>
> 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: "
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 $25
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 specifi
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.
-Ada
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
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 wa
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
> > ca
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 civi
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 cou
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-
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
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 o
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
>
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
> 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 Annua
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 smar
#x27;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
s 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
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
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
>>
27;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]>
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:
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
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 fin
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
r
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 o
hey 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
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 d
s 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 wer
- 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 fro
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:
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.
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
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'
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 th
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:
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
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 alm
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
>>
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:
> Frankl
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 t
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.
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
; 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 &
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
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 disse
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...
--
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 tr
ished 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 ar
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 s
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 t
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 -060
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
ED]>
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 propert
- 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
>
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 weig
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 bo
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 phot
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, th
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 s
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
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, on
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:
>
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 copy
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
>
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
> exi
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
trespa
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 permissio
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
> bu
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 prin
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. All
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
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 purpose
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
manufact
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
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
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
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 t
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
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
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
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 gu
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
83 matches
Mail list logo
