A fairly large number of commercial buildings are copyrighted in such ways. You can photograph them legally, but you can't sell the images without a property release. That may well be the case here, but it sounds like the Plaintiffs did not have their copyright actually filed.
-Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > I believe you're wrong on that. You might be able to trademark the image > of something. Which will limit the use of images of it in some ways,In > fact the Colt Firearms Co. has trademarked the Blue Dome of their former > building, and no one else is allowed to use it in connection with gun > manufacture or gun sales, but that's really a very limited control of > the image. You can't copyright a work of nature, and the copyright on > any the buildings on the Plantation if it ever existed at all has fallen > into the public domain. His crime is trespass plain and simple, if he > had permission to be there, and had a camera with him, then that > permission had to be revoked, (or given with stipulations to begin > with), for even that to be the case. > > graywolf wrote: >> Well, as to the legality, one does not have the right to sell images of >> someone >> else's clearly identifiable property without their permission. One does have >> the >> right to take the photos, without violating any laws of trespass, it is >> selling >> the images that is questionable. One would assume that the right to the >> income >> from ones own property is clear, otherwise I want every one on the list to >> send >> me rent. regardless of who owns the property they live on <GRIN>. >> >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Mr Ham had no right to do what he did. "Private" property rights should >>> always be respected especially when privacy is to be compromised by >>> being held up to the world to see. >>> "Privacy" and "security" are too closely related these days. >>> That being said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about being restricted from >>> taking pictures of something which is on private property, but from a >>> public property position. >>> >>> Jack >>> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >>>> >>>> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >>>> >>>> rg2 >>>> -- >>>> "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its >>>> composition" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. >>> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
