Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
> > From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/10/15 Mon PM 01:18:59 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > > On 10/15/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Bob Blakely" > > > > > I assume you believe you have rights. Are they valuable to you? If > > > someone deprives you of a right, don't you feel harmed in some way > > > even if what you lost (control over actions on your property) did not > > > cause any monetary loss? Such a thing should be a cause for a civil > > > suit, if for no other reason than to secure your right. In such a > > > case, I have no problem with a court finding $0 for damages, but > > > still assigning such punitave awards as is necessary to dissuade the > > > person (and others) from usurping your rights or the rights of > > > others. > > > > > > The problem here is there has been no loss of rights by the plaintiff; > > no infringement of the plaintiff's rights. There is no damage to the > > plaintiff. > > > > The land in question is [was] opened to public use (e.g. tourism). The > > photographer did no trespass in taking the photos, even without specific > > permission. > > Even better excuse to buy a 600 and tele and hide in the bushes.:-) > You (or me) and a 600 tele are going to need more than a bush. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
The Plantation Foundation is suing the photographer for making and selling Fine Art prints as a commercial use in the court dedicated to copyright claims as a copyright infringement.. The law is being stretched beyond all recognition. The photographer is selling them for prices ranging from $2500 to $4000 depending on size. I don't think you could make a case that he's churning out prints on his Epson printer. He's selling Fine Art Prints for _Really_ Fine Art Prices. Hell at those prices if he's selling more than one a month, no matter what his reputation, I'd be astounded. graywolf wrote: > I did not say anything about fine art prints. Commercial use is not fine art > use. However selling hundreds of copies printed on your trusty Epson probably > is > commercial use; and I am pretty dam sure selling thousands of litho prints is > no > matter how artsy the image is. You keep putting specific stuff in when it is > pretty clear I am talking generalities. > > You read something that is not in anyway definitive and think you know all > about > that particular case. I would think, myself, that a university's attorneys > would > be better than average and might just know what they are doing. I am not > qualified to make a legal decision on a case I have not read, wouldn't be > even > if I was a lawyer. > > Not being clairvoyant I have no idea what the attorneys in that particular > case > are doing, they may be wrong, then again they may be crafty as heck. You of > course have read their minds and know all, so I will do as I intended and > shut > the eff up. > > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> You should read the NY Times article I posted, selling Art prints is not >> a commercial purpose under US law. Nor is it a violation of copyright. >> The case is being tried under the wrong law in the wrong court for a >> crime that hasn't been committed. >> >> graywolf wrote: >> >>> You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to >>> use >>> the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said >>> before. >>> >>> John Sessoms wrote: >>> >>> From: Adam Maas > 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 > > If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other public right of way, it's still fair game. That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". >>> >>> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I did not say anything about fine art prints. Commercial use is not fine art use. However selling hundreds of copies printed on your trusty Epson probably is commercial use; and I am pretty dam sure selling thousands of litho prints is no matter how artsy the image is. You keep putting specific stuff in when it is pretty clear I am talking generalities. You read something that is not in anyway definitive and think you know all about that particular case. I would think, myself, that a university's attorneys would be better than average and might just know what they are doing. I am not qualified to make a legal decision on a case I have not read, wouldn't be even if I was a lawyer. Not being clairvoyant I have no idea what the attorneys in that particular case are doing, they may be wrong, then again they may be crafty as heck. You of course have read their minds and know all, so I will do as I intended and shut the eff up. P. J. Alling wrote: > You should read the NY Times article I posted, selling Art prints is not > a commercial purpose under US law. Nor is it a violation of copyright. > The case is being tried under the wrong law in the wrong court for a > crime that hasn't been committed. > > graywolf wrote: >> You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to >> use >> the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said >> before. >> >> John Sessoms wrote: >> >>> From: Adam Maas >>> >>> 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 >>> If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other >>> public right of way, it's still fair game. >>> >>> That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". >>> >>> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Nope. If you're on public property, you have the right to take the photo, period (outside of France & Quebec of course). The subject being on private property is irrelevant. As to commercial use, that's what I'm talking about. Private Property law is far less restrictive than you believe. -Adam graywolf wrote: > You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to > use > the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said > before. > > John Sessoms wrote: >> From: Adam Maas >> >>> 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 >> If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other >> public right of way, it's still fair game. >> >> That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". >> > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
You should read the NY Times article I posted, selling Art prints is not a commercial purpose under US law. Nor is it a violation of copyright. The case is being tried under the wrong law in the wrong court for a crime that hasn't been committed. graywolf wrote: > You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to > use > the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said > before. > > John Sessoms wrote: > >> From: Adam Maas >> >> >>> 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 >>> >> If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other >> public right of way, it's still fair game. >> >> That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". >> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to use the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said before. John Sessoms wrote: > From: Adam Maas > >> 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 > > If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other > public right of way, it's still fair game. > > That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
On 10/15/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Bob Blakely" > > > I assume you believe you have rights. Are they valuable to you? If > > someone deprives you of a right, don't you feel harmed in some way > > even if what you lost (control over actions on your property) did not > > cause any monetary loss? Such a thing should be a cause for a civil > > suit, if for no other reason than to secure your right. In such a > > case, I have no problem with a court finding $0 for damages, but > > still assigning such punitave awards as is necessary to dissuade the > > person (and others) from usurping your rights or the rights of > > others. > > > The problem here is there has been no loss of rights by the plaintiff; > no infringement of the plaintiff's rights. There is no damage to the > plaintiff. > > The land in question is [was] opened to public use (e.g. tourism). The > photographer did no trespass in taking the photos, even without specific > permission. Even better excuse to buy a 600 and tele and hide in the bushes.:-) Dave > > -- > 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. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
From: "Bob Blakely" > I assume you believe you have rights. Are they valuable to you? If > someone deprives you of a right, don't you feel harmed in some way > even if what you lost (control over actions on your property) did not > cause any monetary loss? Such a thing should be a cause for a civil > suit, if for no other reason than to secure your right. In such a > case, I have no problem with a court finding $0 for damages, but > still assigning such punitave awards as is necessary to dissuade the > person (and others) from usurping your rights or the rights of > others. The problem here is there has been no loss of rights by the plaintiff; no infringement of the plaintiff's rights. There is no damage to the plaintiff. The land in question is [was] opened to public use (e.g. tourism). The photographer did no trespass in taking the photos, even without specific permission. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
From: "P. J. Alling" > Here is a pretty good explanation of commercial gain vs art as seen > by the New York court system. It holds true for most of the US and > probably most of the English speaking world. > > http://tinyurl.com/36rzkn* Had I been the photographer in question, I would have counter-sued, claiming Mr. Nussenzweig's frivolous lawsuit had cost me income, since it forced me to take time away from my work to defend myself and because his suit had damaged my relations with the art gallery. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
From: "P. J. Alling" > You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this > god damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell > I was talking about. Well, there's your problem then. You're trying to confuse the issue by presenting facts. ;-D -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
John Sessoms wrote: > From: Adam Maas > >> 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 > > If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other > public right of way, it's still fair game. That depends on 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Front yard, most likely, back yard, not so much. And Juries can go either way. Very much a grey area. -Adam -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
From: Adam Maas > 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 If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other public right of way, it's still fair game. That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
From: Mark Roberts > Adam Maas wrote: > >> >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. > > IIRC, you can't sell the images for commercial use without a release > but you can sell them as fine art prints, ie, as pieces of art in and > of themselves, without a release. Just like photos of people taken > without a release. Interestingly, the news story was unclear on this > point. > The photographer's attorney had it right - the photographer took the photographs and the photographer owns the copyright. The "nonprofit" foundation is attempting to commit extortion using the legal system. They won't even be able to make a trespass charge stick. Their own fund raising and public relations campaigns describe the plantation as "public use" and an image of the live oaks on the plantation is used by the SC's Travel and Tourism boosters as an example of low country sites worth visiting. http://south-carolina-plantations.com/charleston/dixie.html -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Tom C wrote: >How does Adobe accomplish the shutdown of such sites, By persuading the web host to shut them down (in most cases the cracks are placed on free web hosting services who will immediately comply with such a request) >and don't they just pop up again like moles in that ever popular >game where you whack'em on the head with a hammer? Yes. But as of CS3, Adobe's been aggressive enough to really cut down the time any given site stays up. -- 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.
