What do you think of this "no photography" issue?

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

02/08/2009 11:07:54 PM · #51

Wow, I didn't intend to get this discussion to get so riled up. I was just noting that it seemed the artist was taking a stance that seemed to be open to acting somewhat like a bully. And curious if there might be any legal standing in the idea that an open-air festival might not be public as suggested by the sign distributor.

No, I don't like piracy, whether it be internet, DVD, music, or the original kind on the high seas.

But I also agree with those who have posted here that aggressively confronting someone taking shots is wrong, especially if it is suggested that you might want to grab the photog's camera strap.

Bear and littlegett, I didn't intend to communicate that photographers ought to be rude to people who may be in my photo. But I also do agree that being out in public, by yourself or with your art, means you are opening yourself up to be photographed, at least in the US.

It does seem more likely that just making a purchase and then (illegally) replicating the art would be easier than doing it from a quick snap. Of course, maybe the pirates have their own artists who can form a new "original" for illegal reproductions from a quickly snapped shot.

By the way, the artist who posted the sign...? He/she/they were selling photographs... some were hand-colored.

Message edited by author 2009-02-08 23:14:54.

Photomom1981

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/08/2009 11:18:37 PM · #52

so.. here's a though... it was an art show right? so i assume some paints of places and or people correct maybe a flower or object of some sort that they saw SOMEWHERE in which the created a painting... so tech. they stole an image too by doing someting very similar to what you were doing are they not? sooo what right do they have to say put your camera down, no pictures... next time you see them out painting a lake or something it would be like someone walking over and saying hey you can't set up your pallet here..

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

02/08/2009 11:41:12 PM · #53

Originally posted by Photomom1981:

Yeah, I started thinking like that, too. After all, building are designed by architects, so don't take a picture with buildings in it...and if you see landscaping, a landscape artist might not want you to take a photo of that, either. Cars are designed, of course, and the clothes people wear, soo... :-)
I just want to take some photos (not to sell or pirate) in public without worrying about possible threats to me or my stuff for doing that.

So, I don't take photos of other people's kids at the playground as a common courtesy so other parents don't get concerned. (I'm also only there with my own kids.)
BTW, for the sake of full disclosure, I did call the police once when my neighbor told me how a car stopped in front of our house and seemed to snap some shots of my pre-school kids who were in our garage with my wife (who may have been out of the photog's view from that angle). The person taking my report wanted to know why I waited so long to call in (about 45-60 minutes). That was because I called after I got home from work and talked with my neighbor.

Message edited by author 2009-02-08 23:42:59.

digographerxo

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 II USM

02/09/2009 07:47:29 AM · #54

A solution to the problem: Put up signs on your artwork racks stating; "Photos may be taken of my art work for a fee of $25.00 per image capture, payable to the artist, in advance, in cash."

02/09/2009 08:04:45 AM · #55

Originally posted by digographerxo:

A solution to the problem: Put up signs on your artwork racks stating; "Photos may be taken of my art work for a fee of $25.00 per image capture, payable to the artist, in advance, in cash."

HA HA HA that's funny.

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

02/09/2009 10:07:56 PM · #56

Yeah, maybe those kinds of signs could be posted on anything designed/created by anybody. :-)

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/09/2009 10:58:02 PM · #57

Ok...shoe on the other foot argument...What if it was your booth and you were selling prints of your photos. Some person with a nice camera comes up and starts taking close-up photos of just your prints...not wide shots of the booth or art area in general, just close-up shots of your prints. Wouldn't you get upset about that and try to stop them?

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

02/10/2009 09:56:32 PM · #58

I believe I already mentioned this earlier after Bear's comment; I suppose I wouldn't like it, but it's legal, and I wouldn't think it right for me to go and demand they delete the pics, or touch the person or his/her equipment. (My original post asked about just taking a shot or shots from outside his tent, and how the stuff on the sign was a bit overboard.)

02/10/2009 11:04:03 PM · #59

Originally posted by sher:

I might ask them nicely what they're doing or engage them in a conversation, but I'm not going to chase them down, making ridiculous demands or grabbing at them or their camera. I might take a picture of them while I'm at it, just in case. The point is that the infringement doesn't occur until the illegal work is published, so even if you suspected they were going to do something illegal with your work, there's really nothing you can do.

