Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photographer's Rights

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rowelld
    started a topic Photographer's Rights

    Photographer's Rights

    Here are some links to photographer's rights (source:dps)

    Photographer's Rights card

    Photographer's Guide to Privacy

    USA Today Article

    The Model Release(Very Detailed)


    Legal Rights of Photographers (PDF)


    California Photographer's Right's and Laws
    Last edited by rowelld; 03-16-2007, 02:04 PM.

  • Marshall Starks
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Cyanatic, I know the exact incident that was talked about in that article, however we never received word from Padres Mgmt to the end result. I was not involved as it was on another shift and I was on grave at the time, that said... Both parties took actions that were not neccessary that the article doesn't mention and the incident went somewhere it never should have gone.

    Needless to say, this article points out a major breakdown of communication between even Padres Mgmt. We received word in 2004 when we first opened the park to the public from our Director Of Security and Transportation that the ballpark is indeed copyrighted which was the reason why he was approached. After reading this article that you posted, an e-mail was immediately sent to our Director asking for clarification on the subject. Like I mentioned, we're not bad people out bust photogs because, I am one so I know the pain that it can be. The officers were operating on what was a policy that was passed to us by our boss. So, I'll let everyone know what the word that we receive is...

    Leave a comment:


  • momhanmack
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Ok, so first of all...my new favorite word is un-mimely!!!

    second of all...I think the key points that were made are decency, and respect, and just in general being a good human being. There are jerks in every job and place, who take full advantage of their position and "rights." I am a firm believer in giving up your "rights" to be good and decent person. I mean, I don't think you should be a doormat, but have consideration for other people.

    Marshall, let me just say that I totally appreciate the job you do!! I can't imagine all the druken crazies you get to deal with all the time. And I agree with you about respecting each other. The saying is cheesy, but true...you attract more bees with honey than vinegar. In other words, do unto others...I could go on

    Anyway, this is the biggest reason I love this forum!! We can have a great discussion without anyone getting nasty or crazy!! I'm not recalling right this second who started the thread...but thanks for the info!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Dale, not all of us who pap for a living are low lifes. 99% of the time we are tipped off by the celeb or invited to cover red carpet arrivals. Stalkarazzi are the one's who are the scum, not us.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyanatic
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Always an interesting topic, particularly for those who engage in candid/street photography.

    I've only had two minor confrontations. One occurred in a Henry's market when, not knowing any better, I happily ran around taking pictures with my new camera. A security guard and the store manager questioned me. I just played dumb and told them I was taking pictures of my daughter. That was a while ago and I have since learned the difference between taking photographs from a public area, and taking photographs in a private venue.

    More recently, I was taking pictures at Cityfest in Hillcrest. Walking down the street, camera up to my eye, blatantly snapping away. Occasionally taking hip shots, or opening the LCD and taking pics from waist height. Not a peep or a bad look from anyone. Later on, down near a tavern on Fifth, I took some pictures of the building from the sidewalk. I wasn't even trying to get people in the photo, I was only interested in the building. My wife and daughter were looking at some jewelry in one of the street booths. I walked back over to them. Behind me I heard some woman calling out to someone. A few minutes later I heard some guy saying something about "The guy in the Cubs hat?"...I figured that was me, so I turned around. Some guy looked at me and said, "That woman wants to talk to you." It was some woman sitting on an outdoor patio of the tavern I'd taken pictures of. She had a pretty belligerent attitude right from jump street. I was polite. She asked me if I had taken pictures of her and kept looking in my eyes like she didn't believe me. I told her no (when I got home, I discovered that she was, in fact, in the frame...oh well...). I very politely tried to tell her that there were people who take candid photos and that if you are visible from a public area you are pretty much fair game. She told me she didn't agree with the law and I just smiled and walked away. It was ironic that I was confronted on an occasion when I wasn't taking a candid.

    A year ago there was an article in Popular Photography on this very subject. Link and part of the article below. Marshall, just so you know, I'm not posting this as an argument against anything you said. It just so happens that the PopPhoto article actually talks about an incident at Petco.

