| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2006 03:25:37 PM · #1 |
According to eyeronik's profile, he is 6. That could speak worlds, truth or not...
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:15:30 AM · #2 |
I hope people aren't thinking eyeronic represents all Hungarians. Perhaps he really isn't (I am, though).
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 05:09:26 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by kdiverdown:
I wouldn't worry about what that guy thinks, most of his comments and posts are sarcastic and/or rude. Take the comment on the 2nd place for "Mother" challenge for instance:
"very sickly and wierd. Kissing your kids on the lips is wierd if you ask me."
--eyeronik
Thank you all for the helpful hints....Kris |
Thank you Kris I thought I was just being over sensitive.
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/12/2006 03:24:45 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Originally posted by eyeronik:
ever heard of other countries? Do people have to write so tunnel vision like |
You could just post your personal expierance if you like instead of being sarcastic. Not funny BTW or interesting. :)
Oh and did you want me to translate that into Hunguarian for you so you don't think we are so narrow minded?
Mike
Ön tudna csak felad -a személyes expierance ha ön szeret helyett lét gúnyos. Nem furcsa BTW vagy érdekes.:) Ó és akart én -hoz lefordít amit -ba Hunguarian érted tehát nem hiszed vagyunk tehát szûk látókörû? |
I wouldn't worry about what that guy thinks, most of his comments and posts are sarcastic and/or rude. Take the comment on the 2nd place for "Mother" challenge for instance:
"very sickly and wierd. Kissing your kids on the lips is wierd if you ask me."
--eyeronik
Thank you all for the helpful hints....Kris |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 08:00:08 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Check with DrAchoo he mentioned that same building, next time take the picture from the street and you should be fine.
Mike |
I was on the street when told to move on for 'national security reasons' |
I had the same thing happen to me on a trip to Dallas. It was a different building of course. I was also on a public sidewalk.
I wrote a letter explaining my experience and how disappointed I was to be made so unwelcome in the city to the Dallas City Council. I got a reply from the Police Chief citing national security and potential terrorist threat. The whole thing was basically BS. |
Was it the Bank of America building ... the one downtown with the green neon on the edges and the red statue out front ??? |
Sure was.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 07:51:35 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by eyeronik:
ever heard of other countries? Do people have to write so tunnel vision like |
You could just post your personal expierance if you like instead of being sarcastic. Not funny BTW or interesting. :)
Oh and did you want me to translate that into Hunguarian for you so you don't think we are so narrow minded?
Mike
Ön tudna csak felad -a személyes expierance ha ön szeret helyett lét gúnyos. Nem furcsa BTW vagy érdekes.:) Ó és akart én -hoz lefordít amit -ba Hunguarian érted tehát nem hiszed vagyunk tehát szűk látókörű?
Message edited by author 2006-01-11 19:51:59.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 05:20:50 PM · #7 |
| ever heard of other countries? Do people have to write so tunnel vision like |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 05:11:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Check with DrAchoo he mentioned that same building, next time take the picture from the street and you should be fine.
Mike |
I was on the street when told to move on for 'national security reasons' |
I had the same thing happen to me on a trip to Dallas. It was a different building of course. I was also on a public sidewalk.
I wrote a letter explaining my experience and how disappointed I was to be made so unwelcome in the city to the Dallas City Council. I got a reply from the Police Chief citing national security and potential terrorist threat. The whole thing was basically BS. |
Was it the Bank of America building ... the one downtown with the green neon on the edges and the red statue out front ??? |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:58:32 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
I just posted on my blog a little expierance I had yesterday shooting pictures in the Javits Center in NYC. Thought I would share this with everyone on my blog. Feel free to read it there and contact me or post there if you like.
Oh and here is something that helped me understand a little better what my rights are.
The truth about photography. |
Yet another person assuming everyones an american. Cheers. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:46:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by aronya1:
Think he'll answer the "man in the woods" question? |
I don't think so since he will not comment on a case which may come before him if he is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. The case in the works right now is "Mr. Noballs v Mrs. Hasthejewelsinavicegrip."
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:11:22 PM · #11 |
| Think he'll answer the "man in the woods" question? |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:07:50 PM · #12 |
Just in case you didn't hear, in a question asked at the Judge Alito hearings dealing with the First Amendment and freedom of expression, Judge Alito mentioned that in New Jersey (the state I live in) shopping malls have been found to be public spaces even though owned privately they are considered public spaces and can be used for freedom of expression.
Isn't that one of the things I posted earlier? Well what do you know? :) How cool is that, I wonder if they are reading our little postings here? I am sure tomorrow the transcript will be available online and I will quote the question and Judge Alito's answer.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:12:54 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=MPRPRO] If a man is in the woods talking and there are no women around, is he still wrong? |
The answer is YES!
