DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Can I shoot a picture here?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/05/2006 09:47:15 PM · #1
I just posted on my blog a little expierance I had yesterday shooting pictures in the Javits Center in NYC. Thought I would share this with everyone on my blog. Feel free to read it there and contact me or post there if you like.

Oh and here is something that helped me understand a little better what my rights are.
The truth about photography.
01/05/2006 09:59:52 PM · #2
Thanks Michael.
01/05/2006 10:43:19 PM · #3
Thanks Michael. I got chased away from some place the other night. I just thought this place looked really cool with all the smoke and lights. It turned out to be Valley Proteins, the smell was unbearable, so I didn't get any good pictures. But, I still got chased anyway.
01/05/2006 10:55:09 PM · #4
You mention in your blog a couple of times about being in a 'public place'.
Is it a public building, like a courthouse or what?
What is the definition of a public place?

The football and baseball stadiums here (and most places) are paid for with tax dollars - are they public places? What about airports?

While i would think it obvious people would be taking photos at a boat show (or car/RV etc show) I find it interesting that you were questioned about it. Were you taking pics of something in particular, or hanging about suspiciously?

I still come back to the fact that terrorists are not stupid. If they want photos of these places they'll use 7mp digicams, bring the family or use video cams. And if you're car bombing or fluying 747s into them, you don't need no interior photos!
01/05/2006 11:59:51 PM · #5
Hi Chris

"You mention in your blog a couple of times about being in a 'public place'. Is it a public building, like a courthouse or what?
What is the definition of a public place?"


HI Chris, yes anyplace that is accessible to the public. The ACLU has been fighting the courts for years trying to televise court hearings and trials. In some places they have succeeded.

"The football and baseball stadiums here (and most places) are paid for with tax dollars - are they public places?"

Yes as well except when being used for a private event such as a baseball game or football game then whoever owns the rights to that event has say over who and what can shoot. I have been to Yankee games at Yankee Stadium and have never been questioned with my E-1 and 200mm lens.

"What about airports?"

I can see how maybe inside the airport you can not shoot photography but I don't see that there is a law saying you can't. Maybe you can check that out and get back to me on it. As far as standing outside and shooting, well I was told by a rent a cop at Tetaboro that I couldn't shoot, that the law was changed. I have not found out if that is true yet.

"While i would think it obvious people would be taking photos at a boat show (or car/RV etc show) I find it interesting that you were questioned about it. Were you taking pics of something in particular, or hanging about suspiciously?"

Here is something that really pisses me off, not you Chris, the judgment call, answer this: what is suspiciously? What I might have a problem with you might not, also I didn't get mad at the cops who asked me because they did it in a very nice and polite way, but still I could have refused to answer and not have done anything wrong. I am sure had I just stone walled them even with a smile, I would have been cuffed and taken downtown until they found out I was just a hobbyist.

"I still come back to the fact that terrorists are not stupid. If they want photos of these places they'll use 7mp dig cams, bring the family or use video cams. And if you're car bombing or flying 747s into them, you don't need no interior photos!"

Well Chris I am glad you asked and for what it is worth, I am not out trying to change the world. For someone in Beaver PA I am sure you can't grasp the tension sometimes in New York City unless you have lived here. I am sure at whatever convention center is near you maybe a little ride south to Pittsburg; nobody would mind you taking pictures of a monument or an artsy building. But here, it's like a whole new world. Everyone is watching everyone else and making 911 calls for children's lost book bags. It then becomes over kill and since it is in the name of "safety from terrorists" signs go up cops make a lot of overtime for spilt talcum powder and photographers are hassled at every turn.

The public isn't aware that we can take these pictures and we are all considered terrorists until a cop reassures them.

Do you know that every bridge on the Hudson, East river and all around NYC have signs stating "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" I went to the Port Authority Police station and asked and was told by the Captain on duty, there really isn't a law. Ergo I have some nice pictures of the GWB. But I bet all the cars that travel that bridge feel safer because of those signs.

I could go on but it's late. I will continue this tomorrow if needed. I got millions of them. Nude beach story tomorrow.

