You're under ARREST!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http://tinyurl.com/buq32

But I hear the subway law has been changed already in New York.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/buq32
>
>But I hear the subway law has been changed already in New York.

Very amusing. Come out here to suburban Northern California sometime.
There is a very large credit card company, whose name I should not
divulge here on the net (but it begins with a 'V' and has four
letters), who have built a headquarters here in an unmentionable
suburb about 24 miles south of San Francisco. On their property, they
erected a somewhat interesting fountain.

One day, I tried taking some pictures of said fountain from a public
sidewalk. I was stopped by a private security guard, who told me that
taking pictures of the fountain was not allowed. I mentioned that I
was on a public sidewalk, and could not see any reason for the
restriction. He was adamant that I could not take pictures of the
fountain, but at least did not ask me to erase my already-taken
apparently illicit digital images.

I asked him the name of the company who had erected the fountain, and
he told me that he was not allowed to tell me the name of the company
(nor is it posted anywhere on any of their several buildings).

It took only a very little bit of sleuthing to find out the name of
the company. I haven't complained to them, but I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Oh well, the images weren't that interesting anyhow, as it turned out.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Tim Smith" <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:q508915ol8kqhb5iifc5jeifmcric90bbn@4ax.com...
>>... I suspect that I
>> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
>> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>
>Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

Sorry, was trying to be ironic. The whole episode still sticks in my
craw.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tim Smith wrote:
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Tim Smith" <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:q508915ol8kqhb5iifc5jeifmcric90bbn@4ax.com...
>>
>>>... I suspect that I
>>>shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
>>>public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>>
>>Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
>
>
> Sorry, was trying to be ironic. The whole episode still sticks in my
> craw.
>
>


Then make it stick in their craw by publishing the photos. Or send them
to me and I'll publish them and email those twits the URL. I'll quote
an unamed source for verification.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> It took only a very little bit of sleuthing to find out the name of
> the company. I haven't complained to them, but I suspect that I
> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

If you were going to sell the images you might need to get a release from
the owner of the fountain.


--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:50:43 -0400, Michael Benveniste
<mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote:
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>... I suspect that I
>>> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
>>> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>>
>> Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
>
> Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
> work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
> on the fountain's copyright.

Not by merely photographing it. You'd have to do something with the
photographs to infringe any copyright.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:47:05 -0700, Tim Smith <tssmith@sonic.net>
wrote:

>"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>"Tim Smith" <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:q508915ol8kqhb5iifc5jeifmcric90bbn@4ax.com...
>>>... I suspect that I
>>> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
>>> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>>
>>Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
>
>Sorry, was trying to be ironic. The whole episode still sticks in my
>craw.
>

You were on public property, you should have told the guard to get
lost. If he'd put his hands on you, you could have sued him and
you'd have won.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:3fje5lF86c7hU1@individual.net...
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>... I suspect that I
> >> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
> >> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
> >
> > Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
>
> Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
> work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
> on the fountain's copyright.

So I'm standing on public property with a camera and my eyes are assaulted
by a clearly viewable display of some idiots' idea of art and I"m supposed
to worry about the so-called artist's copyright? I can't wait for the "hum
a copyrighted tune, go to jail" law.

Hmmm.. You're obviously a member of the class of masochistic bean-counters
who love using the law to prove they're somebody else's bitch.
Congratulations, I guess.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>Tim Smith <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> One day, I tried taking some pictures of said fountain from a public
>> sidewalk. I was stopped by a private security guard, who told me that
>> taking pictures of the fountain was not allowed. I mentioned that I
>> was on a public sidewalk, and could not see any reason for the
>> restriction. He was adamant that I could not take pictures of the
>> fountain, but at least did not ask me to erase my already-taken
>> apparently illicit digital images.
>
>In that situation, the appropriate response is to point your camera at
>the moronic "security" guard and take his picture. Be sure to inform
>him that it will be published along with your account of the incident.
>See if he goes away then.

I really didn't have any problem with the security guard per se, he
was actually a bit apologetic about having to tell me this. When I
asked the name of the company, and he told me that he couldn't tell me
that, he said it in a rueful way, like "I'm just doing what they tell
me to, and I think it's a bit silly too." When I asked him if it was a
branch of the CIA, he just laughed.

Apparently all of the employees of this highly secret company have
been told not to tell outsiders the name of the company, because I
later asked a couple of professional-looking people (technies, I'd
guess) who were coming out for their lunch break the name of the
company, and they too said that they'd been told not to tell.