Snake

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for Nikon

02/10/2009 11:37:31 PM · #60

I did eight shows last year and only ran into that problem once, but it was a kid (probably 17 or so) and it didn't bother me to much and it was a point & shoot. It actually made me feel pretty good. I do think if someone came in with a D300 and started taking close ups I would just strike a conversation with them and maby ask them to quit. Usally on a good night I'll have about 2500-3000 people come to my gallery. So I would say that it is very rare to run into this. Most people are respectfull.

02/10/2009 11:44:44 PM · #61

Originally posted by sher:

1. Wasn't the issue or the point of the original post.

2. Have you EVER seen that happen?

I have a fundamental problem with the way people want to shut out photographers regardless of what's right, legal, or decent, especially when they cite fairly paranoid reasoning and rationale for it, while denying the rights of the photographer trying to justify a "What if" scenario.

Snake

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for Nikon

02/11/2009 12:11:56 AM · #62

OK if I'm selling in my show a 24x36 of the Lindenwood Farm for $400. How do I make any sales if I allow just anyone to just take whatever pictures they want. Maby I should invite them to bring thier tripods and I could provide studio lighting.

david1707

Nikon D90

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

02/11/2009 05:03:53 AM · #63

I think it is just polite to ask before you shoot someone elses work. When I was in Amsterdam last year I came across a cute little gallery. Wonderful work on huge canvas. It was run and owned by the two artists. I let him know their work was fabulous and asked if I could photograph it. The one artist there was so nice he even took me into the basement to show me more of their work. He also knew that my wife and I had no intension of purchacing anything. I think if I wouldn't have asked the situation could have been different. This wasn't the last time I have done this. Granted, it wasn't in a public setting though. I have been at Christmas markets here in Germany and asked if I could shoot someones work and been told no. I respect that even though I could legally photograph their work in a public place.

For me this also goes for street photography. If I am ever asked to delete a photo from someone I will gladly do it. Why, because it is the right thing to do for me. Just remember that golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens

02/11/2009 07:30:33 AM · #64

Schnitzer17

02/11/2009 07:58:56 AM · #65

Wow...This definitely rivals the "elecricity" debate we had a month or two ago.

digographerxo

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 II USM

02/11/2009 08:10:03 AM · #66

Rather than being part of a roving band of IP pirates, I think it's far more likely that the person taking pictures of someone's artwork is more likely to be an admirer of the work who cannot afford to purchase it and is, for one reason or another, too timid to approach the artist.

That doesn't give him/her justification for photographing the art work. It might be more considerate of the person to ask the photographer if he/she can take a photo of the work--with reasons stated to the photographer.

02/11/2009 08:16:33 AM · #67

I'm still trying to figure out what it is about this discussion that keeps having people go into completely irrelevant "What if" scenarios.

Is there the remotest chance the original issue could be discussed?

I think we can stipulate that the righteously indignant here would not like to have someone come up, set up a tripod, and take a shot of the magnificent image that you have on display at a local street fair so that they can sell it to a Chinese factory that will make $1.2 billion in sales from it.

Like that would actually happen........I still doubt the veracity of that whole argument.

So.....back to.....

Doesn't what this website is proposing to do get your righteous indignation up about violating our rights to freely walk around without fear of being hassled at a public event, simply for carrying your camera around to get that interesting scene that seems to happen out and about?

Message edited by author 2009-02-11 08:17:01.

02/11/2009 08:37:41 AM · #68

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You know, this really rankles me. Here you've got an organization of affiliated artists who sell their work at crafts fairs, and they have determined that there IS a problem, and they are trying to do something about it.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable for you to expostulate as heatedly as you wish to on how their "solution" is infringing on our "rights" as photographers. I have no beef with that. You may even be right.

But *WHY*, in the name of all that's holy, do you find it necessary to include the bolded sentence above? Why do you think YOUR uninformed, gut reaction somehow trumps the concerns of people who are, presumably, living witht he problem? You've just called a whole group of people liars: to what end?

Come on Jeb, it's stuff like this that completely undermines otherwise-rational arguments.

R.

