This can be a fuzzy area. Apparently the photographer was on private
property and the photos were taken of that same private property; further,
it appears that the photographer did not have permission from the owner(s)
to even be there, let alone take photographs. Now, had he taken the photos
from public property where what he photographed was easily visible to the
public, the College of Charleston Foundation would generally have no legal
standing.
Photographers have been successfully prosecuted for going onto the property
of celebrities to take their photographs or photographs of their property
furnishings. It is an issue both of privacy and of the right of a owners to
control what happens on their property. Note that the College of Charleston
Foundation is a private organization - not public, and the owners of this
nonprofit organization have rights too.
As far as copyright is concerned, this doesn't seem to be an issue brought
up by the foundation, but raised by the photographer's counsel. What I'm
saying is that this is probably not a copyright case and the issue of
copyright may well not come into the judges consideration.
Look, if several of my fellows and I owned a piece of property, and we
didn't want photographers coming onto our property to take photos - for ANY
reason, or if we were conservators of the estate of someone who didn't want
photographers coming onto the property to take photos - for ANY reason, and
you did, and we found out about it, your as would be in court. It would be a
case od, "It's our goddam property, we get to control it and what happens on
it within the law and you (the photographer) are not imbued with special
privileges over others and their property simply because you have a camera
or you make your living with a camera. The issue of copyright would never
come up in court - our private property rights would. Now, if you get your
shots from off my property, I can say nothing.
If you want to take and use shots of private places from the private places,
get permission (preferably written releases). If they say no, sorry, your
"need" for the shot(s) does not trump their right to the amount and type of
privacy they desire - on their own property.
Regards,
Bob...
--------------------------------------------------------
"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
-Jean Luc Godard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebekah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