:)))
P |
That's what I thought.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:10:51 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=MPRPRO] If a man is in the woods talking and there are no women around, is he still wrong? |
The answer is YES!
:)))
P
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 02:09:07 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
If a man is in the woods talking and there are no women around, is he still wrong? |
I wanted to make sure we don't overlook the most important question facing us today ... I say it depends on how far it is to the nearest cell phone antenna ... |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 01:27:33 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
I am taking a pill now and going to lie down.
Mike |
Don't get too stressed by it all: it is only really an issue when you are trying to sell photographs commercially, and only really when selling them for use in advertisements. Selling prints is unlikely to be sufficiently valuable for people to take much notice, unless you are dealing with a hyper-sensitive company like Disney (hint: don't try selling prints of Mickey Mouse in front of the Epcot centre!). Your liability in any case is in practice likely to be limited to the profit you make.
In respect of photos of buildings, it is generally safe to assume that you can take photographs and exploit them unless you are told otherwise.
If you it stresses you that you are being curtailed in making money from your art, then it might be a good idea to think of it the other way around: the person who designed the subject matter of your photograph only wishes to ensure that he gets paid for commercial exploitation of his "art".
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:57:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Check with DrAchoo he mentioned that same building, next time take the picture from the street and you should be fine.
Mike |
I was on the street when told to move on for 'national security reasons' |
I had the same thing happen to me on a trip to Dallas. It was a different building of course. I was also on a public sidewalk.
I wrote a letter explaining my experience and how disappointed I was to be made so unwelcome in the city to the Dallas City Council. I got a reply from the Police Chief citing national security and potential terrorist threat. The whole thing was basically BS.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:55:38 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:45:41 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Check with DrAchoo he mentioned that same building, next time take the picture from the street and you should be fine.
Mike |
I was on the street when told to move on for 'national security reasons' |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:40:52 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
FWIW, I got hassled by some rent-a-cop when I took  |
Gorden love the Fantasia BTW.
Check with DrAchoo he mentioned that same building, next time take the picture from the street and you should be fine.
Mike
Message edited by author 2006-01-11 12:43:30.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:32:30 PM · #21 |
| FWIW, I got hassled by some rent-a-cop when I took |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:31:47 PM · #22 |
Ok I believe you are a lawyer now. What a pain in the ass all this is to an artist like me. Not you Matthew the whole dam thing, are we a free people or not?
Well I am still going to take pictures and "exploit the image commercially" in my art and everyone can kiss my ass. I have a shot for sale right now on my DPC store, do I need permission for selling this picture which I took from another state all together?
I really didn't want to get into a discussion on copyright law, though I understand why you went into such detail on it. My point is, if I am in public, if I shoot a picture of something I see which is not in any case under the expectation of privacy, I can do whatever I wish with it. I can cover a wall in my house with it; I can cover a wall in your house with it if you want me to. It is public isn't it? I can look at it, if through my skills and technique I can create a piece of art from it, why can't I promote my own self interests with it? The intellectual property which makes it a piece of art is mine not the owner of the buildings or city or state I am taking a picture of. Am I nuts? Am I delusional to think I have a skill which I want to profit from by selling my interpretations of a skyline or location which is public?
I am taking a pill now and going to lie down.
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:27:26 PM · #23 |
Last christmas I was at the PPG building when they have the big tree and ice skating. I took some pictures, but a guard told me the policy was to take pictures of the tree only (and not the building). He was talking to a cop and I asked him if this was public property. The cop said that little square (between the buildings) was owned by PPG. However, the streets were public.
I took one step off the curb and set up my tripod. They just casually kept talking to each other as I snapped pictures. Of course I was polite and friendly with them... |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:12:24 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Matthew, if you choose to be offended then that is your choice. |
Sorry - should have made the smiley bigger. Of course there was no offense taken!
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
If I hire a Helocopter and do a fly over NYC and take some pictures of NYC copyright and sell them, do I need a permit from the city? Do I need a permission slip from every land owner?
If I am on vacation in NYC and take pictures in Times Square and something happens that I catch on my camera, can I copyright it? |
It may be easier to try and explain what copyright is, rather than whether it applies in specific circumstances. Copyright arises in respect of intellectual property. More than one type of right can arise in the same object. This includes: text, still & moving images, sounds, objects, and arrangements of those things. For example, in respect of a CD, there will be separate copyrights in respect of the music, the words, the typesetting of these on a page, the recording, the image on the front of the CD, the font used to type any text. Copyright will subsist in the code used to effect copy protection, or the firmware in the CD player used to play the CD. The database of CD track names would usually also attract copyright interests.