02/11/2009 08:51:42 AM · #69

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Hey, be as indignant as you want, feel free to support their intent to quash photographers' rights for the few isolated incidents here and there......which have still not been specifically identified.

You know perfectly well that the percentage of incidents is off-the-charts low statistically, and to prohibit photographers in a blanket manner is censorship and rights violation at its basest.

Not to mention the fact that its not PHOTOGRAPHERS who are the offenders anyway......it's people taking pictures for the express purpose of corporate piracy.

I very much have an issue with this situation.

And no, I'm not saying that this is a made up story, NOT calling people liars; feel free NOT to extrapolate my intent; but I'd like to see actual quoted incidents and examples rather than just vague generalizations.

But if that's okay with you, then I'll certainly stand down.

Perhaps what ought to be done is a registry/society of responsible, law-abiding photogs who voluntarily agree to a set of standards within the artists' community, NOT take images of otherts' work to be used in an inappropriate manner.......you know, wear a tag around the neck with the creds prominently displayed......then if you're seen at a show, the powers-that-be know that you're not a threat to anyone's livelihood.

But then there'd be a million dollar industry counterfeiting the IDs, right?

Sheesh!

02/11/2009 08:59:57 AM · #70

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Doesn't what this website is proposing to do get your righteous indignation up about violating our rights to freely walk around without fear of being hassled at a public event, simply for carrying your camera around to get that interesting scene that seems to happen out and about?

So, going back to the original post, I'd acknowledge that the language they are using gets a little draconian. Particularly the bullshit part about "constitutes prima facie evidence on intent to commit piracy" or however it was worded exactly. But in the end, the test for me is how this is "enforced", if at all. If I had posses of angry booth-holders chasing me with pitchforks because I had the temerity to carry a camera through their craft fair, I'd be a little annoyed. But I doubt that's what they intend, and I doubt that's what's happening.

Instead, I try to put myself in the booth-holder's shoes and think how I'd be feeling if some stranger steps up to my booth, without a word of acknowledgment to me, takes a photograph of my 20x24 artwork from 3 feet away, then walks on down the lane. You can't tell me that wouldn't annoy you, Jeb... You can't tell me you think that's a reasonable thing for someone to be doing. Because *IT'S NOT*. Period. If you think it is, then you've lost all respect for indvidual rights and for common decency.

If you argue that the law permits it, so it's OK to do it, you are reinforcing what I just said; because any time an individual uses the law, or even logic, to justify doing something that is irritating or intrusive to others, then s/he's showing a serious lack of respect for individual rights.

Let me be clear on that: in MY world "individual rights" doesn't mean I can do whatever I want, but rather that I should respect the idea that a thing ought not be done if it's bothering other individuals. That's the way things *used* to be (it's called "being polite") before the whole American journey took a wrong turn (if I may engage in a little hyperbole here).

So, directly to the point: in MY world it's reasonable for the booth holder to feel violated it individuals seem to be *copying* the artwork, and speaking for myself I wouldn't dream o doing that, ever. I wouldn't expect to be able to walk into a gallery and photograph the art on the walls that's for sale, and I wouldn't dream of photographing individual works in a crafts fair without seeking permission first. Personally, I wouldn't worry about someone shooting "street scenes" that happen to include my gallery, and I'm pretty sure that's not what this whole campaign is about.

So I'm not reacting well to your hectoring about the "right" of the photographer to shoot whatever the heck he wants to shoot as long as he's standing on public property. My "right" to move my fist stops when it approaches your nose. If I'm running a booth and selling a certain image for $50 as an 8x10, $350 as a 20x24, and someone snaps a closeup of the big image with a good camera, haven't they essentially "stolen" at least $50 from me, if they print this out as an 8x10? Isn't it reasonable of me to be suspicious of that sort of activity? And wouldn't a normal, socially-aware person REFRAIN from engaging in this sort of copying?

Sigh, I'm running my mouth... Sorry... I just don't understand how a rational person can take your position, as if our "right to photograph" trumps whatever annoyance or pain or disruption we may be causing by doing so. If someone doesn't want me to shoot something, I don't shoot it. Never have, never will. I'd make exceptions to that rule if the "someone" was a misinformed security person or some such, but as far as private individuals and their possessions go, that's the way I see it.

