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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
