPLE shots of the same landscape if I were doing landscape shots. They look almost identical. I submit one, and keeps the rest. That way, i can still do whatever I want with the other photos. Their rights to use the image is only that part of it.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by paganini:
What is worrisome is the ADVERTISING part. ONce the model release and once you upload the photo, they have EXCLUSIVE rights to use the photo for 2 years (they have to decide by December, 2003 to use it or not). You won't be compensated for the photo, the model will not get anything as he/she has signed it... |
I'm going to check this out further, but I also think the chances of them suing me for posting a shot of Isaac on my website is also pretty small, especially since it would probably be advertising their book.
If one of my shots turns out to be so fantastic (I use that word advisedly) as to sell tons of copies, I'm willing to wait two years to collect some royalties, and let them develop the market since I have no aptitude for marketing... |
|
|
|
|
05/23/2003 11:59:46 PM · #34 |
The charges against the photographer have been dropped
Here is the story from our paper
Charges Dropped
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 07:05:14 PM  |
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: 09/19/2025 07:05:14 PM EDT.
|