RE: OT: Photographer Being Sued
> Some additional reading... > http://foundation.cofc.edu/ that's an amazing web page. I wonder if it would qualify for Web Pages That Suck. On that one page they tell you 7 times (counting generously) who they are, and ask you 6 times for money. I thought it was 5 times - at first I assumed Annual Fund would tell me what they do with the money, but no - it's another page about how to give them some. The sub-menus are particularly elusive too, but they seem to offer even more changes to give! I suppose it's better to give than to receive, but sometimes I wish I was the College of Chareston. -- Bob -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
See what happens when you assume you know what I meant by my assumption? :-) Tom C. From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0600 No just being a smartass. No racial overtones or bigotry implied. That's what Plantation Foundation meant to me on hearing the phrase. :-) It especially might have that meaning because I have recently walked through an old cemetery in Dallas and it's cluttered with gravestone of Civil War veterans and Confederate flags. One tombstone reads something like 'dedicated to blah blah, who fought with dignity and valor to retain the character and flavor of the Old South'. I'm no doubt naive, but I was surprised to see the rebel flag all over the place, as it's often taken as a symbol of racial bigotry. Tom C. From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:04:53 -0700 Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. I say really! Damn! You may have stepped on it worse than I did with your assumptions. Here's a job posting from NOTE THIS--> "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" http://www.esa.org/ Applications are invited for the new position of Director of Dixie Plantation at the College of Charleston. Dixie Plantation, 800 acres with access via the Stono River to the Intracoastal Waterway, is located about 20 miles south of the main campus. The Plantation encompasses a number of relatively undisturbed ecosystems (15 years since the last large hurricane) including upland pine forest, non-forested wetlands consisting of three small ponds (freshwater, saltwater and brackish) and a tidal salt marsh, and forested wetlands. The property also houses potentially significant historical and cultural resources. There is instrumentation on site to monitor the hydrology, biogeochemistry and ecological condition of parts of the Plantation. The Plantation is owned by the College of Charleston Foundation (³the Foundation²) and its development is guided by a conservation easement through the Lowcountry Open Land Trust (LOLT). A master plan for the Plantation, created by Ayers/Saint/Gross (Baltimore), is now in the early stages of implementation. The successful applicant will demonstrate a successful track record in acquiring grants and/or fundraising for environmentally-focused activities. Demonstrated organizational and administrative skills at a senior level are also required. Experience in developing and implementing environmentally-focused research, education and outreach programs and experience with building construction, particularly environmental research or education facilities, are highly desirable. The Director is expected to provide academic and program leadership for Dixie Plantation. The Director will: 1) chair the planning and building committee for the Plantation and oversee the implementation of the committee¹s recommendations; 2) actively seek external funding for program development (research, education, outreach); 3) interface with the academic departments and schools, the Foundation, the College administration and community outreach participants; 4) work with the Foundation in its dealings with the Lowcountry Open Land Trust; 5) play a leadership role in the development and implementation of a management and, where appropriate and feasible, a restoration plan for the biological and cultural resources of the Plantation; 6) coordinate existing research and education activities and promote new activities with an emphasis on interdisciplinary programs Some additional reading... http://foundation.cofc.edu/ http://www.cofc.edu/ Perhaps you have some additional references to back up your assertion. Even so, There are places around this world, and especially in Germany, dedicated to remembering the Holocaust! Or, to paraphrase your post "non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving the memory of the true german tradition of forced enslavement and extermination." Anyway, that's the way your post came across to me. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
No just being a smartass. No racial overtones or bigotry implied. That's what Plantation Foundation meant to me on hearing the phrase. :-) It especially might have that meaning because I have recently walked through an old cemetery in Dallas and it's cluttered with gravestone of Civil War veterans and Confederate flags. One tombstone reads something like 'dedicated to blah blah, who fought with dignity and valor to retain the character and flavor of the Old South'. I'm no doubt naive, but I was surprised to see the rebel flag all over the place, as it's often taken as a symbol of racial bigotry. Tom C. From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:04:53 -0700 Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. I say really! Damn! You may have stepped on it worse than I did with your assumptions. Here's a job posting from NOTE THIS--> "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" http://www.esa.org/ Applications are invited for the new position of Director of Dixie Plantation at the College of Charleston. Dixie Plantation, 800 acres with access via the Stono River to the Intracoastal Waterway, is located about 20 miles south of the main campus. The Plantation encompasses a number of relatively undisturbed ecosystems (15 years since the last large hurricane) including upland pine forest, non-forested wetlands consisting of three small ponds (freshwater, saltwater and brackish) and a tidal salt marsh, and forested wetlands. The property also houses potentially significant historical and cultural resources. There is instrumentation on site to monitor the hydrology, biogeochemistry and ecological condition of parts of the Plantation. The Plantation is owned by the College of Charleston Foundation (³the Foundation²) and its development is guided by a conservation easement through the Lowcountry Open Land Trust (LOLT). A master plan for the Plantation, created by Ayers/Saint/Gross (Baltimore), is now in the early stages of implementation. The successful applicant will demonstrate a successful track record in acquiring grants and/or fundraising for environmentally-focused activities. Demonstrated organizational and administrative skills at a senior level are also required. Experience in developing and implementing environmentally-focused research, education and outreach programs and experience with building construction, particularly environmental research or education facilities, are highly desirable. The Director is expected to provide academic and program leadership for Dixie Plantation. The Director will: 1) chair the planning and building committee for the Plantation and oversee the implementation of the committee¹s recommendations; 2) actively seek external funding for program development (research, education, outreach); 3) interface with the academic departments and schools, the Foundation, the College administration and community outreach participants; 4) work with the Foundation in its dealings with the Lowcountry Open Land Trust; 5) play a leadership role in the development and implementation of a management and, where appropriate and feasible, a restoration plan for the biological and cultural resources of the Plantation; 6) coordinate existing research and education activities and promote new activities with an emphasis on interdisciplinary programs Some additional reading... http://foundation.cofc.edu/ http://www.cofc.edu/ Perhaps you have some additional references to back up your assertion. Even so, There are places around this world, and especially in Germany, dedicated to remembering the Holocaust! Or, to paraphrase your post "non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving the memory of the true german tradition of forced enslavement and extermination." Anyway, that's the way your post came across to me. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
How does Adobe accomplish the shutdown of such sites, and don't they just pop up again like moles in that ever popular game where you whack'em on the head with a hammer? Tom C. >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:23:58 -0400 > >Well, the ones in the US, anyway. > >Mark Roberts wrote: > > Adam Maas wrote: > > > >> It's not worth the effort for Adobe. There's little piracy of their > >> consumer apps(dunno how many legit copies of Elements 2 I've got, at > >> least 3), and they only care if businesses pirate the pro apps (Since > >> that is most of their revenue). > > > > It's not worth their effort to find & prosecute, but Adobe is *very* > > aggressive about getting sites selling illegal software or giving away > > keygens. They protect their cash cow Photoshop in particular: Most > > sites offering Photoshop keygens are shut down within 24 hours. > > > > > >-- >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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Could be they are just looking for the publicity. P. J. Alling wrote: > Which would be true, except the photographer who can sell an image for > $4000.00 is selling as much or more on his or her name as the actual > subject matter. I doubt that the Plantation Foundation, would be able to > sell prints for such commanding prices without getting as well respected > an artist to make the photograph and prints, and they'll have a hard > time doing that given their current actions. But that's still beside the > point. We aren't talking about any property rights that