01/06/2006 12:03:55 AM · #6
Public place. Any and all streets, boulevards, avenues, lanes, alleys or other public ways, and any and all public parks, squares, spaces, plazas, grounds and buildings. At least in Davis CA.
01/06/2006 11:35:29 AM · #7
Oh one more thing, you can take a picture of anyone anyplace at anytime as long as there is no expectation of privacy.
01/06/2006 12:21:55 PM · #8
There is a bit of misinterpretation of the flyer in your posts, MPRPRO. What you consider to be a public space may not be correct: there are many places accessible by the public that are nonetheless privately owned. This would include areas such as malls, many stadiums and exhibition spaces, and probably some airports. In those spaces, your entry is broadly on the terms of the owner, and they can prohibit photography as they choose. It is likely that their remedy of you breach their rules, however, is limited to revoking their permission for you to enter and expelling you from the premises.

Just because someone chooses not to prohibit photography, or chooses not to enforce a rule, does not mean that there is no prohibition. If you take photographs in breach, you are probably limited in the uses that you can put them to: commercial exploitation would be difficut without a property release.

While you can take pictures of people, there are limitations on what you can use those pictures for. For example, you could not use them for commercial purposes without a model release.

Refusing to answer questions asked by the police may be grounds for suspicion that legitimately empower them to detain you.

I was stopped on several occassions by the Metropolitan Police in the wake of the London bombings (I was questioned under the prevention of terrorism act, and threatened with confiscation of my equipment for "taking photos of the police" (!) - A calm and polite response is by far the best and most productive route forwards).

There can be other reasons for the prohibition of photography: the London Underground sporadically asks me to stop taking photos, supposedly because they are keen to protect their intellectual property in the stations (!?!). But flash photography is prohibited for the very sensible reason of protecting the night vision of the drivers.
01/06/2006 12:59:49 PM · #9
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

There is a bit of misinterpretation of the flyer in your posts, MPRPRO. What you consider to be a public space may not be correct: there are many places accessible by the public that are nonetheless privately owned. This would include areas such as malls, many stadiums and exhibition spaces, and probably some airports. In those spaces, your entry is broadly on the terms of the owner, and they can prohibit photography as they choose. It is likely that their remedy of you breach their rules, however, is limited to revoking their permission for you to enter and expelling you from the premises.

Just because someone chooses not to prohibit photography, or chooses not to enforce a rule, does not mean that there is no prohibition. If you take photographs in breach, you are probably limited in the uses that you can put them to: commercial exploitation would be difficut without a property release.

While you can take pictures of people, there are limitations on what you can use those pictures for. For example, you could not use them for commercial purposes without a model release.

Refusing to answer questions asked by the police may be grounds for suspicion that legitimately empower them to detain you.

I was stopped on several occassions by the Metropolitan Police in the wake of the London bombings (I was questioned under the prevention of terrorism act, and threatened with confiscation of my equipment for "taking photos of the police" (!) - A calm and polite response is by far the best and most productive route forwards).

There can be other reasons for the prohibition of photography: the London Underground sporadically asks me to stop taking photos, supposedly because they are keen to protect their intellectual property in the stations (!?!). But flash photography is prohibited for the very sensible reason of protecting the night vision of the drivers.


legal Rights for UK
Maybe what's considered public in the US is different in the UK
01/06/2006 04:07:46 PM · #10
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

There is a bit of misinterpretation of the flyer in your posts, MPRPRO.


Not so my dear London friend, Freedom of speech is just that freedom. As far as public spaces used for private events and the like I already addressed that issue so you are being redundant.

If you choose to walk naked on a public beach and I take a picture of you, there is nothing you can do about it. If I trespassed and got a picture of you naked well then I would have a problem, but I am sure page Three wouldn't. LOL. If I take a picture of a Carnival Cruise Ship and try to profit from it, that is another story, I may have a problem with that. If for the sake of art, I shoot something that may offend you, too bad.

This is the United States of America and you can't arrest me or detain me for no reason or with no reasonable cause. Despite what the bias Bush hating BBC says that is still the case here even after Ashcroft. You just can't. If it is done and it can be proven in a court of law that there was nothing I was doing wrong and there wasn't reasonable cause then I could get a new camera at least or take a permanent vacation on the island of my choice at the Cities expense.

I am not and do not ask to be an activist. However, I will fight tooth and nail if my freedoms are curtailed in anyway for the sake of a paranoid public or a politician's need for a photo opportunity.

I speak for the USA only; it is hard to explain to some people what real freedom is when they don't have a clue as to what the word means.

