Cops and copyright.

[Aggie]

..

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Again though we come down to the question of what is civil and what isn't.

As to the judge...

Well there are some stupi-a$$ judges out there! Just like there are stupid-a$$ photographers, baggage handlers, lawyers, politicians, go-kart drivers, etc. Just because a judge does something dowsn't make it right.

I just can't see how 1) this was an "invasion of privacy" (unless he had NO idea the camera was there) and 2) how it is nothing but a civil dispute.

Now it is true all the facts aren't in place, but it is a fair topic to discuss.

Should law enforcement be involved in copyright law at this level? Now I don't mean the "I just burned 10,000 copies of Windows XP and am selling them" stuff, but I mean the minor "He said she said" stuff like this.

 

[blansky]

Aggie:

I learned from this lawyer that I mentioned earlier that if you have something like a home, yard, car, (or maybe even a rusted tractor) that is unique in some way, that this is also protected.

You couldn't for example take a great picture of someones restored or hot rodded up car and then sell that to say a motor oil company for and ad. You can't take a picture of someone's great looking home and sell it for an ad. I would bet that if you took a picture of a great old barn against a great backdrop and sold it for some form of advertising that the farmer has the right to come after you for compensation.

These too are all protected. I was kind of shocked at the time to hear this but I guess it makes sense. So, if what you photograph, belongs to someone else you are entering the legal arena of releases and contracts.

Michael McBlane

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[blansky]

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame case you mentioned is puzzling. I would think that they have the right to their image. As for the fact of where the photographer stands when they take the picture seems kind of silly. That would make it okay to photograph anything as long as you were on public land.

As for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame perhaps the fact that is supposedly a public building, used for the public that maybe it become some sort of public domain, whereas a private home etc is still private. But that brings up the argument about the Victorians that you mentioned in San Francisco. They are private but I seem them used in ads all the time. Perhaps they were compensated. It is all quite baffling.

Michael McBlane

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Well looks like they are charging the guy with extortion.

And forgery.

This could get interesting.

I mean where is the line between first refusal, and extortion?

Allegedly he tried to extort 3.3Mil from Diaz.

He is saying he offered to sell the pictures to her first.

I bet the AMOUNT he asked for will be an issue. BUT...is 3.3mil a valid amount to ask for? I mean if say someone else would pay him 3.3Mil....

The forgery thing will be interesting too....

I imagine you'd REALLY have to prove forgery. Not simply, "Well, it COULD be her's..."

 

[Ed Sukach]

So, if what you photograph, belongs to someone else you are entering the legal arena of releases and contracts.

Yes, they are --- I don't think "protected" is quite an appropriate term. The profits from the use of their images are protected against unreasonable non-sharing when they should be shared. (Note 1)

I have copies of Property Releases, contracts sold for a set amount, or a future share of the pie. Similar to a Model Release, but for inanimate objects and their owners.

Note 1: So it's lousy syntax.....

 

[Ed Sukach]

Look at the row houses in San Francisco that are photographed endlessly. Those images are shot from a nearby park.

To say we have definable copyright laws or laws guarding our privacy is absurd. It comes down to deep pockets and who has the most money to spend on attornies in most cases. Our copyright laws and those for privacy are a jumbled mess of words on a piece of paper that most often used to line the bottoms of bird cages more effectively.

About the "Row Houses" ... There was a case where a photographer took an Aerial Photograph of New York and it was sold and used by Smirnoff Vodka in one of their ads.
*One* of the building owners sued, claiming that there was no vaild Property Release (true - there wasn't). In most, if not all cases of this sort, the Court will ask for an Out-of-Court negotiation, a.k.a. "settlement". The lawyers representing the photographer and Smirnoff calculated the "Fair Value" of the *one* building to the photograph: The photographer had been paid something on the order of $3,000 for the photograph. There were (estimated) 3000 buildings in the photograph. A wildly generous "share of the profits" from the use of the buildings in the photograph, for a property realese would be 10%. Therefore, neglecting the costs of the photographer, and relying on gross profit: $3,000 (from the sale), divided by 3,000 (the number of buildings), divided by .10 (unreasonably generous "cut"); equals the magnificent sum of $0.10 - which they offered in unquestionable good faith. End of case. I don't know whether the building owner accepted the dime or not.

The same would hold true in a photgraph of "Row Houses" - If you sold a "Fine Art" photograph of them - and someone wanted their "cut" - you could offer them $0.10 for their rightful share, and let them keep the change.

Now... Is it "Illegal" to photograph something/ someone in a public place? *NO*.
Keeping ALL the money from the sale of those images could very well be.

Invasion of Privacy is not quite the same thing. That might easiy fall in the area coverd by criminal "Peeping Tom" laws against Voyeurism, and have *nothing* to do with copyright protection.

 

[RAP]

Only $3000.00? Probably was not much of an ad to begin with.

I remember photographing a farm scene that the phone company used in one of their directories. Three years later I got a phone call from the owner. She said it took her that long to track me down. I was nerveous to say the least for I had no property release. She said she wanted a couple of prints for posterity to which I charged only cost and paid postage. I sensed she was testing my attitude and I am sure she sensed I was nerveous. We talked about the importance of preservation of open space and farm land. She said that next time, just ask and that she looked forward to seeing more of my beautiful work.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Only $3000.00? Probably was not much of an ad to begin with.

... She said that next time, just ask and that she looked forward to seeing more of my beautiful work.

I was just trying to simplify the math.

Hah!!! Our eagle-eyed participants failed to notice my error... I said "divide by .10 (unreasonable "cut"..)" when it should have been "*multiply* by .10."

Dividing by .10 would have given the building owner $10 - still rather far less than the fees he must have had to pay his lawyers.

Most people are pretty darn nice about things like photographing themselves or their property.

 

[RAP]

Generally I would agree with you about most people not minding. I rarely get booted. Most people when they see me working with a view camera, are curious about what they see as a novelty.

But it would depend on where you are. Here in NJ you have to be careful. I wanted to photograph a section of a barn and the light was just perfect, accentuating the texture of a board. Had I taken the time to go find the owner to ask, the light would have been lost, so I took a chance and lost, got kicked off.

Another time I drove down a dirt road in a local park that was marked for authorized vehicles only. Had I taken the time and walked in, I would have lost the clouds. I took a chance and lost, a ranger came by and ticketed me for $70.00 and I still did not get the shot.

That image of the tricycle entangled in barbed wire was done in Jeresy City, not a very nice town. Fortunetly I was able to park right in front of the scene. While I was quickly and nerveously working, an unsavory guy came over, boom box on his shoulder, and asked me what I was taking a picture of, and was my camera worth anything. Fortunetly it was a sunny Sunday afternoon. At the time, I looked pretty unsavory myself with long greasy looking hair and beard, it was a hot afternoon, and I am bigger then he was.

The risks we take to get the picture are many. Those taken by a fine art photographer are nothing when compared to other's risks.