they can > enforce. What the photographer in question did which is enforceable is > trespass, unless the scene he photographed was visible from public > property. I'm beginning to suspect might be the case, since the > Plantation Foundation , is pursuing a course that seems unlikely to gain > them the redress they seek. (Don't you just like the way "Plantation > Foundation" rolls of the tongue?) > > > Bob Blakely wrote: >> And now, should the foundation decide to change their mind at a future date, >> photograph and sell nearly identical photos, their value is lessened because >> a similar photograph is already out there. >> >> 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]> >> >> >> >>> I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy >>> some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose >>> money because you didn't purchase it from them. >>> >> . >> >> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Well, the ones in the US, anyway. Mark Roberts wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >> It's not worth the effort for Adobe. There's little piracy of their >> consumer apps(dunno how many legit copies of Elements 2 I've got, at >> least 3), and they only care if businesses pirate the pro apps (Since >> that is most of their revenue). > > It's not worth their effort to find & prosecute, but Adobe is *very* > aggressive about getting sites selling illegal software or giving away > keygens. They protect their cash cow Photoshop in particular: Most > sites offering Photoshop keygens are shut down within 24 hours. > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. I say really! Damn! You may have stepped on it worse than I did with your assumptions. Here's a job posting from NOTE THIS--> "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" http://www.esa.org/ Applications are invited for the new position of Director of Dixie Plantation at the College of Charleston. Dixie Plantation, 800 acres with access via the Stono River to the Intracoastal Waterway, is located about 20 miles south of the main campus. The Plantation encompasses a number of relatively undisturbed ecosystems (15 years since the last large hurricane) including upland pine forest, non-forested wetlands consisting of three small ponds (freshwater, saltwater and brackish) and a tidal salt marsh, and forested wetlands. The property also houses potentially significant historical and cultural resources. There is instrumentation on site to monitor the hydrology, biogeochemistry and ecological condition of parts of the Plantation. The Plantation is owned by the College of Charleston Foundation (³the Foundation²) and its development is guided by a conservation easement through the Lowcountry Open Land Trust (LOLT). A master plan for the Plantation, created by Ayers/Saint/Gross (Baltimore), is now in the early stages of implementation. The successful applicant will demonstrate a successful track record in acquiring grants and/or fundraising for environmentally-focused activities. Demonstrated organizational and administrative skills at a senior level are also required. Experience in developing and implementing environmentally-focused research, education and outreach programs and experience with building construction, particularly environmental research or education facilities, are highly desirable. The Director is expected to provide academic and program leadership for Dixie Plantation. The Director will: 1) chair the planning and building committee for the Plantation and oversee the implementation of the committee¹s recommendations; 2) actively seek external funding for program development (research, education, outreach); 3) interface with the academic departments and schools, the Foundation, the College administration and community outreach participants; 4) work with the Foundation in its dealings with the Lowcountry Open Land Trust; 5) play a leadership role in the development and implementation of a management and, where appropriate and feasible, a restoration plan for the biological and cultural resources of the Plantation; 6) coordinate existing research and education activities and promote new activities with an emphasis on interdisciplinary programs Some additional reading... http://foundation.cofc.edu/ http://www.cofc.edu/ Perhaps you have some additional references to back up your assertion. Even so, There are places around this world, and especially in Germany, dedicated to remembering the Holocaust! Or, to paraphrase your post "non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving the memory of the true german tradition of forced enslavement and extermination." Anyway, that's the way your post came across to me. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the > true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Yes, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the true southern tradition of forced enslavement and servitude. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:07:24 -0400 > >(Don't you just like the way "Plantation Foundation" rolls of the tongue?) > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Which would be true, except the photographer who can sell an image for $4000.00 is selling as much or more on his or her name as the actual subject matter. I doubt that the Plantation Foundation, would be able to sell prints for such commanding prices without getting as well respected an artist to make the photograph and prints, and they'll have a hard time doing that given their current actions. But that's still beside the point. We aren't talking about any property rights that they can enforce. What the photographer in question did which is enforceable is trespass, unless the scene he photographed was visible from public property. I'm beginning to suspect might be the case, since the Plantation Foundation , is pursuing a course that seems unlikely to gain them the redress they seek. (Don't you just like the way "Plantation Foundation" rolls of the tongue?) Bob Blakely wrote: > And now, should the foundation decide to change their mind at a future date, > photograph and sell nearly identical photos, their value is lessened because > a similar photograph is already out there. > > 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]> > > > >> I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy >> some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose >> money because you didn't purchase it from them. >> > . > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Adam Maas wrote: >It's not worth the effort for Adobe. There's little piracy of their >consumer apps(dunno how many legit copies of Elements 2 I've got, at >least 3), and they only care if businesses pirate the pro apps (Since >that is most of their revenue). It's not worth their effort to find & prosecute, but Adobe is *very* aggressive about getting sites selling illegal software or giving away keygens. They protect their cash cow Photoshop in particular: Most sites offering Photoshop keygens are shut down within 24 hours. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I assume you believe you have rights. Are they valuable to you? If someone deprives you of a right, don't you feel harmed in some way even if what you lost (control over actions on your property) did not cause any monetary loss? Such a thing should be a cause for a civil suit, if for no other reason than to secure your right. In such a case, I have no problem with a court finding $0 for damages, but still assigning such punitave awards as is necessary to dissuade the person (and others) from usurping your rights or the rights of others. Now, in this case, there are actual damages. They are whatever the photographer sold the photos for. But they weren't allowing profit from photos anyway you say, so how could they claim damages? Well, I suppose one could say that they could change their mind at a later date, take photos themselves and reap the profit. For me, that's not the real issue. Usurping one's right to control their property would be the issue. Look if someone dings your car, they are libel for the damage. They must pay. If, instead of fixing the dent, you decide to buy a new lens with the money, the schmuk who had to pay can't go back to court to get his money back because you didn't fix the dent! 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]> >I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be > considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just > because he made some - from what I can tell the clause on the property > said 'no photographs for commercial gain' - not, 'if you make some > money, you have to share'. And trespassing is illegal, but did he > 'damage' anything? I really think the only thing they can do is point > their finger and file a police report for trespassing. I'll certainly > be watching the outcome of this case closely because I just went to a > nearby plantation and photographed just about everything there, > although I really doubt I'll be selling my pictures for any price, let > alone a few grand. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
And now, should the foundation decide to change their mind at a future date, photograph and sell nearly identical photos, their value is lessened because a similar photograph is already out there. 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]> >I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy > some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose > money because you didn't purchase it from them. . -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
