Photographer and Security face off yet again

[Matthew]

In regards to the press photographer vs. amateur photographer debate: as I understand there is absolutely no distinction made between a professional photographer and an amateur photographer in relation to copyright and whether they need to get releases signed. At least in the United States having a press pass doesn't grant you any additional legal rights, it only eases things with authorities if you are photographing in some event where the general public's access may be limited. The issue is not who takes a photograph but what the photograph is ultimately used for. Without a signed release the photograph cannot be used for commercial advertising purposes. It certainly can be used for editorial purposes, be it in a newspaper, news magazine, etc. Many magazines that are not strictly journalistic in nature (travel, lifestyle, etc.) want you to get releases to protect them but it the strictest sense they do not have to be signed. The other area that releases are generally not needed for is fine art. But again, it sometimes may be wise to get one signed. Just because you don't need a release for a particular use doesn't mean someone won't try to sue you (erroneously) and you'll have to spend a good deal of money proving you were right in the first place.

Someone mentioned a TV show clearing logos in the background of shots: what has to be cleared for motion picture use versus still use is a bit different in practice. It pretty much comes down to money, or potential money. People perceive a film as having a much greater potential to make money (even a documentary which if it's lucky will break even...) so they are more likely to go after a copyrighted image in the background. And so everything gets cleared.

Even if a building is copyrighted (a dubious proposition in my opinion despite the current law...) you probably can't be stopped from photographing the building. What you do with the images is where the copyright law comes in. If I want to make a print and hang it on my wall, that's fine, but selling the image to others (or even just giving it away) and I may have a problem. I can draw Coca Cola logos, or Marge Simpson, or retype a Stephen King novel verbatim in the privacy of my own home (or in coffee shop or public park) all I want. The problem comes when I release them to the world. I could even draw that building, or its plans, either to study how the building goes together or simply because I like doing it to practice my drawing technique. The problem would be if I them built a similar building that was too alike to the original. Tinkering with software is another issue, but I'll stop there before I get more wound up.


Copyright law has become a sticky stinking morass.

 

[nwcanonman]

"Oh god... I am not that old... I never used MINIX. I think when UNIX was invented I was like what... -10 years old?"
....................................
Christ,
I remember playing with my new Pong game and when a Mac 10 was HOT! I AM OLD, but I'm still having a blast!
Now, where is my Gerittol?

 

[Flow]

nwcanonman...

No wonder you put yourself as "Senior Member"... Too bad I never lived to enjoy those days... 😛


Flowen

 

[Roger Hicks]

A while back, when the Bessa-L and 15mm had just come out, my wife and I were taking pictures inside a new mall. I had the Bessa and no-one hassled me. She was using a Contax SLR with a 35/1.4 Planar and security told her to stop. A good argument for RF and other small, discreet cameras.

In order to get permission -- we checked -- you had to apply in writing, giving the day you intended to be there. It's a very attractive building, but it never got the publicity I could have given it because they were a bunch of dozy halfwits.

As for the assertion by Penguin 101 that a building design is copyright and that shooting it is analogous with someone taking my picture and making millions out of it, I'd like to know what legal jurisdiction he's talking about. The first assertion is disputable when applied to photographing any building for whicj copyright has not been specifically claimed and the latter is all but insupportable. Matthew's analysis is much closer to the mark and reflects my own understanding of the law.

In most countries you can photograph most things from a public place and use them for most purposes -- and that includes people. You get in trouble when you use pictures of people to make it appear as if they endorse something they don't: a leading case was that of an elder of one of the more repressive churches whose picture appeared in a men's magazine in an article extolling hedonism. That's quite apart from nuisance suits, again as Matthew points out, but these are most popular in he United States and Fance.

Although I have never practised law, I do have a law degree and take some interest in this sort of thing. Yes, there are plenty of stupid, repressive laws but an even bigger problem is the widespread belief -- evidenced by Penguin 101's post -- that the law is even further-reaching than it is.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[john neal]

While I generally agree with Roger, I wonder how that plays in France where you are not allowed to take a picture of anyone (even in public) without their permission?

