I may be stupid, but when I click on the link it seems to want me to
subscribe to a service to be able to read the crud.
Tom C.
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]>
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Photographer Being Sued
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:22:03 -0400
Here you go, read the docket!
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-2:2007cv03264/case_id-153215/
Bob Blakely wrote:
> 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"
>>
>
>
>
--
Remember, itÂ’s pillage then burn.
--
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.
