It is not a copyright or trademark issue. It is a property rights issue. There is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of my Blazer, but since with its unique pattern of red primer, or a visible license plate it is clearly my particular car, you can not sell photos of it without my permission.
I have not seen the pictures in issue, but if they are clearly of their property they have a solid case, but if they are just a tree line road that could be any such road anywhere, they do not. That most likely will be something for the courts to decide. To make matters worse there is apparently a codicil in the will that gave them the property prohibiting commercial use of the property. If they do not fight those photographs they could lose the property to family members who probably resent that he left the property to someone else. It sounds like a real legal tangle all the way around. P. J. Alling wrote: > I believe you're wrong on that. You might be able to trademark the image > of something. Which will limit the use of images of it in some ways,In > fact the Colt Firearms Co. has trademarked the Blue Dome of their former > building, and no one else is allowed to use it in connection with gun > manufacture or gun sales, but that's really a very limited control of > the image. You can't copyright a work of nature, and the copyright on > any the buildings on the Plantation if it ever existed at all has fallen > into the public domain. His crime is trespass plain and simple, if he > had permission to be there, and had a camera with him, then that > permission had to be revoked, (or given with stipulations to begin > with), for even that to be the case. > > graywolf wrote: >> Well, as to the legality, one does not have the right to sell images of >> someone >> else's clearly identifiable property without their permission. One does have >> the >> right to take the photos, without violating any laws of trespass, it is >> selling >> the images that is questionable. One would assume that the right to the >> income >> from ones own property is clear, otherwise I want every one on the list to >> send >> me rent. regardless of who owns the property they live on <GRIN>. >> >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Mr Ham had no right to do what he did. "Private" property rights should >>> always be respected especially when privacy is to be compromised by >>> being held up to the world to see. >>> "Privacy" and "security" are too closely related these days. >>> That being said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about being restricted from >>> taking pictures of something which is on private property, but from a >>> public property position. >>> >>> Jack >>> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >>>> >>>> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >>>> >>>> rg2 >>>> -- >>>> "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its >>>> composition" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. >>> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
