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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What do you think of this "no photography" issue?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 93 of 93, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/11/2009 11:18:24 AM · #76
Originally posted by Schnitzer17:
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.


Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.

To be honest......I'm mostly lamenting what seems to be the loss of common sense, and common decency, in the world today.

Doesn't seem to be anything common about either one any more.

Sigh......
 02/11/2009 11:24:09 AM · #77
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
To be honest......I'm mostly lamenting what seems to be the loss of common sense, and common decency, in the world today.

Doesn't seem to be anything common about either one any more.

Sigh......


Well, Jeb, it seems to me that an application of common sense in this case *might* dictate that you are overreacting a tad? I mean, the proof's in how the booth holders ACT, right? Not in what *pronouncements* they make. They can go around making all the apocalyptic signs they want to, as far as I'm concerned, and maybe these DO have a deterrent effect, who knows? It's when they start wrestling photographers to the ground that I'll start screaming as loud as you, basically :-)

R.
 02/11/2009 11:26:54 AM · #78
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Gawd, I love debating you :-)

Dude, you make me tired and my head hurt......8>)

Seriously, it really is hard for me to balance the strong sense of right and wrong that I have with compassion......and I really do care for my fellow man.

Sometimes my head and my heart are at odds......8>)
 02/11/2009 11:38:58 AM · #79

Las Vegas last week, could not help myself..;p
 02/11/2009 11:50:18 AM · #80
Originally posted by alans_world:

Las Vegas last week, could not help myself..;p


Ah, no distinctive, unique photography. I imagine, public, national, overt photography would be welcome. Who writes these signs.
 02/11/2009 12:58:21 PM · #81
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Schnitzer17:
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.


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.


I figured I'd give it a shot. I'm glad you feel that way. You guys are some pretty respected members of the community, and I know I have looked upon all of your wisdom frequently in past and will continue to do so in the future.

For what it's worth.

Game on!
 02/11/2009 07:54:10 PM · #82
Originally posted by Schnitzer17:
You guys are some pretty respected members of the community

Robert, yeah......check around.....I'm a certifiable wack-job.
 02/11/2009 07:57:04 PM · #83
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Schnitzer17:
You guys are some pretty respected members of the community

Robert, yeah......check around.....I'm a certifiable wack-job.


Hey, you got MY respect, that counts for something :-)

R.
 02/11/2009 08:10:48 PM · #84
I think I'd post a sign reading 

========================================

 These copyrighted works are registered



      with the US Copyright Office



         and are subject to the



     Digital Milleneum Copyright Act



   Unauthorized reproduction may result



         in penalties of up to



       $250,000 per infringement.



   This area under video surveillance.



  â€Â˘ Thank you for your cooperation â€Â˘

=========================================
 02/12/2009 11:58:35 PM · #85
Sorry, I didn't get here yesterday, but I just read what I missed. I never expected this thread to get so involved! Great discussion.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't take a picture if a sign was posted that said,"Please no photography in booth/tent." But my sin nature sure wants to fight back when the sign makes erroneous/combative claims as in my OP, telling me what I'd be doing if I were to take a picture (the evidence that I'm "engaging in piracy" stuff and the like).

It would be great if everyone treated everyone else fairly and honestly, but I don't believe anyone is able to always do that. So we have laws to try to help protect society.

Robert, you wrote, "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."
I can understand not doing something that irritates someone else if I don't really need to or want to, but what happens when I really want to do something that will not cause anyone else harm, but that person still insists I refrain? If I stop, isn't the other person showing a lack of respect for my rights?
Perhaps my daughter is standing near this art-festival tent, and I want to photograph her right that moment for artistic reasons, or to capture a memory; am I required to not do so due to the wishes of someone else, even though I am fully within the law, and am not doing any harm to the other artist? How do we resolve instances of what might seem to be lack of respect on the part of both parties?
 02/13/2009 01:10:40 PM · #86
bump for Bear
 02/13/2009 01:22:07 PM · #87
The quote you have attributed to me was more intended for this scenario: I am photographing your artwork, specifically, you ask me not to do it, and I respond that I have the right to do it and the law is on my side. I think this would be bad behavior on my part. I think I should respect your wishes.

In the scenario you have outlined, the shoes on the other foot: you're clearly photographing your daughter, the booth is incidental to the image, and the booth-holder is being an ass if he insists you cease and desist.

I'm just looking for some common sense here, basically.

R.
 02/13/2009 01:29:12 PM · #88
I agree about wanting some common sense. And I agree with your scenarios.
I think I just don't think the sign-poster and/or sign-maker is adressing the issue the best way.

But what if the booth guy thinks I used my daughter as a cover to shoot his work? I say, "No I didn't." He says, "Delete the photo; see my sign?"

