Posted on 09/12/2014 7:57:34 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Man Confronts Reporter for Photographing Private Building from Public Road
PINAC reporter Jeff Gray was video recording from outside an indistinguishable building in Jacksonville today when it began speaking to him, a booming female voice telling him he was not allowed to take photos.
The voice, which was obviously coming from somewhere inside viewing him with a camera, almost seemed to be able to hear Gray speaking back, telling him he must walk to the building’s front gate, which he did, careful not to enter the property of the building.
A man then came walking out, acting as if he was going to physically confront Gray, reading the Photography is Not a Crimelabel on his shirt, telling him that it was a crime to take photos of a private building.
(Excerpt) Read more at liveleak.com ...
the style or design may be protected from copying, FOR COMMERIAL purposes.
My assumption would be that the style and design protection would correspond to Making Other Buildings based on said style or design.
a visual representation..on the other hand.....
“...reading the Photography is Not a Crimelabel on his shirt...”
Obviously more here than meets the eye.
More bullsh*t.
...
You would be more convincing if you didn’t express yourself that way.
You might not be able to “sell” the image. For example, if you own a Frank Lloyd Wright home you have a unique image. As the owner of the property, you can control the commerical use of the image.
However, if it is visible from a public way, there is no one that can stop you from taking the photograph. They CAN stop you from publishing the image and making money from it.
I know for many people that is a difference without distinction.
For example, as the photographer for the Basketball Hall of Fame many years ago, I took photos of the “Dream Team” in a private setting. I have those images all over my office. They are in my portfolio. I can use those to show other people the kind of work I can do. But I tried to sell them commercially the NBA and the Hall of Fame would be all over me in a second, as I was working for them and I assigned the rights to them.
I OWN the copyright, because I took the image. I sold my “rights” in exchange for the images.
Now, if the Dream Team was walking into the Hall of Fame and some joe schmo took pictures of them (which hundreds of fans did) they are free to print them up and hang them on their walls. If they went to sell them on Ebay or to any other publication they would be in dutch with the people in the photos and with the NBA.
Does that make sense to you? I know its a fine line...but its an important one.
I love how you actually provide the facts to back up your statements; but those on the other side just whine about the naughty word.
You are correct.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what can be photographed, and what can be sold.
Personal use and commercial use are two very different things.
Huh?
What about Google Earth?
.
Yes, that makes sense to me, and that’s been my understanding. I would hesitate to make money off any image that contains an identifiable private building, even if the image is in the public domain.
If you really want people to go crazy on you, go onto some Navaho reservation, take photos and try to sell them without a permit. Yikes...! Not to sound racist..when you see them go after a photographer for breaking the rules, you understand where the term “on the warpath” comes from!
Could be debated.
He does a pretty good job of playing other people but seems a miserable failure at playing himself.
I'd lean toward a low humanity quotient.
Yes, well, tell that to google street view maps.
Yup,that too.I'm a believer in being careful not to underestimate our enemies.For example,there are many (including Freepers) who think Osama Obama is stupid,stupid,STUPID.I,OTOH,say that's foolish because stupid people can cause *nearly* as much harm as Osama's done.He is,actually,very intelligent and totally and utterly amoral.That easily explains the damage he's done.
So,low humanity quotient...low morality quotient...that's he kind of thing we should be focusing on.
When someone tries to tell me that one of my rights doesn't exist then that's bullsh*t. Period.
stupid people can cause = stupid people can’t cause
Nope. Papparazzi take pictures like that all the time and sell them for a profit. And they have every right in the world to do so.
Impossible...that's Alec Baldwin. :-)
They can sell them for editorial use. I apologize, I did not make this distinction. They cannot use them for commercial uses. For example they cannot sell the image to the local pizza shop to use in their adverts. Vt hey CAN sell them to “Slam” magazine for editorial use.
You are correct about that. Again, another way to split the hairs of legal use.
It is easy to slip up and cross definitions.
I smell a rat.
The Original article was by photographyisnotacrime.com
The guy was wearing a PINAC shirt.
What he doing more than just video taping in front of the building trying to get a reaction?
Just slightly off topic, but I remember reading about Edward Hopper and how he would drive around, see a street scene he liked, pull over and start to sketch it. At the time I read that, I had the thought that he would get in trouble for doing that today.
See Post #29.....didn't know it was Baldwin. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.