I think they're idiots by filing as a copyright matter, but what do I know.
Regards, Bob... -------------------------------------------------------- “Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection.” –Jean Luc Godard ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here you go, read the docket! http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-2:2007cv03264/case_id-153215/ Bob Blakely wrote: > This can be a fuzzy area. Apparently the photographer was on private > property and the photos were taken of that same private property; further, > it appears that the photographer did not have permission from the owner(s) > to even be there, let alone take photographs. Now, had he taken the photos > from public property where what he photographed was easily visible to the > public, the College of Charleston Foundation would generally have no legal > standing. > > Photographers have been successfully prosecuted for going onto the > property > of celebrities to take their photographs or photographs of their property > furnishings. It is an issue both of privacy and of the right of a owners > to > control what happens on their property. Note that the College of > Charleston > Foundation is a private organization - not public, and the owners of this > nonprofit organization have rights too. > > As far as copyright is concerned, this doesn't seem to be an issue brought > up by the foundation, but raised by the photographer's counsel. What I'm > saying is that this is probably not a copyright case and the issue of > copyright may well not come into the judges consideration. > > Look, if several of my fellows and I owned a piece of property, and we > didn't want photographers coming onto our property to take photos - for > ANY > reason, or if we were conservators of the estate of someone who didn't > want > photographers coming onto the property to take photos - for ANY reason, > and > you did, and we found out about it, your as would be in court. It would be > a > case od, "It's our goddam property, we get to control it and what happens > on > it within the law and you (the photographer) are not imbued with special > privileges over others and their property simply because you have a camera > or you make your living with a camera. The issue of copyright would never > come up in court - our private property rights would. Now, if you get your > shots from off my property, I can say nothing. > > If you want to take and use shots of private places from the private > places, > get permission (preferably written releases). If they say no, sorry, your > "need" for the shot(s) does not trump their right to the amount and type > of > privacy they desire - on their own property. > > Regards, > Bob... > -------------------------------------------------------- > "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." > -Jean Luc Godard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rebekah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> 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" >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- 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. -- 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.