| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) || |
|A FEW PICS....will anyone mind?|
want to have a few pics of tourist attractions!
i'm looking to put up information on 60 top tourist sights and wondered if i was to grab a few pics to put along with them from elsewhere would this be a seriuos problem?....am i expected to actually photograph these places my self?
Only if a similar photograph has not already been published. If there is already a photograph in in existence of the same thing taken from a similar angle, and there is a danger that yours may be mistaken for the other, you are still in breach of copyright. This is true even if you did not know of the existence of the original.
|I beg to differ, you can march into the Sistine Chapel, shoot your digicam and post the resulting images wherever you want. Buildings are not cpoywritable. People are not copywritable. |
There are many grey areas of course -- there are only so many views of the Eiffel Tower, for example, and you're unlikely to get sued because your photo was taken from the same spot as one that appeared in Time -- but the principle is that although buildings cannot be copywrited, photographs automatically are.
As for people, in many countries there are privacy laws regarding the publication of photographs. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to publish a photograph of a private person, even anonymously, without their written agreement. A picture of a crowd is OK, but where one or a small number of individuals constitutes the main focus of the picture, unless they are politicians or well-known celebrities, you must get their permission.
|I beg to differ, you can march into the Sistine Chapel, shoot your digicam and post the resulting images wherever you want. Buildings are not cpoywritable. |
Images *from* the building have right of reproduction controlled to some extent, images *of* the building, you are quite right, do not. In return for underwriting the restoration, for example, some company, I think it was Sony, received exclusive rights to use these images for a certain period. This is true of most museums - you can photograph the building and publish anywhere, but you can only photograph the art work for personal use, not commercial use. I quote from the rules of visit for the Louvre (translation follows):
Pendant les heures d'ouverture au public dans les salles d'exposition permanente, les œuvres peuvent être photographiées ou filmées (vidéo incluse) ****pour l'usage privé de l'opérateur.****
Dans les salles où sont présentées des expositions temporaires, les prises de vue sont interdites sauf mention contraire signalée à l'entrée des salles.
During the hours that the museum is open to the public, works on permanent exhibit can be photographed of filmed (including video) for the *private usage of the operater*.
In the rooms showing temporary exhibits, it is forbidden to take images unless it is specifically noted otherwise at the entrance to the rooms.
I believe most museums claim similar rights.
People are not copyrightable
As for people, Naturally, people are not copyrightable, though unless you have a release, you may get into trouble for using a picture of someone for certain purposes. If Cindy Crawford drinks the fruit juice that I make, I cannot take a picture of her without permission and then put it in a national magazine to advertise my juice. I will get sued. I can publish her picture in a "news" story like the Enquirer does, but I can't use it "wherever I want" as you said.
Disneyland is not copyrighted. If you take pictures at Disneyland, you can post them to your hearts content. Disney can only do something about it if you infringe upon their trademark,
That's basically what I said about Disneyland. It's the trademark that's important. There was a recent lawsuit, though, where Disney won simply because it's trademarked images were being used without Disney's permission, though they were unaltered images being used to promote Disney materials. Disney is really tough about this stuff and they will actively pursue even marginal cases. If memory serves (and often it doesn't, so take this with a grain of salt), the recent case was new in trademark law because it did not involve a traditional infringement.
Mardi_Gras you obviously misunderstood me, I'll try and explain what I said more thoroughly.
When I said:
Notable changes that the laws were not written to address include exposure time and tele lens.
I meant that cameras could not stop a humming bird in flight or photograph newspapers from space. I used "tele lens" because that is a commonly known term.
In the context of invasion of privacy, these changes have not been addressed in the laws of most countries.
|View cameras of the late 1800s routinely used FAR longer exposures than today's automated cameras can utilize |
What do you mean by this statement? The first real photograph was exposed for 8hrs. You can go get a 35mm slr at walmart, set it on "Bulb", and expose it for 100 years. The only notable change has been shortening of exposure times. Long exposure times have always been and still are <edit>theoretically</edit> unlimited.
[edited by: gph at 6:08 pm (utc) on July 13, 2002]
Just an interesting page about a camera from the past.
|Mardi_Gras you obviously misunderstood me |
I've been known to do that:).
But I still think changes in photographic technology are not the real cause of copyright problems today. The problems come from new forms of usage that were not envisioned even 30 years ago, and from advancements in computer technology, which make copying photos much easier than it used to be.
The days when printing a newspaper required an original photo are long gone. That original photo used to protect copyright; now, one quick pass through the scanner and copyright protection is gone (by that I mean non-functioning, not that scanning legally removes copyright).
Digital image manipulation and image sampling can also cause huge headaches for those trying to protect original works.
That's computer technology at work; perhaps those are really the types of changes you are referring to.
I agree with you completely. I think the issue will come to a head when digital display frames become common place. It's not hard to imagine people having them in place of the standard pictures in their homes and connected to a napsters like site.
I just wanted to add to the original question.
Your first course of action should be to contact the local Tourism Board they will normally supply you with pics foc, but normally for a credit.
Other websites would normally as one simple question. Are the pictures to be used for commercial or non commercial use ?
If it is to be used on a commercial site that is to make money then that is commercial if it is a student wanting pics for a project (still non profit or commercial) then most sites would allow the latter.
But taking pictures from a site is simply theft if appropriate conditions have not been met.
We once had a competitor take a picture, we found it (people will always eventually find them) asked them to remove it or pay. They claimed they got it from X our reply was legal that we don't care if it were delivered by aliens the fact remains that we took the picture, spent money sending a photgrapher to location etc and had never given any free copyright usage rights to anyone. So remove it or pay or get a lot of free media attention.
They eventually removed it.
|am i expected to actually photograph these places my self? |
|and you dont have a large budget to go and take the pics yourself! |
I think I have your answer. At least you obviously believe that you are capable of producing artist photographs on demand.
Why not go into stock photography full time? The average yearly income is more than $100,000.00 U.S.
It seems to me that you'd be killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
I AM NOW TO BECOME A STOCK PHOTOGRAPHER!....dont steal my pics or you'll hear from my legal department!
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |