DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Copyright, Fair Use, and "Cannot be Photographed"
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 39 of 39, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/01/2006 02:33:45 PM · #26
Thanks for all the input. I have yet to identify who it was that told me to stop taking photos.

In addition, I believe the performance company "owns" the theater (as they are named one and the same).

Tonight we're going to the opening. I will try to talk to them before taking any shots though. Actually, I got pretty much what I wanted last night anyway, so other than being able to use my video camera, it's mainly an academic discussion now.

Also, they are not taping and selling the tape, according to the director, because "their hands are tied by copyright". This is why I think somehow it's coming from the play's source.

12/01/2006 02:58:07 PM · #27
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Also, they are not taping and selling the tape, according to the director, because "their hands are tied by copyright". This is why I think somehow it's coming from the play's source.

Yes, the play's publisher often places severe restrictions on the use of the script, though whether prohibiting the group from taping itself for private archival/educational non-commercial use is really legally valid is a different fight ...
 12/01/2006 03:11:48 PM · #28
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Also, they are not taping and selling the tape, according to the director, because "their hands are tied by copyright". This is why I think somehow it's coming from the play's source.

Yes, the play's publisher often places severe restrictions on the use of the script, though whether prohibiting the group from taping itself for private archival/educational non-commercial use is really legally valid is a different fight ...

Theatres are almost always allowed to tape a performance for archival purposes. They're probably not often allowed to tape and sell copies of it, though.

Some theatre companies will make dubs of their archival copy for cast members and designers. Can't hurt to ask.
 12/03/2006 12:43:53 AM · #29
I asked last night, and it appears it's the theater's board of director's which is enforcing the letter of the "contract". According to them, the contract prohibits them from taking video or still photographs during the performance.

I believe this is a non-profit theater, run by a volunteer, unpaid board. I doubt I'll ever go the distance to get to see that contract, but I'm still very curious to see how (and why) a contract for a play would prohibit still photography. Maybe someday I'll join the board...
 12/03/2006 01:21:20 AM · #30
In reality, copyright doesn't prevent you from photographing such a show. However, it is within the right of the venue to ask you to not photograph. They may have a legally binding contract not to photograph in return for a copyright license.

They can't stop you from photographing, however, they can ask you to leave premises and if you refuse you will find yourself facing tresspassing charges.

Now, if it is an open venue, or say it's an event at a venue which happens to be visible from your porch using you 600mm IS lens. In this case, there is nothing they can do. You are within your right to photograph and they have no means to ask you to leave. Thus you are within your liberty.

It does get a bit cloudy with regards to the fascimile reproduction of registered art work. (ie: I take a photo of a painting. Then try to sell prints. I believe such is questionable.)

In truth, copyright law is a very blurry thing. There are a variety of variables. Most of the time it really comes down to who's the judge. (ie: there was a copyright case regarding bootlegged live recordings of shows. The copyright holders filed their case based on a law but because they did so they lost their case. The law they used for their case did not provide a term limit. The defense argued that by the Constitution; copyright is required to have a term limit. Since the law did not define a term limit it was unconstitutional and therefore the judge saw the law as invalid and not legally binding.

However, a different judge in the same situation could have easily decided differently.

*shrug*

12/03/2006 02:44:58 PM · #31
As has been mentioned before, the play is subject to copyright. You would be in breach of copyright if you made a copy without permission from the relevant rights holders in several ways.

The playwright owns the copyright to the text of the play. A performance of the play is itself a copy of the text, meaning that the performance must be licensed in order to be put on. By videoing a performance, you are creating a further copy (copyright is effective even when the copy transposes the protected material from written text to a live performance or to a recording of the same text being spoken/performed).

There is also a copyright in the performance itself, which is owned by the theatre company.

There may also be copyright in any sets, costumes, music and other design elements in the performance.

A photograph captures a copy of fewer of these elements than video: it does not copy the performance or the text, but it may still copy sets, costumes and other design elements.

You would be in breach of copyright if you took video or stills footage without the relevant authorisation from the rights holders.

As has been mentioned, there are also reasons other than copyright that you may be prevented from taking photos: the owner of the theatre can admit you on certain conditions, such as not taking video/photos (ignoring this instruction would put you in breach of contract). Also, because the play is itself a copy of the original text (transposed to the medium of live performance), the play is put on subject to a licence from the playwright. That licence probably includes terms on what further copying (video or stills) may be made, and is likely to prohibit them beyond promotional shots (if the theatre company allowed you to take photographs then the theatre company would be in breach of contract). This is probably the "contract" being spoken of.

theSaj is wrong to suggest that the play is not covered by copyright, and wrong to say that you would be within your rights to take photos from public ground without authorisation (this would still be in breach of copyright, the same as copying a movie through the open doors of a cinema). He is also wrong to say that the position is cloudy when copying artwork (it is quite clear - but this is a different issue), or that copyright is a blurry thing. The issues discussed here are very basic issues; the details or particular circumstances can be complex and subject to debate, but the basics are well established and understood.
 12/05/2006 02:19:17 PM · #32
Thanks for the info, especially the detailed, legal analysis Matthew (I presume from your username you are a lawyer).

Of course, I accept the judgement of the theater and the contract, but I do think it's a bit silly considering you have a lot of people who have invested a significant amount of time, without pay, and they can't even have a keepsake of their performance (especially the director; if I were a director, I would insist on a taped copy of anything I produced.)

But when we start talking about copyright of ordinary objects in the world, like clothing and buildings, I think copyright is going to far.
For the sake of discussion, if I can generalize:

1) You probably can't take a picture of a model in designer clothing, or maybe even everyday clothing, without manufacturer permission, as I'm pretty sure that that's copyright.

2) Most famous buildings would also be excluded from being included in photographs, at least if they are copyrighted architecturally. Hmmm, I wonder if the white house is included. I bet that's then the most commonly abused copyright.

3) Artwork, of course, would no doubt be a violation, even sculpture. I wonder if that includes one of the most photographed artworks/buildings, the Statue of Liberty? Oh, and what about the artwork that adorns the outside of buildings?

4) Bridges are probably out too.

5) Forget taking a picture at a football/baseball game, clothes, logos, team name, stadium, all probably have copyright protection. For that matter, can you take a picture of a soccer ball or other ball? It's probably got a copyright too.

So I guess that pretty much leaves us all shooting natural landscapes. Just make sure it's public property. Oh, I guess naked people are ok too (with permission, of course) ;)

Sorry if my list sounds a bit tongue and cheek, I realize it's serious business, but in fact, I think copyright protection is out of hand when we can't shoot "everyday objects", especially for private or artistic use. Looking through our portfolios, if some of the above list is correct, I guess we are all copyright violaters :( Perhaps it's time to start rethinking copyright law. (I am pretty sure patent law is also "out of hand", especially relating to patents on software and internet shopping!)

12/05/2006 02:26:33 PM · #33
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Sorry if my list sounds a bit tongue and cheek...

I like your use of the phrase "tongue and cheek", avoiding copyright issues with the use of the well-known "tongue in cheek". ;-)

I agree on both copyright and patents being out of control - or too much in control, I should say. But my understanding about most of your examples relates to the commercial use of the images.
 12/05/2006 02:30:58 PM · #34
Originally posted by nshapiro:
1) You probably can't take a picture of a model in designer clothing, or maybe even everyday clothing, without manufacturer permission, as I'm pretty sure that that's copyright.


Ummm, I'm sorry ma'am. Are those from The Gap? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to take your clothes off so I don't violate copyright.

Originally posted by nshapiro:
So I guess that pretty much leaves us all shooting natural landscapes. Just make sure it's public property. Oh, I guess naked people are ok too (with permission, of course) ;)


I hear God's got a legal team working on this...
 12/05/2006 02:39:55 PM · #35
Originally posted by nshapiro:


But when we start talking about copyright of ordinary objects in the world, like clothing and buildings, I think copyright is going to far.


Thanks - the advice I gave was quite generic and very much an overview of the principles at work.

