From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:13:45 -0400
Let's see?
First it is almost always about money. Or if not money then what one
perceives
as their honor.
Second, you can put almost any restriction in a land title and it is
binding on
everyone who owns the land land thereafter. You can even put in a clause
where
the title reverts if the clause is ever violated.
Civil Law is not about wishes, or even about fairness, it is about what is
written and about what has been decided by courts in the past. Law is not
really
that difficult to understand. Spend about a year reading and you will have
a
good grasp of it. Then if you actually want to be a lawyer you need to read
thousands of actual cases so you have a good grasp of the details, but just
to
understand the basics the details are not necessary.
Tom C wrote:
> I find the facts of the case (at least as presented) make the suit
> without merit. How was anything damaged so that "damages" could be
> claimed? If the photographer had made $100/shot instead of the amount
> reported, there probably would not be a suit. It's not about whether
> the photographer had the right to be there or the right to photograph,
> it's about money.
>
> How can a person, now deceased, place a legally binding restriction on
> the sale of images of the land for any commercial gains", on someone
> they never knew, and for how long? The binding restriction would seem to
> be on the entity the land and plantation were granted to, not the entire
> planet.
>
> Now, if said photographer, was formerly a member of the foundation and
> was knowingly and deliberately photographing with foreknowledge of the
> issue, maybe there's something to it, but even then I think it's very
> gray. Or it could be that he requested, was denied permission, and
> went ahead anyway.
>
> I suspect that either 1) the suit it meritless or 2) there's an
> important element to the story which was not published in the report.
>
> Tom C.
>
>> From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
>> Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
>> Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:10:50 -0400
>>
>> No sir, you are confusing the right to photograph it, and the right to
>> make
>> money from it. They are two separate issues. Any income from ones
>> property by
>> law belongs to the owner of the property unless he agrees differently.
>> The only
>> issue involved is that it is clearly his property, if the photo is so
>> generic
>> that it could be anyones property you are OK. This right is so old it
>> is common
>> law, there must be a billion precedents so a judge does not even have
>> to think
>> about it to make his decision. I of course used my Blazer as an
>> example in an
>> attempt to point out that all I had to do is prove beyond doubt that
>> it is my
>> property in your photo as opposed to a million other white Blazers.
>>
>> The issue with copyrights, trademarks, and patents is that they have
been
>> ordained as property by law thus extending the same property rights to
>> them. And
>> because of that they have to be registered with the government before
>> the courts
>> will hear the case. Yes, that is correct, you own the copyright but if
>> you have
>> not registered it you can not sue anyone over it (although you can
>> apparently
>> now register it ex post facto --seems the constitution is no longer
>> the law of
>> the land).
>>
>> As to right to sue, I have every right to sue any one for any thing
>> (at least in
>> the USA), with the exception mentioned in the above paragraph. Of
>> course if I
>> turn out not to be in the right I may wind up having to pay all legal
>> and court
>> costs both mine and the defendants, so it behooves me to be reasonably
>> sure I am
>> right before I do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>> > This is a very grey area. If your Blazer is parked in a public area
>> when
>> > the picture was taken, you have no standing to sue. If it was on
>> private
>> > property, things get murky (unless the photographer was also on the
>> same
>> > private property, at which point the question becomes one of straight
>> > trespass).
>> >
>> > -Adam
>> >
>> >
>> > graywolf wrote:
>> >> It is not a copyright or trademark issue. It is a property rights
>> issue. There
>> >> is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of my Blazer, but since
>> with its
>> >> unique pattern of red primer, or a visible license plate it is
>> clearly my
>> >> particular car, you can not sell photos of it without my permission.
>> >>
>> >> I have not seen the pictures in issue, but if they are clearly of
>> their property
>> >> they have a solid case, but if they are just a tree line road that
>> could be any
>> >> such road anywhere, they do not. That most likely will be something
>> for the
>> >> courts to decide.
>> >>
>> >> To make matters worse there is apparently a codicil in the will
>> that gave them
>> >> the property prohibiting commercial use of the property. If they do
>> not fight
>> >> those photographs they could lose the property to family members
>> who probably
>> >> resent that he left the property to someone else.
>> >>
>> >> It sounds like a real legal tangle all the way around.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date:
10/7/2007 10:24 AM
--
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.