There will also be other forms of intellectual property protection: the CD itself is probably protected by a patent or other design right, the recording studio's logo will probably be a trademark, and the CD case is probably protected by a design right.
Payments are made in respect of all those rights to produce and sell a CD!
Copyright protects the specific expression of the property, not the subject matter itself. So if you record a train whistle, your recording attracts copyright, preventing others from copying your recording without your permission, but you have no "right" in respect of train whistles generally.
The basic protection that copyright affords is that you can recover losses or damages that you incur in respect of a breach of your copyright. In practice, this means that it is uneconomic for copyright rights to be enforced where the person in breach makes no money from the breach and causes you no loss. It is for this reason that the RIAA tends to attack song uploaders, who cause massive damages to the recording industry (the cost of the CD x number of downloads), rather than downloaders (the cost of one CD).
There are a number of exceptions to the application of copyright. Generally these include the use of a reasonable amount of copyrighted material for reporting purposes, for educational purposes, and certain rights in relation to technologies such as time shifting (eg using a VCR).
When you take a photograph, you are creating an image in which you retain copyright. Your rights extend to the image that you have taken/created, not the subject matter of your image. Other people can take a photograph of the same subject and recreate the image if they want and are able to, but they cannot copy your particular photograph.
Copyright in building designs extends from the 2d plans to the 3d building itself. However, there is usually an exception permitting people to make a 2d copy of the building design from the 3d model: ie you can photograph or paint a building, but you cannot reconstruct it without permission. If you wanted to release a model of the Empire State Building, for example, you would probably have to get the consent of the owners of that building (probably only given on agreement to pay a licensing fee).
I am not entirely sure on what basis the Flatiron building or Chrysler building might be protected - it may be something other than copyright. The Eiffel tower lighting arrangement is claimed to be subject to copyright, on the basis that it is a valuable creative expression and does not fall within the buildings exception under French law. Epcot centre is protected on the basis that it can only be photographed from within Disney World, on which land commercial photography is prohibited by the owner.
With buildings there is a secondary issue unrelated to copyright: the law relating to real estate. When you are present on someone else's land, your entry to that land is subject to any terms prescribed by the land owner. If you act in breach of those terms, you are liable to pay damages in respect of any loss or damage that you cause, and your permission to enter the property may be revoked (ie you get tossed out). If you were to take a photograph of the Epcot Centre while on Disney's land on terms that prohibit commercial photography (check your ticket!) and exploit it commercially, you may be liable to pay Disney in respect of their loss (their loss is the chance to sell that image themselves, and probably = your profit).
Your helicopter example is an interesting one. In the UK, there was a case dealing with aerial photographers taking pictures of people's houses from the air and then trying to sell them to the property owners door to door. They were sued for trespass - they entered the airspace owned by the property owner below without permission, and were not high enough to take advantage of the general permissions that apply to aeroplanes (the issue in that case was predominantly the annoying & very low flying aeroplanes). So you could find yourself on the end of a trespass suit! But practically, only an issue if you are trying to exploit the image commercially.
If a building that is validly protected is in your photograph, your photo may be in breach. Practical liability is probably a question of degree as to the size and prominence of the building in question in your photo, and only really an issue to the extent that you exploit the image commercially.
In respect of our captured fleeting image, you would have the copyright in your image, but would not obtain any rights over the subject matter. So another photographer at the same time could take a similar photo, but no-one could copy your image without your permission (and you could not copy his).
I think that the main difference between the UK and the US is the extent to which you must assert copyright for it to apply: in the UK, copyright is effective automatically, whereas in the US this may not be the case.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 11:18:20 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I am not sure whether to be offended that you accept legal advice from a photographer but not from a lawyer...! ;)
|
Matthew, if you choose to be offended then that is your choice. I do not accept the opinions of anyone I don't personelly know online. The women I was asking is currently involved in a law suit with the United States government involving the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom and the ACLU, so to me her opinion carrys more weight then yours. Not because you don't know as much, I know her personally I don't know you and have no evidence of your credentials at my disposal. So yes I took her opinion over yours but there is no need to be offended.
I am not finished with this though. I am still looking into this.
Here are a few questions:
If I hire a Helocopter and do a fly over NYC and take some pictures of NYC copyright and sell them, do I need a permit from the city? Do I need a permission slip from every land owner?
If I am on vacation in NYC and take pictures in Times Square and something happens that I catch on my camera, can I copyright it?
If a man is in the woods talking and there are no women around, is he still wrong?
Last one for commic relief. :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:38:51 AM EDT.