Here is an example for you; in 1972 I went on a concert tour with my high school choir to the communist Romania and Czechoslovakia. I met a student who asked me "Since you are so close to New York City, how many days before you go to New York City do you have to tell the police?" See what I mean? If I said three days he would have thought "Wow what freedom." When I told him I could go anytime I wanted, that I didn't have to tell anyone, he cried.

I will take whatever photo I can wherever I can and do so without restrictions as long as I am in public.

BTW on the issue of a shopping mall? Well here in NJ in Paramus there was a court case on just this subject, taking pictures in the mall; it was ruled by the court as the public square and people were free to take pictures inside. So even though people are every day trying to clip away at the rights of a free people, we keep wining.

Mike

01/07/2006 08:12:04 AM · #11
Originally posted by MPRPRO:

Not so my dear London friend...I speak for the USA only; it is hard to explain to some people what real freedom is when they don't have a clue as to what the word means.
Your legal system is a common law system substantially based on the English system. I assure you that the basic position is broadly similar between the UK and US, even if the details differ. In any case, all I was pointing out is that there are some differences between the description in the pdf guide and your attempt to relay the same information.

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

Freedom of speech is just that freedom. .... Here is an example for you; in 1972 I went on a concert tour with my high school choir to the communist Romania and Czechoslovakia...
??? I did not suggest that the dictatorships and militarised states have equal freedoms to the US, nor did I consider freedom of movment (or speech) - this is something of a tangential statement!

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

I will take whatever photo I can wherever I can and do so without restrictions as long as I am in public.
This may be your opinion, but this does not acccurately reflect the law. The pdf states that you may have to disclose your identity upon request in states that require it. Law enforcement officers do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities. The military can stop you taking photographs where national security deems it necessary. [/quote]

My main point was that what is a "public place" may not be obvious, and there are limits on what you can do in a private place. As the pdf states, property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises and while permission may be assumed, you must stop if the owner asks you to do so. I don't know the precise status of specific malls in specific states in the US, but malls are generally privately owned.
01/07/2006 11:13:51 AM · #12
An example of this public but not is her in Pittsburgh, PA. We have the PPG Tower,a glass skyscraper that is very distinct in appearance, and the property owners do not want it photographed. They will stop you. Even if you are on a public sidewalk, they will stop you.

Can they? Hard to say, but they do. They claim it is a copyrighted building and you need their permission to photograph it. They claim they own teh property the sidwalk and plaza is on, so they can control the activity there.

I don't think anyone has pushed the issue legally to see if it holds water or not. Wanna come and try? You can use that new jersey mall case as a precedent.
01/07/2006 05:29:37 PM · #13
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

Freedom of speech is just that freedom. .... Here is an example for you; in 1972 I went on a concert tour with my high school choir to the communist Romania and Czechoslovakia...
I did not suggest that the dictatorships and militarized states have equal freedoms to the US, nor did I consider freedom of movement (or speech) - this is something of a tangential statement!


I didn't bring that subject up to say you did, I was using it as an example of how some people can't comprehend true freedom because they did not or are not living in a truly free country. I am not saying you don't either so don't misunderstand me. I might not have been clear in that statement so forgive me.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

I will take whatever photo I can wherever I can and do so without restrictions as long as I am in public.
This may be your opinion, but this does not accurately reflect the law. The pdf states that you may have to disclose your identity upon request in states that require it. Law enforcement officers do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities. The military can stop you taking photographs where national security deems it necessary.


OK here is what I said on that subject originally to a post by Prof_fate Chris:

""You mention in your blog a couple of times about being in a 'public place'. Is it a public building, like a courthouse or what?
What is the definition of a public place?"

HI Chris, yes anyplace that is accessible to the public. The ACLU has been fighting the courts for years trying to televise court hearings and trials. In some places they have succeeded.

"The football and baseball stadiums here (and most places) are paid for with tax dollars - are they public places?"

Yes as well except when being used for a private event such as a baseball game or football game then whoever owns the rights to that event has say over who and what can shoot. I have been to Yankee games at Yankee Stadium and have never been questioned with my E-1 and 200mm lens. "

Hope that all clears up any misunderstanding we may have had.

01/07/2006 05:42:38 PM · #14
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

An example of this public but not is her in Pittsburgh, PA. We have the PPG Tower,a glass skyscraper that is very distinct in appearance, and the property owners do not want it photographed. They will stop you. Even if you are on a public sidewalk, they will stop you.