To pick a point from an earlier post re R/C gear - there was a time in the 1970's and 80's when you could not buy a receiver of a particular make on it's own. Apparently, it was the activation method of choice for the IRA, who had carefully researched the market before deciding on the make that gave them the best range combined with reliability. Of course, you could buy the full TX/RX setup without any question - it made no difference that I could prove I needed just the RX as I'm a crap pilot.

I wonder, how much safer did that make us all?

 

[siverta]

I have taken pictures of policemen and policecars on the street in the town where I live. I would never dream of them stopping me or confiscating my film/camera. Only INSIDE private owned buildings there are sometimes forbidden to take pictures/video.

I think that in the US there is much paranoia about these things, and I must admit I can understand it to a degree. The US acts like a magnet on terrorism like no other country in the world (except Russia, I believe). But if one restricts personal freedom too much, I think it is just as dangerous as the threat of terrorism.

In Norway we have the right to express ourselves in (almost) every way we want to (except raceist, homophobic, etc). No one can stop you photographing a bulding from the outside if you are in a public place (private owned property is another matter).

Norway is probably not that big a magnet on terrorism, even though we are (officially) and ally with the US and UK (the government agreed with the invasion on Iraq, but the people was against it). Perhaps our security measures reflect that fact.

Sivert

 

[nwcanonman]

"Norway is probably not that big a magnet on terrorism, even though we are (officially) and ally with the US and UK (the government agreed with the invasion on Iraq, but the people was against it"
.........................................................
siverta,
There's something that must be said about the lie of "invading Iraq".
Remember Irag invaded Kuwait in the 1980's? And after they were defeated by a huge coalition of world-wide allies, Iraq PROMISED to abide by certain rules as part of the agreement for not taking the war to Baghdad.
IRAQ NEVER ONCE FULLY ABIDDED BY IT'S OWN AGREEMENT, and therefore forced the USA to make Saddam comply to it's original aggrement.
Blaming the US for what's happening now in Iraq is like blaming a policeman for forcing a criminal to be arrested and thrown in jail.
But, I do agree that some in the US are taking the paranoia to extremes and the taking away of freedoms (in the name of security) is a very dangerous thing.
Hope this doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, but I've awakened to a HUGE toothache this morning and can't get into the dentist for 4 more hours!!!

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

heh ... this can actually make the argument more dfficult. Zapruder sold the original (and rights) to Life Magazine.

Exactly. The reason I mention Zapruder is that he was an amateur (not 'press'), he took probably the most famous film clip in history, of the most famous people at the time, obviously no releases were signed, and he sold the film and the rights to it for a profit. And no mention was ever made of his action in any way being infringement on copyright, or the subjects rights, or whatever.
IIRC the Zapruder family did eventually recover the rights to the film, and it was released on video, for more profit.

I'd like to point out that in this thread we have had multiple differing opinions of varying degrees of 'opposition', and it has remained unargumentive and unacrimonious. I think that's a tribute to the members here at RFF; on other forums, there would have already been gunfire. Thanks, all.

 

[bmattock]

Exactly. The reason I mention Zapruder is that he was an amateur (not 'press'), he took probably the most famous film clip in history, of the most famous people at the time, obviously no releases were signed, and he sold the film and the rights to it for a profit. And no mention was ever made of his action in any way being infringement on copyright, or the subjects rights, or whatever.
IIRC the Zapruder family did eventually recover the rights to the film, and it was released on video, for more profit.

I'd like to point out that in this thread we have had multiple differing opinions of varying degrees of 'opposition', and it has remained unargumentive and unacrimonious. I think that's a tribute to the members here at RFF; on other forums, there would have already been gunfire. Thanks, all.

