| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2004 12:28:24 AM · #1 |
Interesting reading HERE
Some of this I was totally unaware of.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:30:45 AM · #2 |
| Interesting, thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:31:52 AM · #3 |
interesting. for the most part, the majority seems pretty boring subject matter to me tho.
Message edited by author 2004-03-08 00:32:05.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:37:13 AM · #4 |
guess im in REAL trouble.. I have photos of 7 of those items listed
here is one I have displayed on the web
Cady ranch
James
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:41:29 AM · #5 |
If all that stuff is illegal, wouldnt they ban cameras from such said places?
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:43:56 AM · #6 |
Oops, I didn't know.
Thanks for the post...I think.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:45:14 AM · #7 |
Thanks for the new "to shoot" list
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:47:23 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dsray:
Thanks for the new "to shoot" list |
Indeed! ;) |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 12:55:25 AM · #9 |
I don't think there is a problem unless you intend to profit from the photograph. I don't know how sound it is but I'm a believer that if you don't want something photographed, keep it out of the public's view. The other thing I find quite interesting is a majority on the list frequently photograph or film images of people on or near the properties mentioned, with or without their consent.
All that being said, I still think it to be very rude to photograph an individual who doesn't want their picture taken.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 02:19:45 AM · #10 |
oopps
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 05:41:55 AM · #11 |
I guess they better be hauling me off to jail 'cause I snapped this one today. Honest -- I couldn't help myself!
Message edited by author 2004-03-08 05:47:09.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 09:36:57 AM · #12 |
It is not necessarily that taking the photo is illegal, rather what you do with the photo once you've taken it.
There are 3 places to get more specific information.
1. Your copyright attorney.
2. past Article in Popular Photography & Imaging "Its the Law"
3. American Society of Media Photographer's 6th edition "Professional Business Practices in Photography" ISBN 1-58115-197-7
Flash
|
|
|
|
03/08/2004 01:16:50 PM · #13 |
Gee, I only have three or four of those. I'll have to get to the East Coast to get caught up.
I must say, it's a rather diverse grouping, and some make sense but others do not. |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 01:45:53 PM · #14 |
I can understand restrict the use of a trademarked image for commercial purposes, but I have a hard time understanding one what grounds they prevent it's use for editorial or artistic use
Message edited by author 2004-03-08 13:48:55. |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 01:59:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
I can understand restrict the use of a trademarked image for commercial purposes, but I have a hard time understanding one what grounds they prevent it's use for editorial or artistic use |
On the grounds that they can pay for better lawyers and buy more legislators than you can. |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 02:02:44 PM · #16 |
Didn't Barbara Streisand try that recently with photos of her house? If I recall correctly, not only did she have to pay her lawyers, but the lawyers of the person she sued as well.
EDIT: Found the link. Apparently, she is refusing to pay though. Link Link2
Message edited by author 2004-03-08 14:06:02. |
|
|
|
03/08/2004 02:11:56 PM · #17 |
| That's why people who value their privacy, and don't want the public to know what they're up to, buy large tracts of land in remote areas like Crawford, Texas. |
|
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: 06/10/2025 04:05:37 AM EDT.
