B
It's meaningless to a company that wants to control it's exposure and
public relations. He could be Richard Avedon or Annie Liebowitz, if he
doesn't work for a news organization (newspaper, magazine, industry trade
paper) that doesn't give them the kind of exposure they want, they'll be
nervous about letting him in the door. It's not just Kyle, Bruce, it's any
freelancer.
On 7/25/07, B Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know, of course, that Kyle's work is featured across the world. ;-)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Street
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Talking
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Dee_Myers
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
On 7/25/07, Mario Giorno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B
>
> This may seem elitist, at first, but the Inky's photog has a
> greater press credential than Kyle. Kyle doesn't shoot for a major national
> news organization, he shoots for himself. With the Inky's photos and
> article, the Orchestra knows that it's getting regional and national media
> exposure that it can, to some degree, control. With an independent photog
> like Kyle, who isn't attached as an employee to a news organization, the
> Orchestra doesn't know where it's likeness is being displayed, either online
> or in print.
>
> Between you and me and the list, I believe that Kyle still has the
> legal right to shoot photography of the Orchestra when it's in a public
> place like Clark Park. No one owns Clark Park. Now in a concert hall or
> arena, it would be a different story. If the Orchestra were playing in a
> venue that was commercial, but not public, you would need to check with
> whomever owns and controls to venue. As far as I'm concerned, however, the
> Orchestra lost its protection from unrestricted photgraphy or media
> recording when they appeared in an open public park.
>
> My Two Cents,
>
> Mario
>
> On 7/25/07, B Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > Though its not in the online edition<http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local>,
> > did anyone else see the photos of the conductor and the orchestra in
> > Monday's Local News section of the Inky?
> >
> > If they can publish the pics, why can't Kyle?
> >
> >
> > On 7/23/07, David Toccafondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Kathleen, in America we have the right to take photos of pretty much
> > > whatever we want without permission--people, pets, small children,
> > > orchestras, bridges, shopping malls, houses, art museums, public property,
> > > private property, government buildings, etc. *Very* few photographs are
> > > actually "illegal" to take. Similarly, we have a right to publish most
> > > photos without permission. There are exceptions to these rules: We can't
> > > invade somebody's right to privacy (which is seldom an issue in a public
> > > park). We can't portray them in a false light. And we can't use
> > > photographs of people to sell a product, etc. without their permission and
> > > usually some form of payment. (although we can sell the photos themselves
> > > without permission in most cases).
> > >
> > > The Philadelphia Orchestra cannot simply declare that they
> > > constitute an exception to the law and that we aren't allowed to take or
> > > display photos of them on websites. Not only would I be allowed to
publish
> > > a photo taken of them in a public park, I would most likely be within my
> > > legal rights to publish a photo i'd taken of them inside the Academy of
> > > Music. What frightens me is the number of people that believe otherwise,
in
> > > this case simply because some woman in a yellow t-shirt told them so.
> > >
> > >
> > > dave
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/23/07, Turner,Kathleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that if you look at the program from any performance of
> > > > the Philadelphia Orchestra, there will be a statement to the effect
that all
> > > > recording and photography rights are reserved -- just as they are when
you
> > > > go to nearly any concert, I don't care whether it's the Rolling Stones
or
> > > > Raffi. The fact that the concert was free and in a public place doesn't
> > > > override their right to control publication of photographs of the
orchestra
> > > > - and posting of photographs on a web site does constitute publication.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, I'm quite surprised that people find this so surprising!
> > > >
> > > > Kathleen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