It's not worth the effort for Adobe. There's little piracy of their consumer apps(dunno how many legit copies of Elements 2 I've got, at least 3), and they only care if businesses pirate the pro apps (Since that is most of their revenue). In fact I'd suspect that the rampant piracy may actually help Creative Suite sales to a limited extent (Baen Books found this to be true with giving away eBooks in their Free Library and Book CD's). You'll note the aggressive pursuit of Piracy is primarily done by companies which sell overpriced software into the consumer market (Think Windows here, no way is it worth the hundreds of dollars it costs for a legit non-OEM copy, vice Apple's sanely priced boxed OS) -Adam Tom C wrote: > I agree Bill. What puzzles me is that Adobe does not aggressively prosecute > all the file sharing sites and bogus shady resellers of their products. > Other big software names are also pirated, no doubt to the tune of tens of > tousands of copies per day. > > I wonder why the company does not pursue. Is it simply more expensive to > attempt to prosecute than it is to ignore it, or have they raised the price > enough to cover what they figure are their losses? > > > Tom C. > >> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:25:57 -0600 >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Rebekah" >> Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >> >> >>> I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy >>> some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose >>> money because you didn't purchase it from them. >> I've heard (and also read here) the excuse that it's to expensive for me to >> buy, so if I don't steal it I won't have it, and therefore the company >> (Adobe seems the common target) isn't losing anything, since I wouldn't >> have >> bought it anyway. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> -- >> 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Ok. 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]> You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this god damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell I was talking about. Bob Blakely wrote: > Frankly, the fact that you cited no other. I'm not going to go looking for > more myself. I just don't have the time. You make the allegations, you > come > up with the references. Otherwise, yes, I do assume that only the > references > previously cited that I can click to are the ones you've drawn your > conclusions from. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I agree Bill. What puzzles me is that Adobe does not aggressively prosecute all the file sharing sites and bogus shady resellers of their products. Other big software names are also pirated, no doubt to the tune of tens of tousands of copies per day. I wonder why the company does not pursue. Is it simply more expensive to attempt to prosecute than it is to ignore it, or have they raised the price enough to cover what they figure are their losses? Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:25:57 -0600 > > >- Original Message ----- >From: "Rebekah" >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > > > >I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy > > some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose > > money because you didn't purchase it from them. > >I've heard (and also read here) the excuse that it's to expensive for me to >buy, so if I don't steal it I won't have it, and therefore the company >(Adobe seems the common target) isn't losing anything, since I wouldn't >have >bought it anyway. > >William Robb > > >-- >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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
- Original Message - From: "Rebekah" Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy > some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose > money because you didn't purchase it from them. I've heard (and also read here) the excuse that it's to expensive for me to buy, so if I don't steal it I won't have it, and therefore the company (Adobe seems the common target) isn't losing anything, since I wouldn't have bought it anyway. William Robb -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose money because you didn't purchase it from them. On 10/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:23:09AM -0400, Rebekah wrote: > > I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be > > considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just > > because he made some . . . > > That's the argument used to justify file sharing, software copying, etc. > And even if it were true (which it isn't) it's irrelevant - the rule > isn't "if you make money, you have to share" - it's "only the person > who owns the rights is entitled to make money; if he doesn't give you > permission then you can't do anything". > > > -- > 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. > -- "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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:23:09AM -0400, Rebekah wrote: > I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be > considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just > because he made some . . . That's the argument used to justify file sharing, software copying, etc. And even if it were true (which it isn't) it's irrelevant - the rule isn't "if you make money, you have to share" - it's "only the person who owns the rights is entitled to make money; if he doesn't give you permission then you can't do anything". -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
This should never have become a copyright issue. It's not a matter of who owns the copyright of the photographs, Ham owns it. There can be no copyright violation from making the photographs in question. Even if you could copyright a grove of trees, he hasn't copied the trees. It's a question of trespass. If the court makes it a question of copyright, they will have taken the letter and intent of the law and twisted it out of all recognition. If that happens we are all in trouble. Rebekah wrote: > I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be > considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just > because he made some - from what I can tell the clause on the property > said 'no photographs for commercial gain' - not, 'if you make some > money, you have to share'. And trespassing is illegal, but did he > 'damage' anything? I really think the only thing they can do is point > their finger and file a police report for trespassing. I'll certainly > be watching the outcome of this case closely because I just went to a > nearby plantation and photographed just about everything there, > although I really doubt I'll be selling my pictures for any price, let > alone a few grand. > > rg2 > > > > > On 10/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:10:50AM -0400, graywolf wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> That is incorrect. But the copyright must be registered before the copyright >> violation can be prosecuted as a criminal (as opposed to civil) offence, and >> if the copyright is not registered you can only be awarded actual (rather >> than >> punitive) damages. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just because he made some - from what I can tell the clause on the property said 'no photographs for commercial gain' - not, 'if you make some money, you have to share'. And trespassing is illegal, but did he 'damage' anything? I really think the only thing they can do is point their finger and file a police report for trespassing. I'll certainly be watching the outcome of this case closely because I just went to a nearby plantation and photographed just about everything there, although I really doubt I'll be selling my pictures for any price, let alone a few grand. rg2 On 10/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:10:50AM -0400, graywolf wrote: > > > > 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. > > That is incorrect. But the copyright must be registered before the copyright > violation can be prosecuted as a criminal (as opposed to civil) offence, and > if the copyright is not registered you can only be awarded actual (rather than > punitive) damages. > > > -- > 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. > -- "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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:10:50AM -0400, graywolf wrote: > > 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. That is incorrect. But the copyright must be registered before the copyright violation can be prosecuted as a criminal (as opposed to civil) offence, and if the copyright is not registered you can only be awarded actual (rather than punitive) damages. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I'd agree with that! But apparently he doesn't mind people copying. :-) Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >No, but I think he owns copyright on just about everything. > >Tom C wrote: > > When did God get involved in this? Is he a photographer too? > > > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this god > >> damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell I was > >> talking about. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
No, but I think he owns copyright on just about everything. Tom C wrote: > When did God get involved in this? Is he a photographer too? > > Tom C. > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this god >> damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell I was >> talking about. >> >> Bob Blakely wrote: >> > Frankly, the fact that you cited no other. I'm not going to go >> looking for >> > more myself. I just don't have the time. You make the allegations, >> you come >> > up with the references. Otherwise, yes, I do assume that only the >> references >> > previously cited that I can click to are the ones you've drawn your >> > conclusions from. >> > >> > 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]> >> > >> > >> > There are about 20 articles some are more detailed than others, what >> > makes you think I got my information from only one source, (though >> most >> > simply regurgitate the AP wire story), I did a couple of web >> searches to >> > find them, No I don't remember my search terms.this is a mailing list >> > not a dissertation, so I'm not bothering with footnotes or citations. >> > . I think that since it's been transfered to the federal district >> court >> > that handles copyright infringement that's probably what the suit is >> > about. Last I knew trespass was still a state and local matter. >> > >> > Bob Blakely wrote: >> > >> >> The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright >> >> infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright >> >> infringement, >> >> but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your >> >> assumption is currently unwarrented. >> >> >> >> 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]> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the >> >> problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go >> >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The >> >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action >> >> taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no >> >> standing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Common sense ususally trumps all, if it's common enough. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 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 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> 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: >> >>