Message edited by author 2009-02-13 13:31:28.
 02/13/2009 02:01:00 PM · #89
Originally posted by dahved:
I agree about wanting some common sense. And I agree with your scenarios.
I think I just don't think the sign-poster and/or sign-maker is adressing the issue the best way.

But what if the booth guy thinks I used my daughter as a cover to shoot his work? I say, "No I didn't." He says, "Delete the photo; see my sign?"


Then you walk. Politely. If he tries to detain you physically, he'll be in a world of hurt, legally.

R.
 02/13/2009 04:30:28 PM · #90
Sounds like a plan. Thanks for your answers.
 04/08/2009 09:44:20 AM · #91
I made the sign.

Such heated words, but how many people have actually READ my original page?

Please see the article (text pasted below) from that page which puts the whole situation in context. There actually IS a significant problem with painters and art-potters having concepts and designs pirated by overseas factories who hire people to visit high-end festivals with cams in order to scoop content. Taking my words out of context is not helpful. Please read entirely before continuing to call those of us who've spent thousands establishing a foothold in our profession such names as paranoid, liars, etc:

START COPIED TEXT FROM //www.artandjunk.com/artsvcs-page-04.htm.

(the sign)
WHAT IS THIS FOR?

THE PROBLEM

Artists: has it happened to you? You’re exhibiting at an art fair, someone snaps a photo of your artwork and hurries away without talking to you and without taking a business card –so obviously no interest in actually buying your wares later. Not from the press either; they would have collected your name and contact information. What just happened? Often enough, it is a random act, but with increasing frequency –ESPECIALLY AT TOP NATIONAL SHOWS– your designs are being photographed for use by a factory for later mass production.

Mostly overseas, these factories have the capability to design their own work or to surf the web for inspiration, but they don’t have a direct feel on the pulse of what is selling this season in major markets. Well, that’s where (likely unknowingly) you come in. Artists who have been juried into a top art fair and who can afford to pay the $200-$700 fee to set up a tent outdoors ~must~ be selling enough of their designs to be a financial success at least to some degree. These are the designs that the copyright-pirate factories want to replicate for mass-production.

Many artists have been driven out of business by such underhanded activity. “I know a fellow who spent over $20,000 on lawyers and court costs fighting those guysâ€Â¦.he’s out of business now,” said a long-time traveling artist exhibiting in Portsmouth, VA in 2007. At the 2007 Boardwalk show in Virginia Beach, VA, a potter said, “I can go into any Pier One sort of store and find artwork by artists I know, except it wasn’t made by those artists –it is factory madeâ€Â¦.one of my original designs got stolen too; I don’t make it anymore.” Lead-tainted toys, “knockoff” designer goods, poisonous pet food, questionable pills, and counterfeit watches aren’t the only tainted goods coming out of China’s sweatshops.


COPYRIGHT-PIRATE METHODS OBSERVED

Digital cameras, cel-cams, and video cameras are the usual tools –the better to email the results back to China, Taiwan, or Mexico. Art fairs most likely to be pirated are outdoor shows in major market areas without a fixed point-of-entry (beachside art shows, urban parks, and other sites where public access from multiple directions is easy). Fenced shows where visitor bags are screened are less likely targets. Indoor shows with restricted access (bag checks and limited entry points) are least likely. Indoor shows with unregulated access however (mall shows for instance) are more like the beach and public park shows in their vulnerability.

Anyone credentialed as event staff is certainly photographing only for event documentary or promotional purposes. A civilian who actually asks permission to snap a photo is often not considered suspicious. Someone talking on a cel phone about your work and then snapping a cel-cam photo might even be getting their distant partner’s approval for a purchase. Obviously one must be judicious when deciding whether or not to object to the photography.

Suspicious activity includes anyone not-credentialed as event staff photographing your artwork –especially if never stopping to ask permission, never taking business cards, or not talking with artists. Not-getting artist contact info is a giveaway that the person does not mean to buy your artwork (sure it could be an odd personal hobby, but it smells like pirate-photography). A family group uninterested in images of family members or in the local scenery –just focusing on artwork products only– is suspicious; the technique has been used before. Some pirate-photographers will snap every tent (except of course the food vendors and the info tents) while others paid by media-specific factories will only shoot the paintings and flat media –or perhaps only ceramics, only glass, or only jewelry.

