Forum Moderators: not2easy
am i expected to actually photograph these places my self?
I'm looking for a nice web site. Can I just use yours? I mean, you don't expect me to create my own, do you?
I think you see my point.
You can probably get permission for a lot of photos if you just ask. You might also search for free photos, or something similar. There are some pretty extensive stock sources online that are free or nearly free.
I have some pics I'm collecting for my local area, maybe in future I can offer you a "swap" ;)
Always ask permission. If you can't get permission, then don't use the graphic.
- Double check who you are asking, they might not be the rightful owner of the pics in the first place. (put the file name into image search engines like Fasts and see what hits you get).
- If you ask, always offer a link for using the image.
- If it is a govt or tourism board site, double check the tos to see if it might already be ok to use the pics.
- If you put up pictures, put up a "usage" page on your requirements for using pics off your site.
Richard Lowe
The image search on Google is usually very productive.
Neil
[edited by: NFFC at 6:23 pm (utc) on July 12, 2002]
That's a bit off topic! And anyway, they are scenery pics.
nice suggestion with the tourism chamber, that's one I'm going to have to try.
Be warned.
<steamed> I have one, no two, in my inbox now from a well-known boaters' guide. They've supposedly impressed me with the fact that their guides are "read and re-read by 24,000 to 30,000 boaters annually." whoopee</steamed>
>chamber
Trust me, unless they have a formal media person (and sometimes even if they do), they don't know copyright from copy paper. They'll use (or hand you to use) anything. They think having a brochure printed gives them the right to distribute the stock photos for republication.
Photography is in its infancy when compared to (wo)mans endeavor to create art. The average person believes that to create artist photography one must buy expensive equipment then push the button. This could not be further from the truth. I don't like to toot my own horn but will offer some of my own experiences as a rebuttal to this belief.
1/ I have shot images with disposable cameras and sold them in a gallery for a more than tidy profit.
2/ I often give up arguing with people, or don't even bother trying to argue, that one of my images was not shot in a place where they remember. Do you understand the psychology at play here?
The fact that you have forwarded this question leads me to believe that you have not made money from photography. If this is the case, please explain why your location (or lack of) would give you the right to steal from someone? If not, same question.
If you have not made money from photography, I can tell you for a fact that you being there would not make a difference. You simply would not see the pictures.
"The use of content taken from MediaBank (TM, SM) library is free of charge, but is limited to direct promotion in printed or electronic promotional material. "
-Joe
Your attitude in this question and on this forum leads me to think otherwise.
When you go shopping do you pay or just walk out the door?
I think you're over-reacting given the advice that's already been proferred. I don't think, however, that you are over-reacting to the original question. No doubt - "just grabbing" photos (or text, or ideas, or whatever) is theft just like "just grabbing" a few shirts at Saks Fifth Avenue.
Anyway, in the case of tourist attractions there is some chance that you will be able to get images from people happy for the advertising, provided that the image is properly cited and noted and comes from promotional materials intended for this use.
However, there is *no way* that you will be allowed to use any picture of Disney stuff unless you take it yourself or buy it from someone who did. If that picture is of a *trademarked* (not necessarily copyrighted) item, then even if you take it yourself, you may not be able to use it.
That is true for copyrighted items as well. You can't march into the Sistine Chapel, shoot away with your digicam and then post those images. If you do, I think there's a decent chance that you will get sued.
If the tourist attractions are things like natural features, like Devil's Tower, or the Grand Canyon, you should be able to find some photos that you can use, but you will most definitely need permission to do so.
Tom
I made a point that I felt needed to be said.
When I said "and on this forum leads me to think otherwise" I meant that the attitude of the question is not a good one for this forum.
That is true for copyrighted items as well. You can't march into the Sistine Chapel, shoot away with your digicam and then post those images. If you do, I think there's a decent chance that you will get sued.
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. 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, meaning you attempt to make commercial use of their trademarked images (or whatever) in specific segments of business.
if this was not true, news reporters would have a very hard time at making a living.
You could take a picture of William Shatner in a star trek costume at Disneyland while he's drinking a Coke - and you can post this one the web, sell it to a newspaper or print it in a newsletter yourself.
Richard Lowe
Wasn't there just some beef fairly recently about a national park or some historic building that was fighting about that very same thing? (Don't take pictures of our [place] and use them without permission or else?)
Memory conveniently escapes me, but I know it sounded rediculous when I read it because, if I also remember, judges ruled in favor of the <insert as applicable> park, building, whatever being able to enforce it.
Ring any bells with anyone?
In most developed countries you can photograph anything anywhere provided your not trespassing. The laws, which are about 100 years old, were written when the capabilities of cameras were obviously simplistic compared to today. Notable changes that the laws were not written to address include exposure time and tele lens.
If you want to profit from pictures, any person or private property that is recognizable in the image requires that the photographer obtain a model release. The press, and its freedom, is treated differently than a private citizen selling images of private property.
I'm being general as the laws do differ slightly amongst countries. The U.S. for example has declared famous people as public property.
The laws, which are about 100 years old, were written when the capabilities of cameras were obviously simplistic compared to today. Notable changes that the laws were not written to address include exposure time and tele lens.
So Alfred Stieglitz used a "simplistic" camera? Give me a break. Albrecht Meydenbauer was faced with limited exposure time? Right. Mathew Brady shocked at stereo images? Hardly.
View cameras of the late 1800s routinely used FAR longer exposures than today's automated cameras can utilize.
Tele lens? Come on. compare the image from a 35 mm camera (which I guess you are talking about) with the image from an 8 X 10 view camera. 24 mm by 36 mm vs. 8 inches by 10 inches. How long a tele lens would one need to get the same magnification as a STANDARD 8 X 10 camera could provide well over 100 years ago?
Photography 100 years ago was clearly not the primitive art you apparently imagine it was, GPH.
sory for being nieve!
Don't apologize for being naive - apologize for those typing (or spelling) skills! :)
Just having fun.
[added]Okay, I see your comment about looking for a camera.
:):):) [/added]
I guess with a little psychic powers I can say that people wouldn't be to happy if you just saved their pics without asking. I believe that is the general consensus, and you would be none-to-happy if someone stole yours. I'm sure we are all 100% on that ;)
I agree with Brett's suggestion of offering a link. I want to build a database of "species". With 10 simple e-mails I sent I managed to get permission to over a 1000 photo's. All the e-mails mentioned that they would be "fully credited" with supplying the picture via a link back to their site.
Still though, some reply saying no, main reason being "the photo adds to the unique content of the site". I'm sure most fair minded people say yes, though I can relate to the reasons for people saying no.