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Common sense is fairly uncommon, most especially where the law is concerned. Tom C wrote: > Common sense ususally trumps all, if it's common enough. > > > > Tom C. > > >> From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> 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 >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> 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 >
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
When did God get involved in this? Is he a photographer too? Tom C. From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this god damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell I was talking about. Bob Blakely wrote: > Frankly, the fact that you cited no other. I'm not going to go looking for > more myself. I just don't have the time. You make the allegations, you come > up with the references. Otherwise, yes, I do assume that only the references > previously cited that I can click to are the ones you've drawn your > conclusions from. > > 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]> > > > There are about 20 articles some are more detailed than others, what > makes you think I got my information from only one source, (though most > simply regurgitate the AP wire story), I did a couple of web searches to > find them, No I don't remember my search terms.this is a mailing list > not a dissertation, so I'm not bothering with footnotes or citations. > . I think that since it's been transfered to the federal district court > that handles copyright infringement that's probably what the suit is > about. Last I knew trespass was still a state and local matter. > > Bob Blakely wrote: > >> The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright >> infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright >> infringement, >> but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your >> assumption is currently unwarrented. >> >> 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]> >> >> >> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the >> problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action >> taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no >> standing. >> >> >> >> > > > -- Remember, its 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Here is a pretty good explanation of commercial gain vs art as seen by the New York court system. It holds true for most of the US and probably most of the English speaking world. http://tinyurl.com/36rzkn* * graywolf wrote: > I will point out that I did say commercial gain, and with this I am through > with > this thread. > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> That isn't quite true, there is an exception for Fair use and in most >> cases art prints fall under fair use. We are getting further and further >> from the case in question, but in that case copyright law is being >> twisted out of recognition. You don't own a copyright ion your truck or >> image. That's not why you get a release. >> >> graywolf wrote: >> >>> The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the >>> right to >>> commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of >>> someone >>> property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of >>> them >>> you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample >>> below). Why is that hard to understand? >>> >>> SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is >>> involved): >>> >>> >>> PHOTO RELEASE >>> >>> I, ___, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, >>> and his >>> assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by >>> him, >>> for any lawful purpose. >>> >>> SIGNATURE: ___ DATE:___ >>> (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) >>> >>> ADDRESS:___ >>> >>> PHONE: __ >>> E-MAIL:__ >>> >>> >>> --graywolf >>> >>> >>> P. J. Alling wrote: >>> >>> This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we photographers are already paying for this. 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 . > > > 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 >> >> >> >> > > > >>> >>> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
You should care you're a photographer. Besides I didn't post this god damned thing, I only did a little research to know what the hell I was talking about. Bob Blakely wrote: > Frankly, the fact that you cited no other. I'm not going to go looking for > more myself. I just don't have the time. You make the allegations, you come > up with the references. Otherwise, yes, I do assume that only the references > previously cited that I can click to are the ones you've drawn your > conclusions from. > > 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]> > > > There are about 20 articles some are more detailed than others, what > makes you think I got my information from only one source, (though most > simply regurgitate the AP wire story), I did a couple of web searches to > find them, No I don't remember my search terms.this is a mailing list > not a dissertation, so I'm not bothering with footnotes or citations. > . I think that since it's been transfered to the federal district court > that handles copyright infringement that's probably what the suit is > about. Last I knew trespass was still a state and local matter. > > Bob Blakely wrote: > >> The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright >> infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright >> infringement, >> but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your >> assumption is currently unwarrented. >> >> 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]> >> >> >> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the >> problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action >> taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no >> standing. >> >> >> >> > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I will point out that I did say commercial gain, and with this I am through with this thread. P. J. Alling wrote: > That isn't quite true, there is an exception for Fair use and in most > cases art prints fall under fair use. We are getting further and further > from the case in question, but in that case copyright law is being > twisted out of recognition. You don't own a copyright ion your truck or > image. That's not why you get a release. > > graywolf wrote: >> The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the >> right to >> commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of >> someone >> property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of >> them >> you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample >> below). Why is that hard to understand? >> >> SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is >> involved): >> >> >> PHOTO RELEASE >> >> I, ___, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, and >> his >> assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by >> him, >> for any lawful purpose. >> >> SIGNATURE: ___ DATE:___ >> (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) >> >> ADDRESS:___ >> >> PHONE: __ >> E-MAIL:__ >> >> >> --graywolf >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement >>> with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation >>> has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we >>> photographers are already paying for this. >>> >>> 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 . 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> 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
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Frankly, the fact that you cited no other. I'm not going to go looking for more myself. I just don't have the time. You make the allegations, you come up with the references. Otherwise, yes, I do assume that only the references previously cited that I can click to are the ones you've drawn your conclusions from. 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]> There are about 20 articles some are more detailed than others, what makes you think I got my information from only one source, (though most simply regurgitate the AP wire story), I did a couple of web searches to find them, No I don't remember my search terms.this is a mailing list not a dissertation, so I'm not bothering with footnotes or citations. . I think that since it's been transfered to the federal district court that handles copyright infringement that's probably what the suit is about. Last I knew trespass was still a state and local matter. Bob Blakely wrote: > The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright > infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright > infringement, > but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your > assumption is currently unwarrented. > > 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]> > > > Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the > problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go > along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The > case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action > taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no > standing. > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
There are about 20 articles some are more detailed than others, what makes you think I got my information from only one source, (though most simply regurgitate the AP wire story), I did a couple of web searches to find them, No I don't remember my search terms.this is a mailing list not a dissertation, so I'm not bothering with footnotes or citations. . I think that since it's been transfered to the federal district court that handles copyright infringement that's probably what the suit is about. Last I knew trespass was still a state and local matter. Bob Blakely wrote: > The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright > infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright infringement, > but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your > assumption is currently unwarrented. > > 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]> > > > Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the > problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go > along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The > case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action > taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no > standing. > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
The article does NOT state that they are suing him for copyright infringement. The defense counsel made reference to copyright infringement, but that's just him talking - so far. You might be right, but your assumption is currently unwarrented. 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]> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no standing. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
No, I'm not. If your property is on public property(Such as the street), it's fair game for me to make money off of, identifiable or not, this is due to the common law rights to public space. If it's on private property, you are absolutely correct. The common law in this case applies to the traditional definition of property, IE land and what is on it. -Adam graywolf wrote: > 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 . > > > 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 >> be
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
The owner's request to hold the property sovereign is only binding on its current custodians to press trespass charges which exist under current law. Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >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 > > >> s
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Let's see, when I last studied this over three decades ago, the logic followed this path: If you commit an illegal activity (trespass), then any other action that you perform (photographing) while commiting that illegal activity is an action from which you are not allowed to profit (sales of said photographs). Of course this totally disregards any infringement of the copywrite or trademark rights of the owner. Normally, such rights would have to have been at least applied for before you could infringe upon them. Larry in Dallas (in a state where you should not expect to win a malpractice suit against any emergency room people unless you can prove intent to injure) -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Look at the photograph. I don't believe the report entirely, but I did look at every report I could find, (all pretty much identical). The attorneys involved do know better, what they are engaged in is called gaming the system, the law is whatever you can get a judge to agree to. There's also the monetary consideration, if the Photographer can be found to be in violation of a copyright its a civil penalty the Plantation will get the money, in trespass, it's criminal and the Court will get the money and the Plantation only gets recompensed for actual damages, which they probably can't prove, since there are none. graywolf wrote: > Do we know that? That is what the reporter said, but I would think the > attorneys > involved would know better. Just as some here seem to confuse copyright and > property rights, so do reporters, sigh! That is the problem with trying an > issue > via news reports, and why hearsay is not given much weight as evidence. > > So it appears that we are pretty much in agreement, only I did not consider > the > report as accurate as you seem to have. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> You're right it isn't a copyright or trademark issue, it is a property >> rights/trespass issue, however the lawyers for the Plantation decided to >> sue the photographer for copyright infringement, for which they clearly >> have no standing. >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Rights are a very very gray area. I think what graywolf wrote is overstated as written. All property is owned by someone, therefore I would need a release for any photo that was not of/on my personal property, if I wanted to sell it? Bull puckey. What if I was on my property but photons bouncing off an area not owned by me registered on the sensor? Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued >Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:48:53 -0600 > > >- Original Message - >From: "graywolf" >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > > > > The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the > > right to > > commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of > > someone > > property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos >of > > them > > you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see >sample > > below). Why is that hard to understand? > > > > > >Some people seem to have a hard time dealing with the concept that other >people have rights. > >William Robb > > >-- >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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
That isn't quite true, there is an exception for Fair use and in most cases art prints fall under fair use. We are getting further and further from the case in question, but in that case copyright law is being twisted out of recognition. You don't own a copyright ion your truck or image. That's not why you get a release. graywolf wrote: > The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the right > to > commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of > someone > property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of them > you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample > below). Why is that hard to understand? > > SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is > involved): > > > PHOTO RELEASE > > I, ___, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, and > his > assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by > him, > for any lawful purpose. > > SIGNATURE: ___ DATE:___ > (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) > > ADDRESS:___ > > PHONE: __ > E-MAIL:__ > > > --graywolf > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement >> with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation >> has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we >> photographers are already paying for this. >> >> 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 . >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 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 falle
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
- Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the > right to > commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of > someone > property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of > them > you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample > below). Why is that hard to understand? > > Some people seem to have a hard time dealing with the concept that other people have rights. William Robb -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Do we know that? That is what the reporter said, but I would think the attorneys involved would know better. Just as some here seem to confuse copyright and property rights, so do reporters, sigh! That is the problem with trying an issue via news reports, and why hearsay is not given much weight as evidence. So it appears that we are pretty much in agreement, only I did not consider the report as accurate as you seem to have. P. J. Alling wrote: > You're right it isn't a copyright or trademark issue, it is a property > rights/trespass issue, however the lawyers for the Plantation decided to > sue the photographer for copyright infringement, for which they clearly > have no standing. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the right to commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of someone property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of them you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample below). Why is that hard to understand? SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is involved): PHOTO RELEASE I, ___, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, and his assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by him, for any lawful purpose. SIGNATURE: ___ DATE:___ (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) ADDRESS:___ PHONE: __ E-MAIL:__ --graywolf P. J. Alling wrote: > This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement > with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation > has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we > photographers are already paying for this. > > 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 . >> >> >> 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . 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
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