Legitimate news media photographers would at least get your name (unless taking a wide-shot of the overall crowd rather than photographing artwork on exhibit). One suspicious man was observed wearing a newspaper-logo golf shirt and a generic photo ID card neckbadge at a 2007 costal Virginia art fair. An artist’s spouse (who happens to work in the news media) recognized the ID as non-standard and also had seen similar shirts available as premiums for newspaper subscribers. When questioned, the “news” photographer admitted that he was not working for the news and shortly afterward hastily excused himself from the venue. Until then, the photographer was often greeted with smiles, waves, and peace-signs from unsuspecting artists who were perhaps pleased that they’d be in for some “publicity”. Maybe not the sort of publicity they expected.

Copyright-pirate photographers often appear as a team. One partner can partly screen the boothkeeper’s view of the cameraholder and can also look ahead for possible trouble while the photographer’s eye is busy with the viewfinder. Also, having a partner makes for easier intimidation if the (usually lone) boothkeeper decides to confront.

Use of family and children has been observed. The practice harkens back to the documented cases of itinerant pickpockets in Europe who train their children in the techniques. The kids steal until caught, then a parent (observing from a distance) suddenly appears on-scene and roughly scolds the child while promising the duped tourist that severe punishment awaits at home (of course, it actually doesn’t). In the unlikely even that police are summoned, the child is too young for any substantive official response. At a top US oceanside art fair, exhibitors saw a phalanx of stern adults (perhaps mom, dad, and an uncle) striding along right outside artists’ tents –effectively wedging other viewers out of the way of the approaching camera. Following closely were three children –one holding a video camera and the others seeming to keep watch. Another adult brought up the rear. It would have been strange “family vacation” footage: no beach, no seagulls, no family –just a rolling close-up on the hot products at the popular art fair.

Reluctance –especially angry reluctance– to delete images taken without your permission is the biggest red flag of all. A typical innocent civilian will just meekly comply. Pirate-photographers often haughtily claim First Amendment privileges, say that this is public property, suddenly “forget” how their own camera’s delete function works, or just challenge you to “make me” delete them.

TYPICAL RESPONSES

Beginners often do nothing. Well, it’s easy –and what’s to lose if a foreign factory mass-produces your work? Those with more experience and with higher market value however often bristle at the thought.

For the most part, notifying event organizers is pointless. They’re busy. They don’t know the problem exists. Those who do know have a vested interest in denial: keeps their job easier, keeps them out of possible legal snags (what IF your design WERE someday actually courtroom-proven to be stolen and maybe the show knew about the problem and failed to do anything about it: possible liability –better to “have no idea”).

Notifying event volunteers is especially vexing. Older volunteers will likely say they know nothing about today’s computer gadgets. Young volunteers will be too busy using today’s computer gadgets to want to deal with your interruption –they want to get back to texting their friends and downloading more i-music. Either way, your volunteer will either say, “uh I don’t think we can do anything about that” or, “I don’t know about that –let me find (whatever name) and ask.” If this next person is found, the cycle repeats –or the next person will refer you to an event organizer. From there, see the part above about event-organizers. Pointless. Maybe save such comments for written follow-up after the show.

SUGGESTED RESPONSES

Print out some of the signs which are available at the top of this page. There is no charge for exhibiting artists or for art fair staff to print and use the signs. Make more for your exhibitor-neighbors at the show or for exhibitors who ask about the posted signs. You certainly could print a few extras to give to the organizers to post at the show entry points (odds are they’ll decline, but it is worth a try).

Don’t roll over if a suspected pirate-photographer cites the First Amendment or public places. It may indeed be a temporarily-closed city street or public beach border you’re showing on, but almost always the “public” land is temporarily rented by private-sector show organizers (or at least by a municipal sub-department) and THEIR rules apply during the show. (Like notice how show visitors had to pay $6 to walk in to the art fair? Not usually a toll-street, is it? The show’s rules apply while the show is renting the public land.) Further, YOU are renting the 10x10 boothspace from the show organizers; to the extent that you post and apply them, some of YOUR rules apply to your space. You post a “no photography” sign with reasonable conditions, and many jurisdictions will support your no-photography assertions.

Organize. Talk up the issue with your exhibitor neighbors. Those who are already aware and concerned will likely appreciate an extra set of eyes watching their goods (and vice versa) when in need of a break or just whenever throughout the show. Those who were previously-uninformed might appreciate the tip. Informed exhibitors can approach suspicious photographers together. Until event-organizers actually do get serious about artists’ rights, unity (at least among neighbors) makes for a much better defense.

Practice mentally. Confrontation is stressful. Train for it. Remember, it isn’t like you’re going to lose a sale. Those photographing every tent and taking no business cards for later follow-up contact just aren’t there to buy your art. What will you say? Will you even distract yourself with whatever verbal objections a pirate-photographer throws at you to save himself –or will you first see that the images of your items are deleted and then discuss legal fine points afterward –if you feel like it? Would you grasp the camera strap? Would you say that you’ll need to see the images of your artwork deleted; you can read this sign if you like, but the pictures have to go? Will you get into a verbal power struggle? After all, a real pirate-photographer will NEVER say “oh yes quite right, I actually AM getting paid a hundred bucks to get pictures I can e-mail to a factory.” Not going to happen. They’ll say it is a personal hobby, they’ll cite freedom of expression, they’ll fuss, they won’t admit a thing. Actual innocent civilians will usually comply straight away.