Can they? Hard to say, but they do. They claim it is a copyrighted building and you need their permission to photograph it. They claim they own teh property the sidwalk and plaza is on, so they can control the activity there.

I don't think anyone has pushed the issue legally to see if it holds water or not. Wanna come and try? You can use that new jersey mall case as a precedent.


This PPG Tower I can't take a picture of?
' . substr('//homepage.mac.com/stoverjenkins/.cv/stoverjenkins/Sites/.Pictures/ppg%20internet/ppg%20full%20tower%201.jpg-thumb_202_269.jpg', strrpos('//homepage.mac.com/stoverjenkins/.cv/stoverjenkins/Sites/.Pictures/ppg%20internet/ppg%20full%20tower%201.jpg-thumb_202_269.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I would love to take you up on that, however many have already as I found out when I did a Google Image Search on PPG Tower. LOOK Here

This is a slide show of the PPG Tower and Floor plans too.

Here is someone selling pictures of the PPG Building. Not me sorry to say.

They can not stop you from taking pictures of this building. Public streets are just that public.

I did mention that every bridge in NYC has signs forbidding photography and a Port Authority Policemen told me "There really isn't a law forbidding photography on the bridges." Don't go by what some rent a cop at this building says. Go ask the police (it pisses me off just to say that) but if you are not sure ask. At least if you ask the police you know where you stand before anything happens to you.

Hey folks, I am not and have not said I was a lawyer, don't take my word for it, go and find out for yourself as I have.

I am sure we have some police, lawyers and judges on DPC, speak up about this I and we could use your support.

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 17:46:03.
01/07/2006 05:56:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

An example of this public but not is her in Pittsburgh, PA. We have the PPG Tower, a glass skyscraper that is very distinct in appearance, and the property owners do not want it photographed. They will stop you. Even if you are on a public sidewalk, they will stop you.

Can they? Hard to say, but they do. They claim it is a copyrighted building and you need their permission to photograph it. They claim they own the property the sidewalk and plaza is on, so they can control the activity there.

I don't think anyone has pushed the issue legally to see if it holds water or not. Wanna come and try? You can use that New Jersey mall case as a precedent.


I meant to ask, who are "they?" Who stopped you or should I say how did you come about this?

See I saw on all the pictures I found of the PPG Tower that there is a fountain where kids play in the plaza, if my kids were playing there and I took a picture of them and the building was in it would "they" take my camera? I doubt it.

Like I said in the previous post ask someone who knows the local laws. Then decide how you want to proceed. Be informed people it is your responsibility.

01/10/2006 11:46:08 PM · #16
Hey I could be wrong, I sent a question about this subject to a professional and very artistic photographer I know in the city. She clued me in on some things I didn't know:

"Actually I think the police were right Ė but you took a fabulous picture.

You were on private property, and therefore you donít have the press freedom to shoot at will. Outdoors on public streets, you do have that right. But in a building owned by a company or in someoneís home, you donít have the same right.

Some photographers get property releases when theyíre shooting inside of a space and want to make sure there are no problems. I usually donít bother with that. But itís the same thing as a model release, but itís for the property instead. Or what would be the background of the photos."


To which I answered:

"My point was and I thought this was the case, that the center is owned by the city, the space inside where the boat show was taking place I agree can be off limits though no one had a problem, so people posed for me. I would think the lobby would be cool because it wasnít space you had to even pay to get into. That is why I thought I was ok shooting there."

My friend then answered me with this:

"I think the deal with city owned property is that you have to get a permit to shoot there. I know thatís the case in city parks. I once had to get a permit, and also pay a park ranger to accompany us for a photo shoot I did."

You live and you learn.
01/10/2006 11:52:58 PM · #17
Indian film-maker sues New York

Thought this is relevent.

A award-winning Indian film-maker has sued the city of New York after police stopped him from filming in the street.

Rakesh Sharma was shooting footage for a film on New York taxi drivers in May 2005 when officers stopped him.

The suit, filed on Rakesh Sharma's behalf by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), said his constitutional rights had been violated.

According to his lawsuit he was held by police and "searched and harassed" before being told he needed a permit.

01/11/2006 01:16:13 AM · #18
Under US copyright law, buildings erected after (I think) 1986 can be copyrighted. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you can't photograph it for your own personal use, but that your right make copies or otherwise publish or commercially exploit the image is restricted.