Typically in the US, one may take photographs of 'public figures' for profit, without obtaining model releases. Think of all the paparazzi. Elected officials are always considered public figures. Celebrites also, depending on the degree of their celebrity, I guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

Looks like we're switching to a new thread with a more appropriate title, good idea.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, I live in France, and I take pictures of people here all the time. No-one has got funny about it yet. Publishing pictures of recognizable people is another matter, of course, but outside Paris and a few big cities and tourist traps few people seem to be too fussed.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[jdos2]

The design is a copyright. It is the same as someone taking a picture of you and making millions on it.

Fair use. If I ain't sellin' it, it's fair use, as I (as explained to me by my lawyer) understand the law.

The Rock & Roll Hall of Shame in Cleveland (Okay, if Ian Anderson doesn't care, then I guess I shouldn't either) has a very strong copyright on their building. It's interesting, though. I've several friends who have reported trouble with security coming across a street to advise them that the appearance is copyrighted. These people were using Medium Format cameras, though, so appeared, quite possibly, more professional.

I don't know if they are still so agressive. I'd almost like to bring the Large Format beast down there just to cause some trouble. Then I have a coffee, pet a cat, and think better of it.

 

[DougK]

Actually, JD, I went down to the Rock Hall on my lunch hour last week and shot up a roll in my TLR... nobody said a word to me. Come to think of it, I've been down there several times to shoot pics (good location to test a camera) and never been hassled. Maybe they've relaxed a tad or I just look like a tourist or something, I dunno.

I'd love to see the results of a large format shoot of the Hall, though...

 

[jdos2]

Yeah, I've heard varying reports. The cited examples were a couple friends who are indeed professionals, and made something of a spectacal of themselves (I suspect). No detention, just someone coming over (Security) and telling 'em that the Hall of Fame will protect it's copyright.

That's different from a government telling me where and when I can take pictures, and me being sent back to Guantanamo Bay (in a rather different capacity, of course) for my resistance.

I'm not normally as grumpy as I described. Still jet lagged, for the lack of sleep.

Hmmm. Need a shot of the "Free Stamp."

🙂

 

[DougK]

That's another one of my favorite photo targets 🙂

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

While I generally agree with Roger, I wonder how that plays in France where you are not allowed to take a picture of anyone (even in public) without their permission?

What? I have had more problems in the U.S. than I ever had in France, Mexico, England, Austria, Germany, Holland, or the Czech Republic (which is to say never); and I've lived outside of the U.S., and I have family or very close friends in more than one of those aforementioned countries. The nastiest and rudest people I have encountered when it comes to taking public pictures is New York, Chicago and San Antonio.

The *only* time that anybody asked *if I had permission* (as opposed to the American approach I've received of "stop that now!!!") to take a picture outside of the U.S. was when I had taken a tripod to the Louvre, outside, to take a snapshot of the sunset. Funny, because I hardly ever ever use a tripod. Anyway, the security guard asked me kindly if I had a permit, confused, I said no. I say confused because I didn't understand why I was singled out; he explained that the tripod was considered to be professional equipment, and given the size of my Canon 10D with the 17-40 L, well, I conceded his point; he said he would guide me to the administration office, but I really needed to get the shot NOW; so he said it would be fine as long as I put the tripod away. So I did. Professional photographers need to get special permits, regardless whether they are in France or in the U.S. at the Rock and Roll Hall of 15 minutes, for there are copyright issues at stake. I think the Louvre's guard's approach was absolutely reasonable and more than personable.

Can't say that for most experiences I've had directly or have heard second-hand from nonprofessionals (i.e. regular Joes) in the U.S. when they're ordered ::ahem:: I mean, asked to stop taking pictures, whether it's their (regular Joes') right or not.

 

[john neal]

Well, I live in France, and I take pictures of people here all the time. No-one has got funny about it yet. Publishing pictures of recognizable people is another matter, of course, but outside Paris and a few big cities and tourist traps few people seem to be too fussed. QUOTE]

Roger, that's great news - I have not been to France for a couple of years and was concerned that I might as well leave the camera at home next time 🙁

My wife & I are keen Francophiles, but can't afford to visit every year, especially as we are saving to go to Peru later this year (we hope!).

Roughly where do you live Roger?