Its your call.

Either way, without a “no photography” sign, you’d likely have less of a basis to argue. Print it, share it, inform, organize, and be vigilant.


THE SIGN TEXT


NO PHOTOGRAPHY

NO PHOTOS, NO VIDEO OF ARTWORK WITHOUT ATTENDANT'S PERMISSION

ATTEMPTING TO PHOTOGRAPH ARTWORK WITHOUT ATTENDANT'S PERMISSION :

1) SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN COPYRIGHT PIRACY AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION;

2) SHALL CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO SURRENDER THE IMAGE/S BY REVIEW AND DELETION, BY EXPOSING FILM, OR BY SURRENDERING THE CAMERA;

3) SHALL CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION TO ATTENDANT.

DOES NOT APPLY TO EVENT STAFF, SECURITY, OR TO CREDENTIALED NEWS MEDIA ON ASSIGNMENT.

Sign courtesy of ARTandJUNK.com art show artists' anti-piracy services. Distribute freely. ARTandJUNK.com disclaims liability from use of the sign.

END SIGN TEXT


Note: free-distribution of the sign and/or the sign’s original images is intended only for exhibiting artists and for event-organizers. Commercial printing and/or use in part or in whole in ways meant to be sold is not authorized and may be subject to legal action. Those wishing to sell the sign in any form must negotiate with authorized ARTandJUNK.com agent/s for terms

END COPIED TEXT FROM //www.artandjunk.com/artsvcs-page-04.htm.

So there you go.
Please keep it civil.
I have nothing further to say about this.

04/08/2009 12:05:33 PM · #92
Originally posted by ARTandJUNK-dot-com:
I have nothing further to say about this.


Then why bother posting? Serious question...

The simple solution is not to display stuff in a public space.... IMO this stuff about cracking down on photos is nonsense (whether your example or terrorism.. both are excuses for other purposes)... There are ample methods to go after people who use images for commercial purposes... not perfect and not cheap but there are options.

There should be no expectation of privacy in a public place. Now using your images for commercial purposes should be and is illegal and there are actions that can be taken. I just don't get why one group thinks they have the right to restrict the public non illegal acts of another group. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... I object to be cast as guilty when doing nothing wrong.

Edit: Cause I cannot sprell for knuts.

Message edited by author 2009-04-08 12:07:34.
 04/08/2009 01:11:09 PM · #93
Originally posted by robs:
Edit: Cause I cannot sprell for knuts.


lol try firefox! it underlines the misspelled words :P

more on topic: i have an artist friend who displays his work in a few galleries and often does art shows, etc. next time i see him, i'm going to ask his opinion on this sort of thing. he's not really the paranoid type, and i know he hasn't had objections to people photographing him and his work in the past.

i found ARTandJUNK-dot-com wall of text to be kind of offensive at times, and i have a lot of problems with the content and how it is presented. my major concern is it lacks any sort of citation for all the "facts" and relies purely on anecdotal evidence. it's basically a form of fear mongering that creates unrest and ill feelings towards anyone with a camera, even children. my anecdotal evidence above states the opposite and i'm sure i could write an amazing essay about why it's great when someone photographs your artwork, especially if i don't have to cite any sources. i'm not calling anyone a liar, i'm just saying there is little evidence provided. i'm sure to a certain extent this could and does happen, but without some sort of statistics to back it up, i'm going to assume it's not as big of a problem as we are being told. of course, it's something that ARTandJUNK-dot-com feels very passionately about, and i applaud him/her for putting forth the effort to spread the word to unsuspecting people. i just wish it was presented a little differently.

that being said, i think GeneralE's sign is way less confrontational and just as effective. if i saw a sign like ARTandJUNK-dot-com's, i wouldn't even enter the booth which might result in a missed sale, etc. not to sound like an internet tough guy, but if you try to pull film out of my camera, or even look at the pictures i've taken on an lcd, i'm going to call the police. i'd rather just avoid any person who thinks they are within their rights to do so.

the artandjunk.com contact page made me lol. gmail has a good spam filter, but i suppose your way is the most effective.

ugh, my own wall of text. this is what happens when i don't enter a challenge and don't have an update button to mash...

this thread is an entertaining read though, just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 08:20:00 PM

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: 08/13/2025 08:20:00 PM EDT.