That was my point all along. Bob Blakely wrote: > 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.