R.

02/11/2009 10:10:59 AM · #71

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm still trying to figure out what it is about this discussion that keeps having people go into completely irrelevant "What if" scenarios.

Is there the remotest chance the original issue could be discussed?

I think we can stipulate that the righteously indignant here would not like to have someone come up, set up a tripod, and take a shot of the magnificent image that you have on display at a local street fair so that they can sell it to a Chinese factory that will make $1.2 billion in sales from it.

Like that would actually happen........I still doubt the veracity of that whole argument.

You know, this really rankles me. Here you've got an organization of affiliated artists who sell their work at crafts fairs, and they have determined that there IS a problem, and they are trying to do something about it.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable for you to expostulate as heatedly as you wish to on how their "solution" is infringing on our "rights" as photographers. I have no beef with that. You may even be right.

But *WHY*, in the name of all that's holy, do you find it necessary to include the bolded sentence above? Why do you think YOUR uninformed, gut reaction somehow trumps the concerns of people who are, presumably, living witht he problem? You've just called a whole group of people liars: to what end?

Come on Jeb, it's stuff like this that completely undermines otherwise-rational arguments.

R.

I saw no evidence to confirm their claim that there's a global art fair piracy ring aside from the claim made on the website. If I put up a website claiming that UFO's, Bigfoot and time-travelling monkey from the year 3046 are running rampant across the globe, do you accept that as fact?

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens

02/11/2009 10:36:33 AM · #72

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And that kind of rules out the legitimate photographer who is just cruising a street fair with his camera who is NOT there to steal artwork, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But in the end, the test for me is how this is "enforced", if at all. If I had posses of angry booth-holders chasing me with pitchforks because I had the temerity to carry a camera through their craft fair, I'd be a little annoyed. But I doubt that's what they intend, and I doubt that's what's happening.

That's part of the issue I have with all of this......there are laws on the books that do protect from copyright infringement. But they won't cross international borders in many cases......nor will this scenario they want to impose.

As it is, they gripe about the expense......do you believe that a more specific law to this effect is going to make any real difference when the legal battle happens?

The foreign corporation, if it will bother to respond at all, can just jack up the poor privateer with discovery motions and other BS 'til they waste a bunch of money......neither you or I would expend the time and money, who would? Or could!

I had an image stolen that showed up on a website in Europe.....what can I do? I cannot make a case that I was deprived of any revenue......I've never sold a 4x6 for $1, so it's certainly not going to be a case of me being anything but offended.....it's not for sale, to my knowledge, so I can't sue for the generated sales....So why do it?

So I can choose to get twisted up about it, or be flattered that someone liked my image enough to put it on their site.......or just move on and not give it any thought at all.

It was, after all, a challenge image from here so it's not even printable.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Instead, I try to put myself in the booth-holder's shoes and think how I'd be feeling if some stranger steps up to my booth, without a word of acknowledgment to me, takes a photograph of my 20x24 artwork from 3 feet away, then walks on down the lane. You can't tell me that wouldn't annoy you, Jeb... You can't tell me you think that's a reasonable thing for someone to be doing. Because *IT'S NOT*. Period. If you think it is, then you've lost all respect for indvidual rights and for common decency.

Of course I haven't lost any sense of decency, but I haven't lost my common sense, either, and realistically, I'm not worried about it.

I'm sorry, but I really just don't see this as a legitimate concern......especially at the street fair/craft show level. I know how much people make on stock images, I know how many people will whore their work out free strictly for the exposure/photo credit, and I know personally how hard it is to make money selling fine art photography.

I just don't see the burgeoning market out there for pirated work.....there's too much original & stock work that's just plain cheap.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you argue that the law permits it, so it's OK to do it, you are reinforcing what I just said; because any time an individual uses the law, or even logic, to justify doing something that is irritating or intrusive to others, then s/he's showing a serious lack of respect for individual rights.
Umm.....that's what *I'M* saying about this proposed law/restriction relative to us.

That's my stance as being on the other side of the issue.