Weird.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 25 May 2005 07:38:23 -0700, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>I don't doubt that some of the items on the list are really verboten,
>but things like the Flatiron building--erected in 1902--and the various
>vehicle logos are unlikely to be a problem. Any copyright, if that's
>what it is, on the building is long gone--I think at the time it might
>have been copyrighted, it was a 28 year run, with 28 possible as a
>renewal. Copyrights, once lost, cannot be regained. I've shot photos
>for articles of many of the vehicle logos listed and never had a
>problem.

Copyrights for functional buildings are a fairly new concept for
U.S. law, and 17 USC 120 explicitly permits photographs of
copyrighted buildings in any case. Since it was built before
1990, the Flatiron building is not protected by copyright.

The only way to "lose" a copyright is to explicitly place something
in the public domain or through the passage of time.

But the Flatiron building, car logos and the Pebble Beach Cypress
are all trademarks. It's possible to lose a trademark via
abandonment, which is very common, or by non-enforcement, which is
very rare. The scope of trademark protection is quite different
from copyright. A photograph of a car which includes the
trademark, even if sold commercially, doesn't necessarily infringe
on the trademark.

The Flatiron case was settled out of court, but involved the
building owners and a different commercial group both using the
building as a logo.

Disney characters are protected under both trademark and copyright.
So even if a miracle occurs and Congress lets "Steamboat Willie"
age into the public domain, Disney would be all over you if you
tried to sell Mickey Mouse logo goods.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim Smith" <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:q508915ol8kqhb5iifc5jeifmcric90bbn@4ax.com...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/buq32
>>
>>But I hear the subway law has been changed already in New York.
>
> Very amusing. Come out here to suburban Northern California sometime.
> There is a very large credit card company, whose name I should not
> divulge here on the net (but it begins with a 'V' and has four
> letters), who have built a headquarters here in an unmentionable
> suburb about 24 miles south of San Francisco. On their property, they
> erected a somewhat interesting fountain.
>
> One day, I tried taking some pictures of said fountain from a public
> sidewalk. I was stopped by a private security guard, who told me that
> taking pictures of the fountain was not allowed. I mentioned that I
> was on a public sidewalk, and could not see any reason for the
> restriction. He was adamant that I could not take pictures of the
> fountain, but at least did not ask me to erase my already-taken
> apparently illicit digital images.
>
> I asked him the name of the company who had erected the fountain, and
> he told me that he was not allowed to tell me the name of the company
> (nor is it posted anywhere on any of their several buildings).
>
> It took only a very little bit of sleuthing to find out the name of
> the company. I haven't complained to them, but I suspect that I
> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>
> Oh well, the images weren't that interesting anyhow, as it turned out.
>

Next thing you'll be trying to photograph the "Lone Cypress" on the 17 mile
drive. THAT is copyrighted. (How can you copyright an object created by
nature?)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

george wrote:

> Next thing you'll be trying to photograph the "Lone Cypress" on the 17 mile
> drive. THAT is copyrighted. (How can you copyright an object created by
> nature?)

You can photograph it all you like. Publishing it is another matter
(which I agree is as stupid as George Preddy).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:40:58 -0400, "george" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
wrote:

>Next thing you'll be trying to photograph the "Lone Cypress" on the 17 mile
>drive. THAT is copyrighted. (How can you copyright an object created by
>nature?)

It's not copyrighted. It's trademarked.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Tim Smith" <tssmith@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:q508915ol8kqhb5iifc5jeifmcric90bbn@4ax.com...
>
>
>>One day, I tried taking some pictures of said fountain from a public
>>sidewalk. I was stopped by a private security guard, who told me that
>>taking pictures of the fountain was not allowed.
>
>
> The guard was in error. You should have suggested that he contact the
> police, and that you would offer to wait for them to arrive.
>
> I often carry an SLR with me when I walk my kids to school. Whenever a
> vehicle does not stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, I start taking
> pictures of the vehicle. Invariably it freaks the driver out. Twice I've had
> drivers wait for me to come out of the school, and ask what I was doing. I
> explain to them that I am preparing a report for the sheriff (my town
> contracts with the sheriff's office for police services) to see if they can
> do something about drivers that fail to obey the law around schools.
> Sometimes they state that it is illegal for me to take a picture of their
> car, but I checked with local law enforcement, and taking photographs from
> public property, of private property, is completely legal.

Now you know how some of us got rid of the streetwalkers in my
neighbourhood.