Luckily, there are quite a few exceptions. For example, there is an exception permitting the copying of buildings into a different medium (eg photos or painting, although building a replica building would be in breach). There are usage exceptions (such as reporting, education etc). There are implied and explicit licences (eg when a museum allows photography). There are also many practical limitations (the remedy for breach of copyright tends to be an order to account for any illicit profits made or costs caused - no profit = limited remedies).

I think that your experience reflects the tight control that publishers (who normally have assigned to them the rights of the playwright) like to exert over plays. Plays don't make a lot of money through the sale of the texts: the value is in the performance. It is therefore more tightly regulated than you might otherwise expect.
12/05/2006 03:08:56 PM · #36
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by nshapiro:


But when we start talking about copyright of ordinary objects in the world, like clothing and buildings, I think copyright is going to far.


Thanks - the advice I gave was quite generic and very much an overview of the principles at work.

I think the basic generic principle of copyright restricts what you can do with a photo, not whether you can take it. Taking a photo from a public place is legal (in the USA). Employing it for commercial use without a release is not legal -- this would include selling it as a stock image, using it in an ad, making greeting cards, etc. Putting a print in your family photo album to document the event violates no one's copyright.

Copyright law was applied to buildings in the USA in 1986 -- older buildings are pretty much fair game, especially public buildings and structures.



The restrictions on photographing on private property (e.g., in the theatre) have to do with property and contract law, and have really nothing to do with copyright itself.

You can pretty much learn all about US Copyright law via these links and the available books/materials. The actual regulations/instructions and all necessary forms are available free as PDF files directly from the US Copyright Office.

Photographer's Rights (free flyer, comprehensive book for sale)
Nolo Press (self-help legal books -- check out the IP law/business packages)

*Important Note: The chocolatier re-opened last month; more updates soon!
 12/05/2006 08:25:40 PM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think the basic generic principle of copyright restricts what you can do with a photo, not whether you can take it. Taking a photo from a public place is legal (in the USA). Employing it for commercial use without a release is not legal -- this would include selling it as a stock image, using it in an ad, making greeting cards, etc. Putting a print in your family photo album to document the event violates no one's copyright.


I don't think that this is quite right, although it may be a technical rather than a practical issue in most situations. One of the handy things about copyright is the fact that it is applied in very similar guise worldwide thanks to worldwide conventions.

The US public place exception relates to architecture and specifically permits photographs of architecture:

Originally posted by US Legislation:
"§ 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works66

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."


Similar provisions exist in other WIPO/Berne Convention signatory nations.

This means that architecture is not copyright protected in these circumstances, so photographs of buildings will not be in breach because there is no copyright to be breached. It does not mean that there is some broader licence to breach copyright if you are in a public place. You could not, for example, use your camera to photograph each page of a book just because you found it on a park bench.

Similarly, other forms of copyright persist even if they are in a public place. In practice, however, and especially if there is no cost consequence, it is unlikely that you would (or possibly could) be prevented from taking photos for your private use.

Breach of copyright happens when you unlawfully create a copy (ie take the photo). It only matters what you do with the photo because that will affect the remedy available to the rights holder (eg the size of any fine or compensation payable).

I was commenting on my generalisation of the law because I have used quite a lot of non-technical shorthand when describing how, for example, performance rights operate.


12/05/2006 09:13:27 PM · #38
Fair Use Doctrine from the Copyright Office.

Note the points of emphasis concerning disribution, actual harm to the copyright-holder, and the use for making a record of an "event."
 12/06/2006 04:38:15 AM · #39
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Fair Use Doctrine from the Copyright Office.

Note the points of emphasis concerning disribution, actual harm to the copyright-holder, and the use for making a record of an "event."


As someone has already mentioned, the fair use doctrine is relatively restricted - eg the "event" recording exception that you refer to is only applicable where the inclusion of copyrighted material is the subject of a report where its inclusion is incidental and fortuitous in a newsreel or broadcast.

It is a question of fact in each instance whether or not a reproduction comes within the fair use doctrine, but it is fairly restrictively interpreted.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/18/2025 05:53:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/18/2025 05:53:26 AM EDT.