    It has been my understanding (and is apparently borne out by the court case cited in the article below) that, regardless of copyright, buildings can be photographed and the image sold commercially as long as it does not create "confusion in the marketplace". In other words, if I take a picture of Petco Park from a public street, then sell postcards of that image with the words "San Diego Padres" emblazoned across the bottom, I am giving the impression that it is sanctioned by the San Diego Padres ballclub (and the MLB). I am specifically trading off the image of their ballpark and therefore creating "confusion in the marketplace." If, however, I take a twilight shot of the street, or the skyline, in which the ballpark happens to appear, entitle it "East Village Twilight", and sell it in an art gallery (yeah...right...I should only be so lucky), I would probably win a suit on the basis of the 1998 appellate ruling.

    The War on Photographers - - PopPhotoJuly 2006

    Copyright laws contain a specific exemption for photographing buildings (only those built after 1990 can even be copyrighted). Nothing in copyright or trademark law prevents anyone from snapping a shot from a public place, even publishing it on a personal website, as long as they're not cashing in on somebody else's creation. The real issue is how that photo is used commercially.

    Copyright automatically covers original works “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” from the moment of creation. But the copyright must be registered for maximum protection, with major damage awards possible if someone doesn't pay to use the work commercially. A trademark, harder and more expensive to obtain, is “a word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof,” used to distinguish particular goods from any other on the market.

    You can find out if something's been copyrighted or trademarked at www.copyright.gov or www.USPTO.gov.

    Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum sued commercial photographer Charles Gentile for trademark violation after he sold posters of his photo of its trademarked building. In a landmark 1998 appellate ruling, one of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel wrote, “Not only may Gentile take a photograph of the building, he can sell a photograph of it. The Lanham Act only prevents him from ‘using in commerce' his photograph of the trademark in such a way as to cause a ‘likelihood of confusion' in the marketplace.”

    Gentile won the case. Since then, says attorney Bert Krages, “these kinds of lawsuits have disappeared, although some entities still make threats.”

    When challenged, private security guards have threatened citizen's arrest and police intervention.

    That's what happened to photographer Pablo Mason in early 2005 when stadium security guards stopped him from shooting a picture of the outside of Petco Park, the Padres' baseball stadium in San Diego. Mason was walking around downtown, testing a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II. He stopped in front of the new $474-million ballpark, which is 70 percent owned by the city.

    He set up his tripod on the sidewalk and took a few pictures, when two stadium guards rushed out and told him he needed written permission to keep shooting. “They said Petco Park itself was copyrighted and the name was trademarked,” he reports. “One said, ‘You're obviously a professional photographer, and you could use the picture commercially.' We got into an argument and they threatened to call the police.”

    Mason thought he was right, but the guards' attitude made him doubt his knowledge. “The irony is that it's the pros who are familiar with the copyright and trademark issues. I'm not going to infringe on somebody's trademark, but an amateur might inadvertently.”

    Another irony: Petco Park doesn't show up in the online government database as copyrighted. “We don't have a policy restricting photography at Petco [Park],” says Jeff Overton, executive vice president of communications for the Padres. “You can't stop someone from taking a picture.” Whoever accosted Mason, he adds, must have been “an uninformed employee.”

    Nor are there legal restrictions on photographing the name “Petco” on the building. “There is no trademark issue,” says Stan Little, general counsel of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.

    Another photographer intimidated into giving up his civil right to take a picture. Even though, says attorney Krages, “a security guard probably has no right to enforce somebody else's copyright.”
    Especially when the copyright in question doesn't exist."
    Last edited by cyanatic; 09-05-2007, 02:12 PM. Reason: Trying to fix article link

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Originally posted by lostinthe619 View Post
    Whatever you want!
    Hehehehe... Sweet...

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshall Starks
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Whatever you want!

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Hey Marshall, an aside:

    I assume you work at Petco. What's the biggest lens a non-credentialed photographer can expect to bring in? I've toyed with the idea of the 70-200mm f/2.8L...