Do you not feel that the idea is intrusive to those of us who are decent and resapectful of others?
[quote=Bear_Music]Let me be clear on that: in MY world "individual rights" doesn't mean I can do whatever I want, but rather that I should respect the idea that a thing ought not be done if it's bothering other individuals. That's the way things *used* to be (it's called "being polite") before the whole American journey took a wrong turn (if I may engage in a little hyperbole here).

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same level of ethics and decency you do. Those same unscrupulous types aren't going to be phased by a law that will be really difficult to enforce and police, either.

Let's face it......sad as it may be, polite & decent do not go hand in hand with legal and enforceable.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So, directly to the point: in MY world it's reasonable for the booth holder to feel violated it individuals seem to be *copying* the artwork, and speaking for myself I wouldn't dream o doing that, ever. I wouldn't expect to be able to walk into a gallery and photograph the art on the walls that's for sale, and I wouldn't dream of photographing individual works in a crafts fair without seeking permission first. Personally, I wouldn't worry about someone shooting "street scenes" that happen to include my gallery, and I'm pretty sure that's not what this whole campaign is about.

We're on the same side morally......I think you know that, what I worry about is
more legislation clouding the actual issue.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So I'm not reacting well to your hectoring about the "right" of the photographer to shoot whatever the heck he wants to shoot as long as he's standing on public property. My "right" to move my fist stops when it approaches your nose. If I'm running a booth and selling a certain image for $50 as an 8x10, $350 as a 20x24, and someone snaps a closeup of the big image with a good camera, haven't they essentially "stolen" at least $50 from me, if they print this out as an 8x10? Isn't it reasonable of me to be suspicious of that sort of activity? And wouldn't a normal, socially-aware person REFRAIN from engaging in this sort of copying?

Sigh, I'm running my mouth... Sorry... I just don't understand how a rational person can take your position, as if our "right to photograph" trumps whatever annoyance or pain or disruption we may be causing by doing so. If someone doesn't want me to shoot something, I don't shoot it. Never have, never will. I'd make exceptions to that rule if the "someone" was a misinformed security person or some such, but as far as private individuals and their possessions go, that's the way I see it.

R.

Call me irrational all you want, but I have legitimate fears about the way that people jump to the conclusion that you're doing something wrong when you're out in public shooting.

You know perfectly well that I have no intention of either causing someone grief, stealing their work, being rude , insensitive, or disrespectful; what I'm objecting to is the blanket type of restrictions that happen when someone gets upset about a minute percentage of a sector of the population.

And AGAIN......we're not even talking about photogs here.....we're talking about pirates, and for the same reason that you and I cannot do anything about someone who rips off our work UNTIL IT HAPPENS, and then only in civil court, how is this type of thing valid?

Why not just post a sign that states that if you find that your work is being pirated, then you will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law?

That gets your point across without asking for laws and restrictions being put onto genuine artists.

It is not within someone's rights to encroach on you/me and tell us that we cannot take a picture of something just because they THINK that we cannot.

Once a law is one the books, it's REALLY hard to get it off, and yet it's all too easy to shove something through by someone with a little power and an agenda.

I'm not quite sure why you're unwilling to see this side of the issue.....it IS a very real concern.

Here's the thing.....I'd love to stipulate that this community in general is decent and respectful of others' rights and wishes if for no other reason that we're all more aware of the issues on a global scale by virtue of our exposure to the global community. I think that's a reasonable assumption. I have also noticed on a more local level that "regular" people who don't have the same exposure tend to think on a more myopic level. It's this myopia, insularity, ignorance, whatever that frightens me.

Schnitzer17

02/11/2009 10:51:26 AM · #73

I normally don't like to get involved in this sort of thing, but can we agree to disagree when the replies in a particular thread become a half page long?

I realize that I don't have to read the thread if I don't want to. But when a discussion becomes a flame fest, it's time to take it to a PM.

My 2 cents.
Though I'll probably regret trying to keep the peace.

Message edited by author 2009-02-11 10:55:12.

02/11/2009 11:12:00 AM · #74

Originally posted by Schnitzer17:

No flaming going on here. Jeb and I understand and respect each other. I actually "like" the guy. And we enjoy hashing out these issues: we are basically on the same side but we have WAY different styles.

I *think* I'm speaking accurately for Jeb, I know I am for myself.

R.