Perfect logic to me.
Tom C. >From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Photographer Being Sued >Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:03:24 -0700 > >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. -- 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.