Check this list of restricted properties.
01/11/2006 03:58:26 AM · #19
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Under US copyright law, buildings erected after (I think) 1986 can be copyrighted. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you can't photograph it for your own personal use, but that your right make copies or otherwise publish or commercially exploit the image is restricted.

Check this list of restricted properties.


I think it is intent rather then existence. A building does not own the sky. If the intended target was a hawk and the building was not the object, there is no infringement since it would not be legally correct to assume that the building had rights simply because it existed and was in the way of the intended target, a hawk.
01/11/2006 05:21:24 AM · #20
Originally posted by MPRPRO:

Hey I could be wrong, I sent a question about this subject to a professional and very artistic photographer I know in the city. She clued me in on some things I didn't know:


This is the point I was making: I am not sure whether to be offended that you accept legal advice from a photographer but not from a lawyer...! ;)

The usual position with buildings is that the design is copyrighted to prevent other architects from copying other people's buildings rather than designing them properly themselves. It is usually the case that a 2 dimensional representation of a building (aka a photograph) is specifically excluded from copyright prohibitions.

However, there are other considerations. Structures that are not a "building" may not benefit from the exclusion. When something amounts to a design that is beyond a simple building, it may not fall within the general exclusion. There are probably technicalities or statutory provisions that protect some other property.

The practical effect is to limit your ability to use images of protected structures commercially without the appropriate permission or property release. If you were to do so, you may be liable to account for your profits to the copyright owner. There is no practical recourse if you were to take photographs for personal uses, and possibly some editorial purposes.


01/11/2006 11:18:20 AM · #21
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am not sure whether to be offended that you accept legal advice from a photographer but not from a lawyer...! ;)



Matthew, if you choose to be offended then that is your choice. I do not accept the opinions of anyone I don't personelly know online. The women I was asking is currently involved in a law suit with the United States government involving the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom and the ACLU, so to me her opinion carrys more weight then yours. Not because you don't know as much, I know her personally I don't know you and have no evidence of your credentials at my disposal. So yes I took her opinion over yours but there is no need to be offended.

I am not finished with this though. I am still looking into this.

Here are a few questions:

If I hire a Helocopter and do a fly over NYC and take some pictures of NYC copyright and sell them, do I need a permit from the city? Do I need a permission slip from every land owner?

If I am on vacation in NYC and take pictures in Times Square and something happens that I catch on my camera, can I copyright it?

If a man is in the woods talking and there are no women around, is he still wrong?

Last one for commic relief. :)
01/11/2006 12:12:24 PM · #22
Originally posted by MPRPRO:


Matthew, if you choose to be offended then that is your choice.
Sorry - should have made the smiley bigger. Of course there was no offense taken!

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

If I hire a Helocopter and do a fly over NYC and take some pictures of NYC copyright and sell them, do I need a permit from the city? Do I need a permission slip from every land owner?

If I am on vacation in NYC and take pictures in Times Square and something happens that I catch on my camera, can I copyright it?


It may be easier to try and explain what copyright is, rather than whether it applies in specific circumstances. Copyright arises in respect of intellectual property. More than one type of right can arise in the same object. This includes: text, still & moving images, sounds, objects, and arrangements of those things. For example, in respect of a CD, there will be separate copyrights in respect of the music, the words, the typesetting of these on a page, the recording, the image on the front of the CD, the font used to type any text. Copyright will subsist in the code used to effect copy protection, or the firmware in the CD player used to play the CD. The database of CD track names would usually also attract copyright interests.

There will also be other forms of intellectual property protection: the CD itself is probably protected by a patent or other design right, the recording studio's logo will probably be a trademark, and the CD case is probably protected by a design right.

Payments are made in respect of all those rights to produce and sell a CD!

Copyright protects the specific expression of the property, not the subject matter itself. So if you record a train whistle, your recording attracts copyright, preventing others from copying your recording without your permission, but you have no "right" in respect of train whistles generally.

The basic protection that copyright affords is that you can recover losses or damages that you incur in respect of a breach of your copyright. In practice, this means that it is uneconomic for copyright rights to be enforced where the person in breach makes no money from the breach and causes you no loss. It is for this reason that the RIAA tends to attack song uploaders, who cause massive damages to the recording industry (the cost of the CD x number of downloads), rather than downloaders (the cost of one CD).

There are a number of exceptions to the application of copyright. Generally these include the use of a reasonable amount of copyrighted material for reporting purposes, for educational purposes, and certain rights in relation to technologies such as time shifting (eg using a VCR).

When you take a photograph, you are creating an image in which you retain copyright. Your rights extend to the image that you have taken/created, not the subject matter of your image. Other people can take a photograph of the same subject and recreate the image if they want and are able to, but they cannot copy your particular photograph.

Copyright in building designs extends from the 2d plans to the 3d building itself. However, there is usually an exception permitting people to make a 2d copy of the building design from the 3d model: ie you can photograph or paint a building, but you cannot reconstruct it without permission. If you wanted to release a model of the Empire State Building, for example, you would probably have to get the consent of the owners of that building (probably only given on agreement to pay a licensing fee).

I am not entirely sure on what basis the Flatiron building or Chrysler building might be protected - it may be something other than copyright. The Eiffel tower lighting arrangement is claimed to be subject to copyright, on the basis that it is a valuable creative expression and does not fall within the buildings exception under French law. Epcot centre is protected on the basis that it can only be photographed from within Disney World, on which land commercial photography is prohibited by the owner.

With buildings there is a secondary issue unrelated to copyright: the law relating to real estate. When you are present on someone else's land, your entry to that land is subject to any terms prescribed by the land owner. If you act in breach of those terms, you are liable to pay damages in respect of any loss or damage that you cause, and your permission to enter the property may be revoked (ie you get tossed out). If you were to take a photograph of the Epcot Centre while on Disney's land on terms that prohibit commercial photography (check your ticket!) and exploit it commercially, you may be liable to pay Disney in respect of their loss (their loss is the chance to sell that image themselves, and probably = your profit).

Your helicopter example is an interesting one. In the UK, there was a case dealing with aerial photographers taking pictures of people's houses from the air and then trying to sell them to the property owners door to door. They were sued for trespass - they entered the airspace owned by the property owner below without permission, and were not high enough to take advantage of the general permissions that apply to aeroplanes (the issue in that case was predominantly the annoying & very low flying aeroplanes). So you could find yourself on the end of a trespass suit! But practically, only an issue if you are trying to exploit the image commercially.

If a building that is validly protected is in your photograph, your photo may be in breach. Practical liability is probably a question of degree as to the size and prominence of the building in question in your photo, and only really an issue to the extent that you exploit the image commercially.

In respect of our captured fleeting image, you would have the copyright in your image, but would not obtain any rights over the subject matter. So another photographer at the same time could take a similar photo, but no-one could copy your image without your permission (and you could not copy his).

I think that the main difference between the UK and the US is the extent to which you must assert copyright for it to apply: in the UK, copyright is effective automatically, whereas in the US this may not be the case.
01/11/2006 12:27:26 PM · #23
Last christmas I was at the PPG building when they have the big tree and ice skating. I took some pictures, but a guard told me the policy was to take pictures of the tree only (and not the building). He was talking to a cop and I asked him if this was public property. The cop said that little square (between the buildings) was owned by PPG. However, the streets were public.

I took one step off the curb and set up my tripod. They just casually kept talking to each other as I snapped pictures. Of course I was polite and friendly with them...
01/11/2006 12:31:47 PM · #24
Ok I believe you are a lawyer now. What a pain in the ass all this is to an artist like me. Not you Matthew the whole dam thing, are we a free people or not?

Well I am still going to take pictures and "exploit the image commercially" in my art and everyone can kiss my ass. I have a shot for sale right now on my DPC store, do I need permission for selling this picture which I took from another state all together?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40819/thumb/246965.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40819/thumb/246965.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I really didn't want to get into a discussion on copyright law, though I understand why you went into such detail on it. My point is, if I am in public, if I shoot a picture of something I see which is not in any case under the expectation of privacy, I can do whatever I wish with it. I can cover a wall in my house with it; I can cover a wall in your house with it if you want me to. It is public isn't it? I can look at it, if through my skills and technique I can create a piece of art from it, why can't I promote my own self interests with it? The intellectual property which makes it a piece of art is mine not the owner of the buildings or city or state I am taking a picture of. Am I nuts? Am I delusional to think I have a skill which I want to profit from by selling my interpretations of a skyline or location which is public?

I am taking a pill now and going to lie down.

Mike

01/11/2006 12:32:30 PM · #25
FWIW, I got hassled by some rent-a-cop when I took ' . substr('//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/26564167/small.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/26564167/small.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/16/2019 02:58:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/16/2019 02:58:49 AM EDT.