>
> I think that we should organize a photo outing over to the V company.
>
>




--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:30:05 -0400, "george" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
wrote:

>
>"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
>news0lc91dp05eilq5reruk4o0t2rtvpe21sk@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:40:58 -0400, "george" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Next thing you'll be trying to photograph the "Lone Cypress" on the 17
>>>mile
>>>drive. THAT is copyrighted. (How can you copyright an object created by
>>>nature?)
>>
>> It's not copyrighted. It's trademarked.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
>> Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
>> address only to submit mail for evaluation.
>
>Actually what you said sounds right...I think it IS a registered trademark
>of Pebble Beach
>golf course. But I seem to recall people getting threatening legal letters
>for exhibiting the
>image even in non-commercial situations (such as camera club competitions).
>

People are often threatened with "legal letters" even when no law
has been broken. It's a way of scaring people by saying
"even if you win in court" you might end up with huge amounts
of lost money and time. Civil courts are the work of the devil,
in many cases. If something is against the law, then obviously
someone should pay, but someone should not have to pay because a
corporation has deeper pockets.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:119cnsts1ekn61a@corp.supernews.com...
> Michael Benveniste wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:40:58 -0400, "george" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Next thing you'll be trying to photograph the "Lone Cypress" on the 17
>>>mile
>>>drive. THAT is copyrighted. (How can you copyright an object created by
>>>nature?)
>>
>>
>> It's not copyrighted. It's trademarked.
>
> Would that be the name is copyrighted instead of the object itself?

You can't copyright a name.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Michael Benveniste <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> If they don't want people taking pictures of architecture & sculpture,
>> they should not make it visible to the public. Isn't that just so
>> obviously preposterous?
>
> Do you feel the same way about photographs as well?
>
> One of the purposes of copyright law is to encourage public display
> of creative works while protecting copyright holders' right to
> profit from the work and to prevent others from profiting from it.

There is a significant difference between merely photographing something
and copying it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:45:09 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
<redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

>There's a difference between recreating a sculpture to sell or to have your
>own copy and taking a photograph of the sculpture. When you photograph the
>sculpture, you are making a photograph, not a copy of the sculpture.

Copyright also grants the holder rights over derivative works, and a
photograph of a sculpture qualifies. See my previous comments in this
thread, or take a peek here:
http://www.sculpture.org/documents [...] rant.shtml

Perhaps the most famous recent copyright infringement case involving
photography of a sculpture involved that most mundane of sculptures --
a Barbie doll. In the case of Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions,
the 9th Circuit wrote:
Because Forsythe photographed the Barbie figure and reproduced
those photographs, Mattel has established a prima facie case of
copyright infringement.
The Court then went on to hold that Forsythe's photographs were fair
use as a parody.

BTW, not only have courts held that a photograph can infringe on a
copyrighted sculpture, but also that a sculpture can infringe
on a copyrighted photograph. It works both ways.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:22:16 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael Benveniste wrote:
> >> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> ... I suspect that I
> >>>> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
> >>>> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
> >>>
> >>> Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
> >>
> >> Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
> >> work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
> >> on the fountain's copyright.
> >
> >Perhaps it's time to bring up the Pebble Beach Cypress, the Eiffel
> >Tower at night ...
> >
> >Here's a list that includes accessible features of the world, which if
> >represented photographically might place you at the wrong end of some
> >action (apparently at the whim of the copyright holder):
> >http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialreleases.html
>
> Unfortunately the list lacks credibility. The Concord is one of the
> most photographed planes in the world and images are readily available
> on the web.

Among other things, I'd be in biiiiiiiiiiiiiig trouble: I just finished
shooting a feature on a '57 Chevy. It prominently features several
shots of the Chevrolet logo. Damned near every car magazine around
would be in trouble. The list includes a fair amount of unchecked
assertion.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Bob Harrington"
<rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:22:16 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Benveniste wrote:
>>>> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ... I suspect that I
>>>>>> shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
>>>>>> public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.
>>>>
>>>> Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
>>>> work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
>>>> on the fountain's copyright.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's time to bring up the Pebble Beach Cypress, the Eiffel
>>> Tower at night ...
>>>
>>> Here's a list that includes accessible features of the world, which
>>> if represented photographically might place you at the wrong end of
>>> some action (apparently at the whim of the copyright holder):
>>> http://www.stockindustry.org/resou [...] eases.html
>>
>> Unfortunately the list lacks credibility. The Concord is one of the
>> most photographed planes in the world and images are readily available
>> on the web.
>
>The "British Concord"? How about the Anglo-French "Concorde"? ;^)

No... Definitely the British <:-))
I suppose we should give the other countries some credit though. That
plane was a good example (if not really practical) of what countries
cooperating can achieve.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Bob ^,,^
>