    Leave a comment:


  • MaNr
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    There is a guy who plays the guitar @ Balboa Park with no arms. He is uite amazing and goes by the name "Big Toe"

    I seen him on youtube and made a point to go just to watch him play. While talking with him allot of people were snapping away and I with cam in hand dint even try to take pics, One guy was nice enough to ask him if he could take a photo of him and the words straight from him were this "Thank you for asking, I dont mind photos. It only bugs me when they dont ask or try to be sneaky"

    Those entertainers actually have permits to perform. But yes you can since you are in public , but for m that was not the time to take his photo, (Time and Place for everything)

    But I will get his pic one of these days...Snap-Run..... haha

    Leave a comment:


  • Peasap
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    LOL, that's what I did pretty much. He was near the bottom of the escalators at Horton Plaza.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshall Starks
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Snap and run! Snap and run! AH HA HA HA HA!

    Leave a comment:


  • rowelld
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Originally posted by Peasap View Post
    Good stuff indeed.

    Has anyone ever had problems taking pictures? I was downtown a few weeks ago and saw a 'mime' so I decided to take some pics. I didn't here him at first but a friend who was with me told me that he was shouting at me to stop taking pictures and also said that's how fights start? Huh?

    Apart from being un-mimely, I thought I was able to take pictures of anyone in a public place as long as the pictures are not for commercial use?

    Thoughts?
    I think I know which mime you are talking about. Those types of people want to get a tip for what they do. If you want to get a decent picture out of them then go ahead and give them some change. Other than that... snap away haha.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peasap
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    I don't have a problem with any of that Marshall and i agree that there do have to be ground rules however ludicrous they may seem at times. However, I don't think that some guy with white paint on his face can threaten me with a fight for taking pictures on a public street. My first thought was, "What is he so worried about? What is he hiding?"

    As for security, I've never had a problem with them at all probably because I think before I take a photo .

    Good discussion!

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshall Starks
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    As a 24/7 Security Supervisor at a MLB stadium and as I photographer, I know the rights on both sides and I make sure my crew knows it as well. You're right that it sucks that most photog's get treated like terrorist especially at places where large amounts of people gather. However, that's the world we live in nowadays. We get weekly threat updates from everyone from the commissioners office, FBI, DHS... etc... All these updates include a lot of stuff not to be released to the public but let me tell you it gets very detailed.

    I'm really tired of everyone bashing security on photography forums (not here). Look, I'll flat out admit that there is a lot of IDIOTS who work security but then there's those of us who do take pride in what we do and try to do it to the best of our ability. I work at the stadium doing what I do because I love the team and I love the excitement. I could be doing something else where people actually respect you instead of thinking "rent-a-cop" as soon as they see you. But this job fits me for now and I still enjoy working there.

    What I don't need to deal with is the stuck up attitude that most photographers have. Myself and my crew are well trained and are not on a vendetta against photographers. If I come out to chat with you then I have a good reason to do so. I'm going to treat you with respect and I expect the same in return. I'm going to tell you that the ballpark's image is copyrighted and that you'll need to get written permission to do anything even remotely commercial with the shots. If you wanna start giving me crap, then I start giving you crap. You tell me that you're going to do whatever you want with the image, then I'm going to get your name and basic info and forward it on to the legal department so when you do something commercial with the image they know where to drop the lawsuit. That's it. On the other hand, if I get respect back and the photographer understands and agrees then all is great, I'll even point out some of the interesting angles and less common photos that they can take and then give them a business card for the forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peasap
    replied
    Re: Photographer's Rights

    Good stuff indeed.

    Has anyone ever had problems taking pictures? I was downtown a few weeks ago and saw a 'mime' so I decided to take some pics. I didn't here him at first but a friend who was with me told me that he was shouting at me to stop taking pictures and also said that's how fights start? Huh?

    Apart from being un-mimely, I thought I was able to take pictures of anyone in a public place as long as the pictures are not for commercial use?

    Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X