On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Richard M. Smith wrote: > I understand the difference. However, Brian Loe made the point in his > original message that we are "free" to take photos in public. He wasn't > only making a legal argument. Our actions are controlled not just by laws, > but also by social convention. Clearly there are many settings where taking > photos are not allowed by these social conventions. But also people are > arrested for taking photos when they are asked to stop, but the charges are > indirect: disorderly conduct, trespassing, etc. You're certainly free to take whatever photos you like; I'm pointing out that, in some cases, copying something can be an infringement of copyright. And when you take a photo pf something, you're making a copy of it, it's a derivative work.
You might try arguing "fair use" for some situations, but I believe that the law in England is quite clear on the subject of copying other people's works of art, or making derivative works. I imagine the law in America is similar. As an example, I would cite the practice of surreptitiously videoing a new movie in the theater. > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:38 AM > To: Richard M. Smith > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy > > > Pretty clearly, we are not "free" to take all photos in public places > > in the U.S. and we never have been. Nowadays the restrictions have > > just been tighten in the name of security. > > > > What people tell you can do and what you are legally allowed to do are two > separate things. > > Try not to confuse them > > -JP > > > > On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tried taking the Wynn photo from the sidewalk along Las Vegas Blvd. > > and got yelled at by a rent-a-cop. The rent-a-cop clearly was out of > > line, but was probably acting on orders from above. > > > > > Richard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry Seltzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:22 AM > > To: Richard M. Smith; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy > > > > >>...Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a photo > > >>of > > a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a > > surveillance camera at a Starbucks, and the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas > > while it was under construction... > > > > The Starbucks and (probably) the casino examples are different than, > > for example, the airport ones. It's nothing new that stores don't want > > you taking pictures of their insides, and ironically it's also about > > IP protection, specifically "trade dress." I heard of people getting > > in trouble for this 20 years ago. > > > > Larry Seltzer > > eWEEK.com Security Center Editor > > http://security.eweek.com/ > > http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry%5Fseltzer/ > > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