You're right it isn't a copyright or trademark issue, it is a property rights/trespass issue, however the lawyers for the Plantation decided to sue the photographer for copyright infringement, for which they clearly have no standing. Since you haven't seen the pictures I'll keep this simple, the Photograph in question is of an old oak tree lined road. The oak trees are at 250+ years old. At this point even if the road were laid out by a surveyor, (and not generations of Deer), and the trees planted by a gardener, (and didn't simply take advantage of the clearings to the side of the road), they have long since stopped being a work of man and have become a work of nature. As such they are not subject to copyright, (if they are then I guess the US Government could claim copyright to the Grand Canyon, something I think none of us would like to see). The Foundation is therefor claiming copyright to something that cannot be copyrighted. On the face of it this case should go no farther than the nearest circular file. The Codicil is in this case unenforceable, it is only enforceable on the foundation, who in this case is mistaking a limitation on itself, with a limitation on a third party. In my humble opinion the Grantor wanted to make sure that the foundation didn't sell the likeness of the Plantation House to a business concern, probably to avoid the creation of something like "Old Dixie Plantation, Sour Mash Whiskey" or "Old Dixie Plantation, Real Old Fashioned Lemonade", with an Image of the plantation house prominently displayed on the packaging. I doubt very much that a former wildlife artist would want to hurt another artist with an aesthetic appreciation of the Plantation's beauty, (this does not in any way forgive the trespass however). If the rule of no photographs is clearly stated and enforced and the Photographer entered the property without permission, then he is clearly liable for being charged with criminal trespass. The photograph itself is proof of the charge. That is an open and shut case. Criminal trespass is a felony in most states carrying with it some jail time and a hefty fine, (I don't know the law in South Carolina, but in Texas it could get you shot). I would think that a felony conviction would serve the case better than a lawsuit seeking monetary damages. I was going to say that if the Photographer attempted to sell the images to a commercial concern for advertising or trademarking purposes, he might be in trouble. But I'm not even sure that would be true,the commercial enterprise would probably be if it then used the name "The Dixie Plantation" in their advertising along with the photographs. There is however another question. If the images were obtained unlawfully, (even thought copyright isn't involved), what should be done with the profits from them? 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 as
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Sure and I'm not allowed to make a copy of your building, without paying royalties, but photographing your building is not making a copy of it. More importantly the image in question appears to be of entirely natural origin. Unless someone can prove the road was laid out by a surveyor and not several generations of deer. Even then it is over 200 years old and has long since fallen into the public domain if it was even possible to copyright to begin with, a point I would dispute. Adam Maas wrote: > Tnat depends. Anything that's designed can be copyrighted(Buildings, > gardens, etc), but if it's essentially naturally occuring it can only be > trademarked. > > -Adam > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> These scenes can be trademarked, not copyrighted a different thing all >> together. >> >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> In some (or maybe many) cases the scenes are copyright protected >>> company logos and I suppose that could be at play.(?) >>> I've understood for some time that "The Lone Cypress", on the Monterey >>> peninsula's "17 Mile Drive", is one such site. >>> Sometime in the late 90's I shot the scene, but it's not on my site. >>> (don't even know where the image is at this point) >>> >>> Jack >>> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> yeah, that's what I thought - they could get him for trespassing, but I don't think he was doing anything illegal by taking a photograph. What I don't understand is how you can place a legally binding contract forbidding photographs of your land to be sold...do you have to put up signs or something? what nonsense. rg2 On 10/6/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go >> >> after >> him >> for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > > >>> >>> >>> > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: > > mail, news, photos & more.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Maybe but you are using logic starting from incorrect assumptions, I am stating law, two different things. A work of nature cannot be copyrighted period. The photograph in question is of a group of 250+ year old oak trees. They stopped being a work of man a long time ago, if they ever were. No copyright applies. The road was probably a originally a dear track, once again no copyright applies. In this case I don't even have to go into materials entering the public domain. The trespass is another matter for which there can be a legal argument. However as I said, the photographer is not being sued for that. Jack Davis wrote: > NO NO. You are separating points and misapplying the logic. > As I said below Peter, and with all due respect, I think I've taken > this as far as I care to. > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> You entirely miss the point. You cannot claim copyright on something >> you >> hold no copyright to. If he pays it will be a miscarriage of justice >> and >> in the end all photographers will pay and pay dearly. >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Copyright protected (against commercial image use) sights have been >>> >> in >> >>> existence for quite awhile. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Ham pays, >>> especially due to the trespass issue. >>> Without taking it any further, if it is the sight I am guessing it >>> >> is, >> >>> it is one which is much used for commercial purposed. >>> >>> Jack >>> --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot >> go >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. >> The >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have >> no >> standing. Jack Davis wrote: > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go >> >> after >> >> him >> for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Re
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we photographers are already paying for this. 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 . > > > 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 >> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Tnat depends. Anything that's designed can be copyrighted(Buildings, gardens, etc), but if it's essentially naturally occuring it can only be trademarked. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > These scenes can be trademarked, not copyrighted a different thing all > together. > > > Jack Davis wrote: >> In some (or maybe many) cases the scenes are copyright protected >> company logos and I suppose that could be at play.(?) >> I've understood for some time that "The Lone Cypress", on the Monterey >> peninsula's "17 Mile Drive", is one such site. >> Sometime in the late 90's I shot the scene, but it's not on my site. >> (don't even know where the image is at this point) >> >> Jack >> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> yeah, that's what I thought - they could get him for trespassing, but >>> I don't think he was doing anything illegal by taking a photograph. >>> What I don't understand is how you can place a legally binding >>> contract forbidding photographs of your land to be sold...do you have >>> to put up signs or something? what nonsense. >>> >>> rg2 >>> >>> On 10/6/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go > >>> after >>> > him > for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > > 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 >> >> >> > -- > 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. > > >> >> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: >>> mail, news, photos & more. >>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC -- 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. >>> >>> -- >>> "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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Need a vacation? Get great deals >> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. >> http://travel.yahoo.com/ >> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
NO NO. You are separating points and misapplying the logic. As I said below Peter, and with all due respect, I think I've taken this as far as I care to. Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You entirely miss the point. You cannot claim copyright on something > you > hold no copyright to. If he pays it will be a miscarriage of justice > and > in the end all photographers will pay and pay dearly. > > Jack Davis wrote: > > Copyright protected (against commercial image use) sights have been > in > > existence for quite awhile. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Ham pays, > > especially due to the trespass issue. > > Without taking it any further, if it is the sight I am guessing it > is, > > it is one which is much used for commercial purposed. > > > > Jack > > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the > >> problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot > go > >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. > The > >> > >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action > > >> taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have > no > >> > >> standing. > >> > >> Jack Davis wrote: > >> > >>> In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > >>> > >>> Jack > >>> --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go > after > him > for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Remember, its 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. > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >>> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your > pocket: > >>> > >> mail, news, photos & more. > >> > >>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Remember, its 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Remember, its pillage then burn. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailm
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
These scenes can be trademarked, not copyrighted a different thing all together. Jack Davis wrote: > In some (or maybe many) cases the scenes are copyright protected > company logos and I suppose that could be at play.(?) > I've understood for some time that "The Lone Cypress", on the Monterey > peninsula's "17 Mile Drive", is one such site. > Sometime in the late 90's I shot the scene, but it's not on my site. > (don't even know where the image is at this point) > > Jack > --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> yeah, that's what I thought - they could get him for trespassing, but >> I don't think he was doing anything illegal by taking a photograph. >> What I don't understand is how you can place a legally binding >> contract forbidding photographs of your land to be sold...do you have >> to put up signs or something? what nonsense. >> >> rg2 >> >> On 10/6/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? >>> >>> Jack >>> --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go >> after >> him for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. 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 > > > -- 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >>> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: >>> >> mail, news, photos & more. >> >>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> -- >> "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. >> >> > > > > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > http://travel.yahoo.com/ > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
You entirely miss the point. You cannot claim copyright on something you hold no copyright to. If he pays it will be a miscarriage of justice and in the end all photographers will pay and pay dearly. Jack Davis wrote: > Copyright protected (against commercial image use) sights have been in > existence for quite awhile. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Ham pays, > especially due to the trespass issue. > Without taking it any further, if it is the sight I am guessing it is, > it is one which is much used for commercial purposed. > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the >> problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go >> along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The >> >> case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action >> taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no >> >> standing. >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? >>> >>> Jack >>> --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after him for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. 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 > > > > -- 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >>> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: >>> >> mail, news, photos & more. >> >>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > > > > 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 > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . >>> >>> >>> 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . >> >> >> 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Mark Roberts wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >> 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. > > IIRC, you can't sell the images for commercial use without a release > but you can sell them as fine art prints, ie, as pieces of art in and > of themselves, without a release. Just like photos of people taken > without a release. Interestingly, the news story was unclear on this > point. > Yes, that's correct (and of course you can sell them for editorial use without a release as well). -Adam This doesn't apply in Quebec though. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Adam Maas wrote: >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. IIRC, you can't sell the images for commercial use without a release but you can sell them as fine art prints, ie, as pieces of art in and of themselves, without a release. Just like photos of people taken without a release. Interestingly, the news story was unclear on this point. -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . >> >> >> 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
In some (or maybe many) cases the scenes are copyright protected company logos and I suppose that could be at play.(?) I've understood for some time that "The Lone Cypress", on the Monterey peninsula's "17 Mile Drive", is one such site. Sometime in the late 90's I shot the scene, but it's not on my site. (don't even know where the image is at this point) Jack --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah, that's what I thought - they could get him for trespassing, but > I don't think he was doing anything illegal by taking a photograph. > What I don't understand is how you can place a legally binding > contract forbidding photographs of your land to be sold...do you have > to put up signs or something? what nonsense. > > rg2 > > On 10/6/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > > > Jack > > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go > after > > > him > > > for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: > mail, news, photos & more. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > -- > "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. > Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Copyright protected (against commercial image use) sights have been in existence for quite awhile. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Ham pays, especially due to the trespass issue. Without taking it any further, if it is the sight I am guessing it is, it is one which is much used for commercial purposed. Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the > problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go > along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The > > case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action > taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no > > standing. > > Jack Davis wrote: > > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > > > Jack > > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after > >> him > >> for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Remember, its 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: > mail, news, photos & more. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > > > > > > -- > Remember, its 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. > 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . > > > 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 >> >> > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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 . 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Yes, but they're suing him for copyright infringement. That's the problem they're idiots, and if they can manage to get a court ot go along with them in the interests of justice then it hurts us all. The case as it stands should be thrown out and the proper legal action taken. That is unless he had permission to be there then they have no standing. Jack Davis wrote: > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after >> him >> for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
yeah, that's what I thought - they could get him for trespassing, but I don't think he was doing anything illegal by taking a photograph. What I don't understand is how you can place a legally binding contract forbidding photographs of your land to be sold...do you have to put up signs or something? what nonsense. rg2 On 10/6/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? > > Jack > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after > > him > > for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > -- > 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. > -- "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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
In this case, the "trespass" is the problem..what else? Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after > him > for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Remember, its 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. > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after him for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary. 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 > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I actually found the image in question. If the judge even lets this go one day in court, he should be impeached, he doesn't deserve to be on the bench deciding copyright cases. P. J. Alling wrote: > I don't think the plantation or it's parent organization has a leg to > stand on, if they allow photography at all. They are however likely to > have deeper pockets than the photographer, which is probably the whole > point to the exercise. > > Rebekah wrote: > >> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >> >> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >> >> rg2 >> >> > > > -- 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.
Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued
I don't think the plantation or it's parent organization has a leg to stand on, if they allow photography at all. They are however likely to have deeper pockets than the photographer, which is probably the whole point to the exercise. Rebekah wrote: > Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? > > http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html > > rg2 > -- 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.
OT: Photographer Being Sued
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.
